pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.08247 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 🪐 quant-ph

Optimized Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill Error Correction via Tunable Preprocessing

Xiang-Jiang Chen , Hao-Miao Jiang , Liu-Jun Wang , Qing Chen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords GKP codeSteane error correctionpreprocessingsqueezing parametersbosonic quantum error correctionnoise propagationsmall-noise regime
0
0 comments X

The pith

A tunable preprocessing stage lets the Steane scheme for GKP codes reach minimum output noise product when the squeezing parameters satisfy 2a = b.

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

The paper introduces a preprocessing-based Steane-type scheme that adds a tunable squeezing stage with parameters a and b before the standard error-correction step. This stage reshapes how noise from the data qubit and ancilla qubits propagates through the protocol, creating a continuous family of correction methods. Existing approaches appear as special cases: the ME-Steane scheme when a equals 1 and b equals 1, and the teleportation-based scheme when a equals 1 over square root of 2 and b equals square root of 2. In the small-noise regime where the data qubit is noisier than the ancilla qubits, the scheme reaches the lowest product of position- and momentum-quadrature output variances precisely when 2a equals b and beats the ME-Steane scheme across a range of squeezing values.

Core claim

The P-Steane scheme with tunable preprocessing parameters a and b achieves the minimum product of output noise variances in the position and momentum quadratures when 2a = b, under small-noise conditions with a noisier data qubit, and consistently outperforms the ME-Steane scheme within a specific squeezing-parameter range under this condition.

What carries the argument

The tunable preprocessing stage with squeezing parameters a and b that actively reshapes noise propagation before the Steane-type correction step.

Load-bearing premise

The preprocessing stage can be implemented ideally without adding extra noise or loss, and the small-noise approximation keeps higher-order error terms negligible.

What would settle it

Measuring that the product of output position and momentum noise variances does not reach its lowest value at 2a = b, or that the ME-Steane scheme performs better than P-Steane in the stated squeezing range under realistic small but finite noise, would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.08247 by Hao-Miao Jiang, Liu-Jun Wang, Qing Chen, Xiang-Jiang Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Steane-type error-correction circuit. The data qubit is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The circuit of the P-Steane scheme, comprising a preprocessing stage followed by a Steane-type correction stage. Labels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Comparison of the performance of four GKP error-correction schemes under two noise ratios: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The teleportation-based error-correction circuit [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP) code is a promising bosonic candidate for realizing fault-tolerant quantum computation. Among existing error-correction protocols for GKP code, the Steane-type scheme is a canonical and widely adopted paradigm, yet its intrinsic noise propagation pattern limits further performance improvement. In this work, we propose a preprocessing-based Steane-type (P-Steane) scheme, which introduces a tunable preprocessing stage with squeezing parameters $a$ and $b$ to actively reshape noise propagation, thereby constituting a parameter framework. This framework spans a spectrum of protocols beyond existing methods, reproducing the performance of both the ME-Steane scheme ($a=1$, $b=1$) and the teleportation-based scheme ($a=1/\sqrt{2}$, $b=\sqrt{2}$) as special cases. Crucially, in the small-noise regime and when the data qubit is noisier than the ancilla qubits, P-Steane scheme achieves the minimum product of position- and momentum-quadrature output noise variances when $2a = b$, and consistently outperforms the ME-Steane scheme within a specific squeezing-parameter range under this condition.

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.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a preprocessing-based Steane-type (P-Steane) scheme for GKP error correction that inserts a tunable squeezing stage with parameters a and b before the standard Steane correction. This framework reproduces the ME-Steane scheme (a=1, b=1) and the teleportation-based scheme (a=1/√2, b=√2) as special cases. The central claim is that, in the small-noise regime with the data qubit noisier than the ancilla qubits, the product of the output position- and momentum-quadrature variances is minimized precisely when 2a=b, and that the scheme outperforms ME-Steane within a specific range of squeezing parameters under this condition.

Significance. If the optimality condition survives beyond the linear approximation, the result supplies a simple, resource-free tuning rule that could improve logical error rates for GKP codes in bosonic architectures. The parameter framework itself is a useful generalization that unifies several existing protocols.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / small-noise analysis] Abstract and the small-noise derivation: the claim that the product of output variances is minimized at 2a=b is obtained by differentiating a first-order Gaussian noise-propagation expression; no explicit remainder term, bound on the neglected higher-order contributions from the GKP modulo-lattice operation, or numerical validation of the location of the minimum as a function of input noise strength is supplied.
  2. [Noise propagation and optimality condition] Noise model: the derivation treats all channels as linear Gaussian and truncates at first order in the input variances, yet the effective logical noise after GKP correction receives non-linear wrapping contributions; without an error analysis or simulation check, it is unclear whether the 2a=b stationary point remains the global minimum once these terms are restored.
  3. [Performance comparison] Performance comparison: the statement that P-Steane consistently outperforms ME-Steane within a specific squeezing-parameter range under the 2a=b condition is asserted without a full noise model, error bars, or quantification of the range; the small-noise assumption is load-bearing for both the minimum and the outperformance claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Assumptions] Clarify whether the tunable preprocessing stage is assumed ideal (zero added noise or loss) and state the precise regime of validity for the small-noise approximation.
  2. [Discussion] Add a brief discussion of how the 2a=b condition would be affected if the data-ancilla noise asymmetry is reversed or if finite squeezing is used in the ancillae.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We address each major comment point by point below, clarifying the scope of the small-noise analysis while indicating where the manuscript will be revised to better acknowledge its limitations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / small-noise analysis] Abstract and the small-noise derivation: the claim that the product of output variances is minimized at 2a=b is obtained by differentiating a first-order Gaussian noise-propagation expression; no explicit remainder term, bound on the neglected higher-order contributions from the GKP modulo-lattice operation, or numerical validation of the location of the minimum as a function of input noise strength is supplied.

    Authors: We agree that the optimality condition 2a=b is obtained by differentiating the first-order expression for the product of output variances under linear Gaussian noise propagation. The manuscript is focused on this perturbative regime to obtain an analytically tractable tuning rule. In the revised version we will add an explicit statement in the abstract and main text noting that higher-order contributions from the GKP modulo-lattice operation are neglected and that no remainder bound or numerical scan of the minimum location versus input noise strength is provided. We will also insert a short remark that such validation lies outside the present analytical scope. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Noise propagation and optimality condition] Noise model: the derivation treats all channels as linear Gaussian and truncates at first order in the input variances, yet the effective logical noise after GKP correction receives non-linear wrapping contributions; without an error analysis or simulation check, it is unclear whether the 2a=b stationary point remains the global minimum once these terms are restored.

    Authors: The derivation indeed employs a linear Gaussian model truncated at first order. Non-linear wrapping terms appear only at higher order in the small-noise expansion we adopt. We will revise the relevant section to state clearly that the stationary point at 2a=b is derived and optimal strictly within the linear approximation, and that its status as a global minimum in the presence of non-linear contributions cannot be asserted without further analysis. This limitation will be noted as inherent to the perturbative treatment. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Performance comparison] Performance comparison: the statement that P-Steane consistently outperforms ME-Steane within a specific squeezing-parameter range under the 2a=b condition is asserted without a full noise model, error bars, or quantification of the range; the small-noise assumption is load-bearing for both the minimum and the outperformance claim.

    Authors: The outperformance statement is obtained by direct comparison of the analytically derived product of variances under the same small-noise model, with the range expressed in terms of the squeezing parameters a and b. We will revise the text to quantify the range more explicitly (e.g., by stating the interval of a for which the product is strictly smaller than the ME-Steane value) and to emphasize that the comparison holds inside the linear small-noise regime. A complete noise model including error bars would require Monte-Carlo simulation of the full GKP correction, which is not performed in the current work; we will add a corresponding caveat. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Rigorous remainder bounds on higher-order terms and numerical simulations validating the location of the minimum and the outperformance claim outside the linear small-noise approximation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: optimal condition 2a=b obtained via independent differentiation of explicit noise-variance expression

full rationale

The paper defines a two-parameter preprocessing stage with squeezing parameters a and b, writes an explicit (linearized) expression for the product of output quadrature variances in terms of a, b and the input noise strengths, then locates the minimum by taking partial derivatives and setting them to zero. This yields the relation 2a = b as a derived result rather than an input. The special cases a=1, b=1 and a=1/√2, b=√2 are recovered by substitution, not presupposed. No self-citation is invoked to justify the optimality condition, and the derivation does not rename a known empirical pattern or smuggle an ansatz. The small-noise truncation is an explicit modeling choice whose accuracy is a separate question of approximation error, not a circular reduction of the claimed minimum to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two tunable squeezing parameters a and b introduced by the authors plus standard domain assumptions about quadrature noise propagation in bosonic systems.

free parameters (2)
  • a
    Squeezing parameter of the preprocessing stage; optimized to satisfy 2a = b
  • b
    Squeezing parameter of the preprocessing stage; set relative to a for the claimed optimum
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Quadrature noise variances propagate according to standard linear optical transformations in quantum optics
    Invoked to obtain the output noise product from input noises and the preprocessing parameters

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5512 in / 1266 out tokens · 67734 ms · 2026-05-10T16:44:53.507399+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    as special cases. Crucially, in the small-noise regime and when the data qubit is noisier than the ancilla qubits, P-Steane scheme achieves the minimum product of position- and momentum-quadrature output noise variances when 2a=b , and consistently outperforms the ME-Steane scheme within a specific squeezing-parameter range under this condition. I. INTROD...

    work page

  2. [2]

    renders P-Steane performance-equivalent to the teleportation-based scheme and yields symmetric output noise, while other choices produce asymmetric noise, enabling tailored optimization for different applications. Under this noise scenario and with 2a=b , we further identify a squeezing-parameter range in which P-Steane consistently exhibits superior perf...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Comparing Eq

    yields symmetric variances in theqandpquadratures: σ2 q2 →σ 2 qS =σ 2 A, σ 2 p2 →σ 2 pS =σ 2 A.(44) Interestingly, in this symmetric case, the P-Steane scheme achieves performance identical to that of the teleportation- based scheme, as proven in Appendix B. Comparing Eq. (44) with Eq. (26), one finds σ2 qS < σ 2 M,q , σ 2 pS > σ 2 M,p.(45) Thus, a trade-...

    work page

  4. [4]

    For the case of k= 3 (see Fig

    exhibits a larger measurement noise variance in the q quadrature (Σ2 q2 >Σ 2 M,q), resulting in a higher probability of logical errors, whereas the situation is reversed in thepquadrature. For the case of k= 3 (see Fig. 3b), the P-Steane scheme with b= √ 2 performs optimally in the q quadrature, while the P-Steane scheme with b= p 5/2 yields the best perf...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Here we discuss two scenarios in which such asymmetric noise profiles are advantageous

    produces symmetric output 8 noise, whereas other parameter choices satisfying 2a=b yield asymmetric noise. Here we discuss two scenarios in which such asymmetric noise profiles are advantageous. The first example is the concatenation of GKP codes with qubit codes tailored for asymmetric noise, such as the XZZX surface code [43], which exhibits a high thre...

    work page

  6. [6]

    and Teleportation-Based Scheme Whenm= 1andb= √ 2, the output shifts of the P-Steane scheme (see Eq. (35)) simplify to u′ P3 =u 1 + √ 2u3 −R √π u1 + u2 +u 3√ 2 , v ′ P3 =v 1 − √ 2v2 −R √π v1 − v2 +v 3√ 2 .(B1) For the teleportation-based scheme [31, 32], whose circuit is shown in Fig. 4, the encoded state is teleported from mode 1 to mode 3. A Pauli correc...

    work page

  7. [7]

    and the teleportation-based scheme achieve identical performance

    work page

  8. [8]

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

    work page 1995

  9. [9]

    Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction, Ph.D

    D. Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology (1997)

    work page 1997

  10. [10]

    B. M. Terhal, Quantum error correction for quantum memories, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 307 (2015)

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc´ıa-Patr´on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Gaussian quantum informa- tion, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 621 (2012)

    work page 2012

  12. [12]

    S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Quantum information with continuous variables, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 513 (2005)

    work page 2005

  13. [13]

    N. Ofek, A. Petrenko, R. Heeres, P. Reinhold, Z. Leghtas, B. Vlastakis, Y. Liu, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, L. Jiang, and M. H. Devoret, Extending the lifetime of a quantum bit with error correction in superconducting circuits, Nature536, 441 (2016)

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    Leghtas, G

    Z. Leghtas, G. Kirchmair, B. Vlastakis, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. H. Devoret, and M. Mirrahimi, Hardware-efficient autonomous quantum memory protection, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 120501 (2013)

    work page 2013

  15. [15]

    L. Hu, Y. Ma, W. Cai, X. Mu, Y. Xu, W. Wang, Y. Wu, H. Wang, Y. P. Song, C.-L. Zou, S. M. Girvin, and L. Sun, Quantum error correction and universal gate set operation on a binomial bosonic logical qubit, Nat. Phys.15, 503 (2019)

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    M. H. Michael, M. Silveri, R. T. Brierley, V. V. Albert, J. Salmile- hto, L. Jiang, and S. M. Girvin, New class of quantum error- correcting codes for a bosonic mode, Phys. Rev. X6, 031006 (2016)

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    S. Endo, Y. Suzuki, K. Tsubouchi, R. Asaoka, K. Yamamoto, Y. Matsuzaki, and Y. Tokunaga, Quantum error mitigation for rotation-symmetric bosonic codes with symmetry expansion, Phys. Rev. A111, 062402 (2025)

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    A. L. Grimsmo, J. Combes, and B. Q. Baragiola, Quantum computing with rotation-symmetric bosonic codes, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011058 (2020)

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Phys. Rev. A64, 012310 (2001)

    work page 2001

  20. [20]

    A. L. Grimsmo and S. Puri, Quantum error correction with the Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill code, PRX Quantum2, 020101 (2021)

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    V. V. Albert, K. Noh, K. Duivenvoorden, D. J. Young, R. T. Brierley, P. Reinhold, C. Vuillot, L. Li, C. Shen, S. M. Girvin, B. M. Terhal, and L. Jiang, Performance and structure of single- mode bosonic codes, Phys. Rev. A97, 032346 (2018)

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    Fl¨ uhmann, T

    C. Fl¨ uhmann, T. L. Nguyen, M. Marinelli, V. Negnevitsky, K. Mehta, and J. P. Home, Encoding a qubit in a trapped-ion mechanical oscillator, Nature566, 513 (2019)

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    de Neeve, T.-L

    B. de Neeve, T.-L. Nguyen, T. Behrle, and J. P. Home, Error correction of a logical grid state qubit by dissipative pumping, Nat. Phys.18, 296 (2022)

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    V. G. Matsos, C. H. Valahu, T. Navickas, A. D. Rao, M. J. Millican, X. C. Kolesnikow, M. J. Biercuk, and T. R. Tan, Robust and deterministic preparation of bosonic logical states in a trapped ion, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 050602 (2024)

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    C. H. Valahu, M. P. Stafford, Z. Huang, V. G. Matsos, M. J. Millican, T. Chalermpusitarak, N. C. Menicucci, J. Combes, B. Q. Baragiola, and T. R. Tan, Quantum-enhanced multiparameter sensing in a single mode, Sci. Adv.11, eadw9757 (2025)

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Campagne-Ibarcq, A

    P. Campagne-Ibarcq, A. Eickbusch, S. Touzard, E. Zalys-Geller, N. E. Frattini, V. V. Sivak, P. Reinhold, S. Puri, S. Shankar, R. J. Schoelkopf, L. Frunzio, M. Mirrahimi, and M. H. Devoret, Quantum error correction of a qubit encoded in grid states of an oscillator, Nature584, 368 (2020)

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Eickbusch, V

    A. Eickbusch, V. Sivak, A. Z. Ding, S. S. Elder, S. R. Jha, J. Venkatraman, B. Royer, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, Fast universal control of an oscillator with weak 11 dispersive coupling to a qubit, Nat. Phys.18, 1464 (2022)

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    V. V. Sivak, A. Eickbusch, B. Royer, S. Singh, I. Tsioutsios, S. Ganjam, A. Miano, B. L. Brock, A. Z. Ding, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, Real-time quantum error correction beyond break-even, Nature616, 50 (2023)

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Lachance-Quirion, M.-A

    D. Lachance-Quirion, M.-A. Lemonde, J. O. Simoneau, L. St- Jean, P. Lemieux, S. Turcotte, W. Wright, A. Lacroix, J. Fr´echette- Viens, R. Shillito, F. Hopfmueller, M. Tremblay, N. E. Frattini, J. Camirand Lemyre, and P. St-Jean, Autonomous quantum error correction of Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 150607 (2024)

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    B. L. Brock, S. Singh, A. Eickbusch, B. Royer, V. V. Sivak, A. Z. Ding, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, Quantum error correction of qudits beyond break-even, Nature641, 612 (2025)

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Konno, W

    S. Konno, W. Asavanant, F. Hanamura, H. Nagayoshi, K. Fukui, A. Sakaguchi, R. Ide, F. China, M. Yabuno, S. Miki, H. Terai, K. Takase, M. Endo, P. Marek, R. Filip, P. van Loock, and A. Fu- rusawa, Logical states for fault-tolerant quantum computation with propagating light, Science383, 289 (2024)

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    M. V. Larsen, J. E. Bourassa, S. Kocsis, H. S. Zhong, R. G. Corti ˜nas, Z. Vernon, S. Janz, C. Haffner, D. Poitras, T. Lichmanovitch, H. Yan, S. Sasikumar, T. Ochalski, J. J. He, and J. Lavoie, Integrated photonic source of Gottes- man–Kitaev–Preskill qubits, Nature642, 587 (2025)

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    M.-A. Roy, T. Pousset, and B. Royer, Decoding multimode Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill codes with noisy auxiliary states, arXiv:2510.12677 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    B. M. Terhal and D. Weigand, Encoding a qubit into a cavity mode in circuit qed using phase estimation, Phys. Rev. A93, 012315 (2016)

    work page 2016

  35. [35]

    Royer, S

    B. Royer, S. Singh, and S. M. Girvin, Stabilization of finite- energy Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill states, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 260509 (2020)

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    Glancy and E

    S. Glancy and E. Knill, Error analysis for encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Phys. Rev. A73, 012325 (2006)

    work page 2006

  37. [37]

    K. H. Wan, A. Neville, and S. Kolthammer, Memory-assisted decoder for approximate Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill codes, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043280 (2020)

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    B. W. Walshe, B. Q. Baragiola, R. N. Alexander, and N. C. Menicucci, Continuous-variable gate teleportation and bosonic- code error correction, Phys. Rev. A102, 062411 (2020)

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    K. Noh, C. Chamberland, and F. G. Brand ˜ao, Low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum error correction with the surface-GKP code, PRX Quantum3, 010315 (2022)

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    A. M. Steane, Active stabilization, quantum computation, and quantum state synthesis, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 2252 (1997)

    work page 1997

  41. [41]

    Knill, Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices, Nature434, 39 (2005)

    E. Knill, Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices, Nature434, 39 (2005)

    work page 2005

  42. [42]

    Fukui, High-threshold fault-tolerant quantum computation with the Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill qubit under noise in an optical setup, Phys

    K. Fukui, High-threshold fault-tolerant quantum computation with the Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill qubit under noise in an optical setup, Phys. Rev. A107, 052414 (2023)

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    Zhang, J

    J. Zhang, J. Zhao, Y.-C. Wu, and G.-P. Guo, Quantum error correction with the color-Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill code, Phys. Rev. A104, 062434 (2021)

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    H. Wang, Y. Xue, Y. Qu,et al., Multidimensional bose quantum error correction based on neural network decoder, npj Quantum Inf8, 134 (2022)

    work page 2022

  45. [45]

    Siegele and P

    C. Siegele and P. Campagne-Ibarcq, Robust suppression of noise propagation in Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill error correction, Phys. Rev. A108, 042427 (2023)

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    K. Noh, S. M. Girvin, and L. Jiang, Encoding an oscillator into many oscillators, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 080503 (2020)

    work page 2020

  47. [47]

    M. P. Stafford and N. C. Menicucci, Biased Gottesman-Kitaev- Preskill repetition code, Phys. Rev. A108, 052428 (2023)

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    Noh and C

    K. Noh and C. Chamberland, Fault-tolerant bosonic quantum error correction with the surface–Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill code, Phys. Rev. A101, 012316 (2020)

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    Zhang, Y.-C

    J. Zhang, Y.-C. Wu, and G.-P. Guo, Concatenation of the Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill code with the XZZX surface code, Phys. Rev. A107, 062408 (2023)

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    J. P. Bonilla Ataides, D. K. Tuckett, S. D. Bartlett, S. T. Flammia, and B. J. Brown, The XZZX surface code, Nat Commun12, 2172 (2021)

    work page 2021

  51. [51]

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Woot- ters, Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. A54, 3824 (1996)

    work page 1996

  52. [52]

    Hastrup, M

    J. Hastrup, M. V. Larsen, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, N. C. Menicucci, and U. L. Andersen, Unsuitability of cubic phase gates for non-clifford operations on Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill states, Phys. Rev. A103, 032409 (2021)

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    M. T. P. Nguyen and M. H. Shaw, Fault-tolerant non-clifford GKP gates using polynomial phase gates and on-demand noise biasing, arXiv:2511.20355 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025