Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 136 references

A duality between X- and Z-type parity checks forces every zero-rate em-symmetric CSS code to have the same optimal error-correction threshold, p≈0.110028.

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

2026-08-01 08:16 UTC pith:SD7RMIYK

load-bearing objection Solid self-duality theorem, but the headline universal threshold p≈0.11 rests on an uncontrolled replica approximation the authors themselves concede; worth a serious referee if framed as conjecture rather than proof. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21160 v1 pith:SD7RMIYK submitted 2026-07-23 quant-ph

Duality constrains optimal thresholds in quantum error correction

Lucas H. English , Haoyuan Luo , Yangming Wang , Basudha Srivastava , Stephen D. Bartlett , Dominic J. Williamson This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords zero-rate CSS codesem symmetryKramers-Wannier dualityquantum error correction thresholdstatistical mechanics mappingconcatenated codesrenormalization groupquantum LDPC codes
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 tries to prove that em-symmetric CSS codes — codes whose X- and Z-type parity-check matrices match once rows and columns are permuted — are self-dual under a generalized Kramers-Wannier duality when their encoding rate tends to zero. In the thermodynamic limit the logical-sector mixing that otherwise spoils self-duality becomes subextensive, so a unique optimal decoding threshold is pinned. The paper identifies that threshold with the zero-rate hashing bound H2(p)=1/2, i.e. a bit-flip probability p≈0.110028, and the clean, fully postselected critical point at p=1/(2+√2)≈0.2929. If this is right, threshold values stop being a productive axis for comparing topological, concatenated, and structured qLDPC families; the meaningful differences move to sub-threshold logical suppression and finite-size overhead.

Core claim

For any zero-rate family of CSS codes whose X and Z parity-check matrices are permutation-equivalent (em symmetry), the statistical mechanical model associated with optimal decoding is self-dual under a generalized Kramers-Wannier duality in the trivial logical sector. Self-duality plus uniqueness of the transition fixes the clean critical point at K_c=1/2 log(√2+1); applying the principal Boltzmann factor approximation in a replica limit constrains the disordered phase boundary and predicts the optimal code-capacity threshold at the Nishimori intersection, H2(p)=1/2, p≈0.110028. The same self-duality is preserved by concatenation of [[n,1,d]] seeds, and concatenated optimal decoding becomes

What carries the argument

The engine is the generalized Kramers-Wannier duality acting on an interaction matrix θ equal to the Z-type parity-check matrix. Wegner's closure and completeness conditions are satisfied by adjoining independent logical X representatives, so the logical sectors mix through a Hadamard transform; for zero-rate families this mixing defect is subextensive and thermodynamic self-duality is recovered. The quantitative threshold prediction comes from the principal Boltzmann factor condition x0(K,p)=x0*(K,p) in the replica limit N_rep→0, giving the implicit boundary F(p,K)=0, which on the Nishimori line reduces to H2(p)=1/2.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative threshold p≈0.110028 rests on the principal Boltzmann factor approximation taken in an N_rep→0 replica limit — an uncontrolled heuristic the paper flags — together with the stipulation that each family has a single unique transition; if either premise fails, the universal pinning need not follow.

What would settle it

Compute the optimal code-capacity threshold to high precision for one zero-rate em-symmetric CSS family that is not geometrically local, such as a growing-range bivariate-bicycle or A2BGA code, and find it differing from H2(p)=1/2 at leading order; or find a clean-model critical point differing from p=1/(2+√2)≈0.2929. Either observation would refute the pinning claim.

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

If this is right

  • Any zero-rate em-symmetric CSS family with a unique threshold — topological, concatenated, or structured qLDPC — has its optimal code-capacity threshold pinned near p≈0.110028 at leading order in the replica limit.
  • In the fully postselected limit the clean self-duality is exact, fixing the critical point at K_c=1/2 log(√2+1), i.e. a bit-flip rate p=1/(2+√2)≈0.2929.
  • Concatenating an em-symmetric [[n,1,d]] seed preserves finite-size self-duality; optimal decoding of concatenated codes runs in O(n) time via hierarchical message passing, and becomes an exact real-space RG flow when postselected, with the threshold as an unstable fixed point.
  • The sub-threshold distinction between topological and concatenated families is entropic: topological minimum-weight logical operators are polynomially numerous, concatenated ones exponentially numerous in distance, producing a finite-size crossover and band structure in physical overhead rather than a threshold advantage.
  • For mixed bit-flip and erasure noise, the same replica construction predicts a three-dimensional phase boundary with an erasure threshold q=1/2 at zero temperature, consistent with the no-cloning bound.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the paper leaves implicit: threshold comparisons among leading candidate qLDPC families are not the informative axis; architecture choice should be driven by sub-threshold logical-error suppression, overhead, and decoder behavior, since optimal thresholds are approximately equal.
  • The universality can be read as a null hypothesis: a measured optimal threshold that deviates from ~0.11 for a zero-rate em-symmetric family would indicate either a non-unique transition or failure of the replica approximation, turning threshold measurements into diagnostics of the approximation's regime.
  • Because the principal Boltzmann factor approximation is uncontrolled, a concrete testable extension would be high-precision threshold computations for growing-range zero-rate em-symmetric families; the predicted leading-order convergence to 0.11 could be checked against near-exact decoders.
  • The duality may organize thresholds beyond code capacity: the paper notes the 3D toric code under phenomenological noise already has a self-duality-fixed threshold, hinting that the same framework could unify noisy-syndrome and circuit-level threshold predictions.

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 studies CSS quantum error-correcting codes whose X- and Z-type parity-check matrices are equivalent up to permutations ('em-symmetric' codes). It argues that the statistical-mechanical model obtained from optimal code-capacity decoding of such codes is self-dual under a generalized Kramers-Wannier duality, up to a finite-size mixing of logical sectors. For zero-rate families the sector-mixing term is subextensive, so the clean model is thermodynamically self-dual; assuming a unique transition, the clean/postselected critical point is pinned at p_c = 1/(2 + sqrt(2)) ≈ 0.2929. Using the principal Boltzmann factor approximation in a replica limit, the paper further predicts that the optimal code-capacity threshold for all zero-rate em-symmetric CSS families is given by H_2(p) = 1/2, i.e. p_c ≈ 0.110028. It also shows that self-duality is preserved under concatenation, reformulates optimal decoding of concatenated codes as a hierarchical message-passing/RG recursion, and provides numerical evidence from toric, concatenated Steane, surface-17, bivariate bicycle, and Haah cubic codes.

Significance. The exact part of the paper — the finite-size Kramers-Wannier self-duality for em-symmetric CSS codes and the resulting postselected critical point — is potentially valuable and gives a clean unifying explanation for the observed coincidence of phase boundaries across several code families. The hierarchical decoding/RG connection for concatenated codes is also a useful conceptual contribution with numerical support. However, the headline universal optimal threshold p ≈ 0.110028 is not a proven consequence of the duality; it follows from an uncontrolled replica/principal-Boltzmann-factor approximation, which the authors themselves concede in Section VI. The significance is therefore conditional: the exact clean-model result and the approximate replica prediction should be clearly separated in the presentation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section III.B, Result 1, Eqs. (17)–(22)] The abstract states that duality constrains all zero-rate em-symmetric CSS codes to have the same optimal code-capacity threshold. But the value p ≈ 0.110028 is obtained by imposing the principal Boltzmann factor condition (Eqs. 17–20) and taking N_rep → 0, an approximation the paper itself describes in Section VI as 'not controlled in general'. The exact Theorem 1 and Corollary 1.1 pin only the clean/postselected critical point, and that only under a unique-threshold assumption. This is a load-bearing overstatement: please reformulate Result 1 as a leading-order replica prediction or conjecture, and carry the 'approximate' and 'unique-threshold' qualifiers into the abstract and the result statement.
  2. [Section III.B, Theorem 1 proof, Step 2] The key logical-sector mixing identity is sketched rather than proved. The passage from Z_{0,m(λ)}(θ*;K_p) = Σ_μ (-1)^{μ·λ} Z_{e(μ),0}(θ;K_p) to the Hadamard relation for the symmetric partition functions requires a careful derivation of the normalization A(K_p), the basis choice for the dual logical sectors, and the factor 2^{-k/2}. Since Theorem 1 is the foundation for Corollary 1.1 and for the paper's entire framework, this step needs to be expanded to a complete, checkable derivation.
  3. [Section III.B, Corollary 1.1 and Eq. (5)] The proof of Corollary 1.1 assumes that below threshold the identity sector asymptotically dominates and that above threshold all logical sectors become asymptotically equiprobable. Equation (5) as written only states that the free-energy cost ΔF diverges or vanishes; it does not by itself justify the equiprobability statement without an additional argument. If the 'unique threshold' hypothesis is meant to include this sector-equipartition behavior, that should be stated explicitly. This is load-bearing because the iff R=0 self-duality conclusion depends on it.
  4. [Section III.B and Section VI] The paper notes in Section III.B that the principal Boltzmann factor approximation predicts p_c(T=0) = 0, 'empirically found to be far from the true zero-temperature critical point'. This acknowledged failure shows that the approximation can be quantitatively wrong. In light of this, the repeated wording that the phase boundary above the Nishimori line is 'constrained' by Eq. (20) for all zero-rate em-symmetric CSS families is too strong. Please state clearly that Eq. (20) is a leading-order prediction whose domain of validity is not established, and add a brief discussion of what would be needed to test or certify its reliability for a given code family.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The universal-threshold sentence should include 'at leading order in the replica limit' and 'assuming a unique threshold', to match the actual content of Result 1 and Corollary 1.1.
  2. [Section III.B] The discussion of the hyperbolic surface-code counterexample is useful but terse; it would help to spell out explicitly why constant rate makes the sector-mixing term extensive and hence why the pinning argument fails.
  3. [Section V.B, Figs. 8–9] The data collapses are described as imperfect and the fitted p_c and ν are treated as free parameters. These simulations are consistency checks for the leading-order prediction, not decisive tests; please state this more explicitly so the reader does not over-interpret the numerical agreement.
  4. [Appendix C] For the L=2 Haah cubic code, Table II leaves several entries blank and the text says the point was evaluated by exact enumeration. Please clarify whether all 2^k sectors were enumerated and, if so, note the exactness of that point in the figure caption.
  5. [Section II.C, Eq. (20)] The curve F(p,K)=0 is introduced as a 'phase boundary' prediction; it may be helpful to remind the reader immediately after Eq. (20) that this curve is only the principal-Boltzmann-factor approximation and is expected to be valid only in the replica-limit sense stated above.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the self-duality result is derived from code symmetry, and the p≈0.11 threshold follows analytically from the literature's principal Boltzmann factor condition; the uncontrolled replica approximation is a correctness caveat, not a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained and non-circular. Theorem 1 derives finite-size Kramers-Wannier self-duality for em-symmetric CSS codes from the parity-check permutation equivalence H_X = P_1 H_Z P_2, CSS commutativity, and the CSS dimension formula; none of these inputs contains the threshold conclusion. Corollary 1.1 derives thermodynamic self-duality for zero-rate families from Theorem 1 plus the unique-threshold definition, and the clean critical point p = 1/(2+√2) follows from the self-dual coupling. The advertised code-capacity threshold p ≈ 0.110028 is obtained by combining the literature's principal Boltzmann factor condition (Eqs. 15–20) with the Nishimori relation, giving H_2(p) = 1/2 analytically; no constant is fitted to data, and the condition is not defined in terms of the threshold. The paper explicitly concedes in Section VI that the principal Boltzmann factor/replica approximation 'is not controlled in general,' which is an acknowledged limitation of the prediction rather than a circular argument. Self-citations (Refs. [25, 87]) are used only for background postselected-threshold results and toric-code mixing conventions, and are not load-bearing for the central derivation. Thus no circular step can be exhibited with the paper's own equations or self-citations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central derivation introduces no fitted constants. The quantitative claim depends on the uncontrolled replica/principal-Boltzmann-factor assumption (Eqs. 17–20), on the unique-threshold premise, and on the standard Wegner duality framework. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • p_c, ν (finite-size scaling fits) = p_c ≈ 0.11 (concatenated, Fig. 10); p_c ≈ 0.0838(6) (BB k=12, Fig. 8); p_c ≈ 0.0797(4) (Haah cubic, Fig. 9); ν varied
    Used only for data-collapse validation (Eq. A5); the central derivation has no fitted parameters.
  • BP+OSD min-sum scaling factor = 0.625
    Hand-set decoder heuristic in §V.B for the non-postselected simulations; does not affect the optimal-threshold derivation.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The replica trick with N_rep→0 and the l=0 principal Boltzmann factor condition yields the disordered phase boundary (Eq. 20).
    Standard but uncontrolled; the paper admits in the Discussion it is 'not controlled in general'. Enters Section II.C.
  • domain assumption Each zero-rate em-symmetric CSS family possesses a unique error-correction threshold in the sense of Eq. (5).
    Required for Corollary 1.1 and for self-duality to pin a unique critical point; not proven in the paper.
  • standard math Wegner's generalized KW duality applies with the enlarged dual interaction matrix θ* = [H_X; L_X] in Theorem 1.
    Proven in Theorem 1 via closure and completeness; relies on standard linear algebra over F_2.
  • domain assumption For A2BGA/BB codes, the compactified parent-code picture of Refs. [109-111] and the code parameter tradeoff Eq. (70) hold.
    Used in Section V to argue fixed-weight BB families have zero rate; imported from prior work.
  • domain assumption Above threshold all logical sectors become asymptotically equiprobable (threshold definition Eq. 5).
    Part of the paper's definition of threshold; needed for Corollary 1.1's disordered-phase calculation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 35506 in / 13258 out tokens · 125436 ms · 2026-08-01T08:16:35.734235+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Error correction thresholds are often treated as the primary figure of merit for comparing quantum error-correcting code families. We show that the optimal error correction threshold for many commonly considered codes is constrained to a single universal value at leading order in a replica limit. Through a statistical mechanical mapping, we demonstrate that duality constrains all zero-rate em-symmetric CSS codes to have the same optimal code capacity threshold. Here, em symmetry means that the X- and Z-type parity-check matrices are equivalent up to row and column permutations. Under this statistical mechanical mapping, em-symmetric CSS codes are self-dual under a generalized Kramers-Wannier duality up to a mixing of logical sectors. For zero-rate code families, this mixing contributes only subextensive corrections, so the thermodynamic bulk free energy is self-dual in the trivial logical sector. This self-duality fixes the clean critical point and constrains the disordered phase boundary. We also show that self-duality is preserved under code concatenation, and that optimal decoding of concatenated codes can be reformulated as a renormalization group flow on a hierarchical lattice. Our results provide a common framework for analyzing topological, concatenated, and more general quantum low-density parity-check code families, including both their optimal code capacity thresholds and their sub-threshold logical error suppression.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21160 by Basudha Srivastava, Dominic J. Williamson, Haoyuan Luo, Lucas H. English, Stephen D. Bartlett, Yangming Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Phase diagram for concatenated and topological QEC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The predicted phase diagram incorporating bit-flips [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Correctability phase diagram obtained by the inter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Estimated crossover length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Per-logical proxy failure rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Data collapse of the logical failure rate of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Data collapse of Haah’s cubic code with bit-flip noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Logical failure rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Logical failure rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Renormalization group flow of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_12.png] view at source ↗

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

136 extracted references · 16 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    mean- field

    and taking the replica limitNrep →0, and by retaining the leading term inN rep, we obtain the implicit curve for the entire phase boundary (1−2p)(1−q)K=(1−q) log(2 cosh(K))− 1 2 log(2) +q 1 2 log(2).(38) If we setq= 0, we recover the phase boundary pre- dicted in Eq. (20). If we setp= 0, then in taking the limit K→ ∞, i.e., at zero temperature, we recover...

  2. [2]

    Shor, Fault-tolerant quantum computation, inPro- ceedings of 37th Conference on Foundations of Com- puter Science(1996) pp

    P. Shor, Fault-tolerant quantum computation, inPro- ceedings of 37th Conference on Foundations of Com- puter Science(1996) pp. 56–65

    1996

  3. [3]

    Dennis, A

    E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Topo- logical quantum memory, J. Math. Phys.43, 4452–4505 (2002)

    2002

  4. [4]

    Aharonov and M

    D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error, inProceedings of the twenty-ninth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing - STOC ’97, STOC ’97 (ACM Press, 1997) p. 176–188

    1997

  5. [5]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, Resilient quan- tum computation: error models and thresholds, Proc. R. Soc. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.454, 365–384 (1998)

    1998

  6. [6]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Vargo, Simulation of rare events in quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. A88, 062308 (2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    S. C. Smith, B. J. Brown, and S. D. Bartlett, Mitigating errors in logical qubits, Commun. Phys.7, 386 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    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)

    2025

  9. [9]

    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

  10. [10]

    H. G. Katzgraber, H. Bomb ´ ın, and M. A. Martin- Delgado, Error threshold for color codes and random three-body Ising models, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 090501 (2009)

    2009

  11. [11]

    T. M. Stace, S. D. Barrett, and A. C. Doherty, Thresh- olds for topological codes in the presence of loss, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 200501 (2009)

    2009

  12. [12]

    C. T. Chubb and S. T. Flammia, Statistical mechanical models for quantum codes with correlated noise, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar´ e Comb. Phys. Interact.8, 269–321 (2021)

    2021

  13. [13]

    H. G. Katzgraber and R. S. Andrist, Stability of topologically-protected quantum computing proposals as seen through spin glasses, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.473, 012019 (2013)

    2013

  14. [14]

    Bomb ´ ın, R

    H. Bomb ´ ın, R. S. Andrist, M. Ohzeki, H. G. Katzgraber, and M. A. Martin-Delgado, Strong resilience of topo- logical codes to depolarization, Phys. Rev. X2, 021004 (2012)

    2012

  15. [15]

    C. Wang, J. Harrington, and J. Preskill, Confinement- Higgs transition in a disordered gauge theory and the accuracy threshold for quantum memory, Ann. Phys. 303, 31–58 (2003)

    2003

  16. [16]

    Merz and J

    F. Merz and J. T. Chalker, Two-dimensional random- bond Ising model, free fermions, and the network model, Phys. Rev. B65, 054425 (2002)

    2002

  17. [17]

    Tomita and K

    Y. Tomita and K. M. Svore, Low-distance surface codes under realistic quantum noise, Phys. Rev. A90, 062320 (2014)

    2014

  18. [18]

    Nishimori, Internal energy, specific heat and corre- lation function of the bond-random Ising model, Prog

    H. Nishimori, Internal energy, specific heat and corre- lation function of the bond-random Ising model, Prog. Theor. Phys.66, 1169 (1981)

    1981

  19. [19]

    A. R. Calderbank and P. W. Shor, Good quantum error- correcting codes exist, Phys. Rev. A54, 1098 (1996)

    1996

  20. [20]

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

    1996

  21. [21]

    Steane, Multiple-particle interference and quantum error correction, Proc

    A. Steane, Multiple-particle interference and quantum error correction, Proc. R. Soc. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 452, 2551 (1996)

    1996

  22. [22]

    K. Su, Z. Yang, and C.-M. Jian, Tapestry of dualities in decohered quantum error correction codes, Phys. Rev. B110, 085158 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    F. J. Wegner, Duality in generalized Ising models and phase transitions without local order parameters, J. Math. Phys.12, 2259 (1971)

    1971

  24. [24]

    Lin and L

    H.-K. Lin and L. P. Pryadko, Quantum two-block group algebra codes, Phys. Rev. A109, 022407 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    A. A. Kovalev, S. Prabhakar, I. Dumer, and L. P. Pryadko, Numerical and analytical bounds on threshold error rates for hypergraph-product codes, Phys. Rev. A 97, 062320 (2018)

    2018

  26. [26]

    L. H. English, D. J. Williamson, and S. D. Bartlett, Thresholds for postselected quantum error correction from statistical mechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 120603 (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    Onsager, Crystal statistics

    L. Onsager, Crystal statistics. I. A two-dimensional model with an order-disorder transition, Phys. Rev.65, 117 (1944)

    1944

  28. [28]

    H. A. Kramers and G. H. Wannier, Statistics of the 21 two-dimensional ferromagnet. Part I, Phys. Rev.60, 252 (1941)

    1941

  29. [29]

    Ohzeki,Duality for Precise Locations of Critical Points in Random Spin Systems, Ph.D

    M. Ohzeki,Duality for Precise Locations of Critical Points in Random Spin Systems, Ph.D. thesis, Tokyo Institute of Technology (2008)

    2008

  30. [30]

    Ohzeki, H

    M. Ohzeki, H. Nishimori, and A. N. Berker, Multicriti- cal points for spin-glass models on hierarchical lattices, Phys. Rev. E77, 061116 (2008)

    2008

  31. [31]

    Ohzeki, Locations of multicritical points for spin glasses on regular lattices, Phys

    M. Ohzeki, Locations of multicritical points for spin glasses on regular lattices, Phys. Rev. E79, 021129 (2009)

    2009

  32. [32]

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

    1995

  33. [33]

    A. M. Steane, Simple quantum error-correcting codes, Phys. Rev. A54, 4741 (1996)

    1996

  34. [34]

    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

  35. [35]

    Knill and R

    E. Knill and R. Laflamme,Concatenated quantum codes (1996)

    1996

  36. [36]

    Zalka, Threshold estimate for fault tolerant quantum computation (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9612028 [quant- ph]

    C. Zalka, Threshold estimate for fault tolerant quantum computation (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9612028 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  37. [37]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    2012

  38. [38]

    Preskill, Lecture notes for Physics 229: Quantum information and computation,https://www.preskill

    J. Preskill, Lecture notes for Physics 229: Quantum information and computation,https://www.preskill. caltech.edu/ph229/notes/chap7.pdf(1998), Califor- nia Institute of Technology

    1998

  39. [39]

    Gottesman, Surviving as a quantum computer in a classical world, Textbook manuscript preprint (2024)

    D. Gottesman, Surviving as a quantum computer in a classical world, Textbook manuscript preprint (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Ann

    A. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Ann. Phys.303, 2–30 (2003)

    2003

  41. [41]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9811052 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  42. [42]

    Bomb ´ ın and M

    H. Bomb ´ ın and M. A. Martin-Delgado, Topological quantum distillation, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 180501 (2006)

    2006

  43. [43]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. Poulin, and B. Terhal, Tradeoffs for reli- able quantum information storage in 2D systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 050503 (2010)

    2010

  44. [44]

    Panteleev and G

    P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, Asymptotically good quantum and locally testable classical LDPC codes, in Proceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Sympo- sium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2022 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2022) p. 375–388

    2022

  45. [45]

    Dinur, M.-H

    I. Dinur, M.-H. Hsieh, T.-C. Lin, and T. Vidick, Good quantum LDPC codes with linear time decoders, inPro- ceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2023 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2023) p. 905–918

    2023

  46. [46]

    Leverrier and G

    A. Leverrier and G. Z´ emor, Quantum tanner codes, in 2022 IEEE 63rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)(IEEE, 2022) p. 872–883

    2022

  47. [47]

    Chamberland, T

    C. Chamberland, T. Jochym-O’Connor, and R. Laflamme, Thresholds for universal concate- nated quantum codes, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 010501 (2016)

    2016

  48. [48]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum computations: Algorithms and error correction, Russ. Math. Surv.52, 1191–1249 (1997)

    1997

  49. [49]

    Aliferis, D

    P. Aliferis, D. Gottesman, and J. Preskill, Quantum accuracy threshold for concatenated distance-3 code, Quantum Inf. Comput.6, 97–165 (2006)

    2006

  50. [50]

    Poulin, Optimal and efficient decoding of concate- nated quantum block codes, Phys

    D. Poulin, Optimal and efficient decoding of concate- nated quantum block codes, Phys. Rev. A74, 052333 (2006)

    2006

  51. [51]

    Yamasaki and M

    H. Yamasaki and M. Koashi, Time-efficient constant- space-overhead fault-tolerant quantum computation, Nat. Phys.20, 247 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    Yoshida, S

    S. Yoshida, S. Tamiya, and H. Yamasaki, Concatenate codes, save qubits, npj Quantum Inf.11, 88 (2025)

    2025

  53. [53]

    Gidney and T

    C. Gidney and T. Bergamaschi, A constant rate quan- tum computer on a line (2025), arXiv:2502.16132 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    S. A. Yadavalli and I. Marvian, Noisy quantum trees: infinite protection without correction, npj Quantum Inf. 11, 151 (2025)

    2025

  55. [55]

    G. M. Sommers, D. A. Huse, and M. J. Gullans, Dy- namically generated concatenated codes and their phase diagrams, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023086 (2025)

    2025

  56. [56]

    Cao and B

    C. Cao and B. Lackey, Growing sparse quantum codes from a seed (2025), arXiv:2507.13496 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Nakai and H

    R. Nakai and H. Goto, Subsystem many-hypercube codes: High-rate concatenated codes with low-weight syndrome measurements, Phys. Rev. Appl.25, 014032 (2026)

    2026

  58. [58]

    Gottesman, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with local gates, J

    D. Gottesman, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with local gates, J. Mod. Opt.47, 333 (2000)

    2000

  59. [59]

    Litinski, Blocklet concatenation: Low-overhead fault-tolerant protocols for fusion-based quantum com- putation (2025), arXiv:2506.13619 [quant-ph]

    D. Litinski, Blocklet concatenation: Low-overhead fault-tolerant protocols for fusion-based quantum com- putation (2025), arXiv:2506.13619 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A86, 032324 (2012)

    2012

  61. [61]

    Bomb ´ ın, Topological codes, inQuantum Error Cor- rection(Cambridge University Press, 2013) p

    H. Bomb ´ ın, Topological codes, inQuantum Error Cor- rection(Cambridge University Press, 2013) p. 455–481

    2013

  62. [62]

    Bravyi, M

    S. Bravyi, M. Suchara, and A. Vargo, Efficient algo- rithms for maximum likelihood decoding in the surface code, Phys. Rev. A90, 032326 (2014)

    2014

  63. [63]

    H. Cao, S. Zhao, D. Feng, Z. Shen, H. Yan, T. Su, W. Sun, H. Xu, F. Pan, H. Yu, and P. Zhang, Exact decoding of quantum error-correcting codes, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 190603 (2025)

    2025

  64. [64]

    Lyons, Understanding stabilizer codes under local de- coherence through a general statistical mechanics map- ping (2024), arXiv:2403.03955 [quant-ph]

    A. Lyons, Understanding stabilizer codes under local de- coherence through a general statistical mechanics map- ping (2024), arXiv:2403.03955 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, Quantum low- density parity-check codes, PRX Quantum2, 040101 (2021)

    2021

  66. [66]

    Baspin and A

    N. Baspin and A. Krishna, Connectivity constrains quantum codes, Quantum6, 711 (2022)

    2022

  67. [67]

    Tillich and G

    J.-P. Tillich and G. Z´ emor, Quantum LDPC codes with positive rate and minimum distance proportional to the square root of the blocklength, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 60, 1193 (2014)

    2014

  68. [68]

    N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, Balanced prod- uct quantum codes, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory67, 6653 (2021)

    2021

  69. [69]

    Dinur, S

    I. Dinur, S. Evra, R. Livne, A. Lubotzky, and S. Mozes, Locally testable codes with constant rate, distance, and locality, inProceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2022 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2022) p. 357–374

    2022

  70. [70]

    Takeda, T

    K. Takeda, T. Sasamoto, and H. Nishimori, Exact loca- 22 tion of the multicritical point for finite-dimensional spin glasses: A conjecture, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.38, 3751 (2005)

    2005

  71. [71]

    Dumer, A

    I. Dumer, A. A. Kovalev, and L. P. Pryadko, Thresh- olds for correcting errors, erasures, and faulty syndrome measurements in degenerate quantum codes, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 050502 (2015)

    2015

  72. [72]

    A. A. Kovalev and L. P. Pryadko, Fault tolerance of quantum low-density parity check codes with sublinear distance scaling, Phys. Rev. A87, 020304 (2013)

    2013

  73. [73]

    Guti´ errez, C

    M. Guti´ errez, C. Smith, L. Lulushi, S. Janardan, and K. R. Brown, Errors and pseudothresholds for incoher- ent and coherent noise, Phys. Rev. A94, 042338 (2016)

    2016

  74. [74]

    Colmenarez, Z.-M

    L. Colmenarez, Z.-M. Huang, S. Diehl, and M. M¨ uller, Accurate optimal quantum error correction thresholds from coherent information, Phys. Rev. Res.6, L042014 (2024)

    2024

  75. [75]

    J. K. Iverson and J. Preskill, Coherence in logical quan- tum channels, New J. Phys.22, 073066 (2020)

    2020

  76. [76]

    F. Venn, J. Behrends, and B. B´ eri, Coherent-error threshold for surface codes from Majorana delocaliza- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 060603 (2023)

    2023

  77. [77]

    J. J. Wallman and J. Emerson, Noise tailoring for scal- able quantum computation via randomized compiling, Phys. Rev. A94, 052325 (2016)

    2016

  78. [78]

    D. M. Debroy, M. Li, M. Newman, and K. R. Brown, Stabilizer slicing: Coherent error cancellations in low- density parity-check stabilizer codes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 250502 (2018)

    2018

  79. [79]

    S. J. Beale, J. J. Wallman, M. Guti´ errez, K. R. Brown, and R. Laflamme, Quantum error correction decoheres noise, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 190501 (2018)

    2018

  80. [80]

    Katabarwa and M

    A. Katabarwa and M. R. Geller, Logical error rate in the Pauli twirling approximation, Sci. Rep.5, 14670 (2015)

    2015

Showing first 80 references.