Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 46 references

The paper recasts the threshold theorem as a claim about watts per decade of suppressed logical error, and says two power-meter measurements can settle the debate.

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 ↗

Fault-tolerant quantum computing is reframed as an empirical question about watts per decade of suppressed logical error, with a concrete two-measurement protocol proposed.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection A smart, honest proposal that reframes FTQC feasibility as a watts-per-decade measurement—but the central 'flat curve' prediction is asserted, not derived, and a simple surface-code calculation gives a rising curve instead. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2607.22276 v1 pith:6TU7QGSS submitted 2026-07-24 quant-ph

The Threshold Theorem in Watts: Fault Tolerance as a Question About Objective Probability

Amit Hagar This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords fault-tolerant quantum computingthreshold theoremobjective probabilityresource-bounded realizabilitywatts per decadequantum error correctioncalibration costenergy accounting
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.

The reading

This paper argues that the three-decade dispute over whether fault-tolerant quantum computing is physically feasible is not fundamentally about noise models. Under a resource-bounded interpretation of objective probability, a state's probability is the fraction of affordable dynamical paths to it within an energy-time budget, and the threshold theorem becomes a classification claim: error-corrected logical states are asserted to be cheaply realizable, so their probability stays near 1 as the machine grows. The author points out that the theorem's original resource inventory charged zero for four real costs: calibration of drifting hardware, decoding inside the correction cycle, coherence as a finite time budget, and entropy flushing through fresh ancillas. The paper's central proposal is to measure watts per decade of suppressed logical error, and to treat the slope of that curve as the empirical question: nearly flat if the theorem is right, climbing if the missing costs matter. A sympathetic reader would care because the proposal turns a long philosophical debate into a power-meter experiment that can be run on near-term hardware.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the threshold theorem, read through the 2011 resource-bounded probability measure, asserts membership of error-corrected logical states in the cheap complexity class Poly: the probability of realizing a logical state at error rate epsilon stays near 1 because the resources to hold it there grow only polylogarithmically in 1/epsilon and polynomially in size. The theorem derived that membership from an inventory that priced calibration, decoding, coherence time, and ancilla entropy-flush at zero; each of these is now known to consume measurable power. The paper's central proposal is to track the marginal power cost per decade of suppressed logica

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the resource-bounded objective probability P = |A|/|S|: over the finite set S of dynamical evolutions that could carry a system to a target state within a fixed energy-over-time budget, A is the subset whose cost fits that budget. The paper's operational counterpart is the watts-per-decade slope, the marginal facility power needed to lower logical error by one factor of ten as code distance and machine size grow. These two objects work together: the ratio turns a theorem about circuit combinatorics into a statement about which complexity class a state occupies, and the slope turns that classification into something a power meter can check. A secondary ingredient is

Load-bearing premise

The weakest load-bearing premise is that the threshold theorem's resource overhead translates monotonically into a real machine's power draw: if a machine's electricity bill is dominated by fixed costs or by effects that do not track gate and qubit counts, then the watts-per-decade curve measures the hardware, not the theorem.

What would settle it

Measure total facility power—dilution refrigerator, control electronics, and decoder—while running surface-code error correction at distances 3, 5, and 7 on the same processor, with all recalibration downtime included in the energy total, and plot watts per decade of suppressed logical error. Repeat across two successive hardware generations spanning about ten times the qubit count. If the marginal slope is statistically flat, the theorem's prediction survives; if it climbs, the omitted inventory wins. The paper identifies this as a measurement that can be performed on existing hardware with a

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

If this is right

  • If the theorem's classification claim is read in this way, no noise-model assumption can settle feasibility by itself; the resource curve is the arbiter.
  • The four zero-priced resources—calibration, decoding, coherence time, and ancilla entropy-flush—must appear on the meter, and each already has published cost data.
  • A watts-per-decade slope is measurable on a single current processor: distances 3, 5, and 7 have been run in one campaign, so the per-distance marginal cost can be computed now.
  • Two successive hardware generations spanning an order of magnitude in qubit count, with recalibration downtime and decoder power included, are enough to tell whether the slope is flat or climbing.
  • Under this accounting, 'i.i.d. noise' stops being a free assumption and becomes a maintained burden whose cost appears on the electricity bill.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The watts-per-decade meter is architecture-neutral in principle, so it could be run on photonic, trapped-ion, or neutral-atom machines; the paper's examples are drawn from superconducting hardware, but the unit transfers.
  • If power scaling is dominated by fixed costs such as refrigerator load, a single-machine reading will look flat; the paper anticipates this by defining the quantity as a marginal slope across generations, but a reader should expect the first one-machine data to be noisy on that axis.
  • Applying the same resource accounting to the classical competitor, as the paper suggests, would give quantum advantage claims a testable crossing point: the two curves meeting at a named machine size and power budget.
  • The calibration line item suggests a testable sub-prediction: machines with active in-situ calibration loops should show a flatter watts-per-decade slope than machines that halt computation for recalibration, and the difference should grow with machine size.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies the Hagar–Sergioli resource-bounded notion of objective probability to fault-tolerant quantum computing. The threshold theorem is recast as a classification claim: below threshold, error-corrected logical states belong to the class of cheaply realizable states whose probability remains near one as the machine grows. The author proposes a measurable quantity—watts per decade of suppressed logical error—argues that the threshold theorem predicts a nearly flat watts-per-decade curve, and lists four resources unpriced in the original theorem (calibration, decoding, coherence, entropy flush) that are expected to make the physically realized curve climb. Section 8 proposes two measurements, one on quantum hardware and one on a classical competitor, that would settle the three-decade feasibility debate.

Significance. The paper has a genuinely attractive core: it turns an often-metaphysical debate about fault-tolerance assumptions into a request for a concrete, marginal power measurement, and it honestly confronts several obvious objections, including the fixed-cost objection. The compilation of published drift, decoder-latency, and cryogenic-power figures provides useful evidence that the four unpriced resources are real engineering costs. However, the central quantitative claim—the null prediction attributed to the threshold theorem—is never derived, and the proposed experiment is given no decision rule. As it stands, the paper does not yet establish that the two measurements would settle anything, because no falsifiable dichotomy is defined.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3] The sentence “The theorem predicts this curve is nearly flat” is asserted, not derived. Using the surface-code resource count cited in the same section (N = 2d^2 − 1 physical qubits) and the standard logical-error scaling Λ^{−(d+1)/2}, one decade of error suppression requires Δd = 2 ln 10 / ln Λ distance steps. With constant power per physical qubit P0, the marginal power per decade is approximately P0[N(d+Δd) − N(d)] ≈ 4 P0 d Δd, which grows linearly with d. Thus an idealized threshold-theorem machine with instantaneous decoding, no calibration, and free ancillas would show a rising watts-per-decade slope, not a flat one, unless additional assumptions or a different meaning of “nearly flat” are supplied. The null curve for the proposed experiment is therefore missing.
  2. [Eq. (1) / Section 3] No calculation connects the measure P = |A|/|S| to measured watts. Equation (1) is never instantiated for a concrete code, a budget, or a target logical error. The paper moves directly from circuit-complexity overhead (polylog(1/ε)) to “the price is denominated in watts,” but the mapping from gate/qubit counts to a real machine’s power draw is nontrivial—fixed costs, control electronics, and cryogenic overhead are not monotone simple functions of circuit size. The bridge may exist, but it is not shown; without it, “the theorem predicts this curve” is a slogan rather than a theorem.
  3. [Section 8 / Objection 6] The decision rule is unspecified. The text repeatedly says a flat marginal slope across two generations settles for the theorem and a climbing slope for the inventory, but it never states what numerical slope counts as “flat,” what error bars or confidence criterion are required, or how engineering improvements “already on the books” are to be separated from the resource costs. A measurement with no pre-registered threshold cannot adjudicate a dispute; any observed slope can be rationalized post hoc as either “still nearly flat” or “already climbing.” This is a load-bearing gap in the empirical claim.
  4. [Section 7, Objection 12] The paper concedes that a finite slope “classifies nothing” in the asymptotic Poly/Exp sense, but the reply does not replace the asymptotic classification with a finite-scale quantitative prediction. Naming the eight-hour benchmark as the scale of interest does not derive the expected watts-per-decade slope under the threshold theorem at that scale. The same gap recurs in Objection 11: Λ is called the “numerator” of the 2011 ratio, but the denominator is never computed from the theorem. The central dichotomy thus remains unsupported at exactly the point where the paper needs a falsifiable null.
  5. [Section 4] The four unpriced resources are documented with published figures, but they are never assembled into even a toy model of the marginal watts-per-decade curve. The cited numbers (e.g., 41.6% and 135.5% error increases after eight hours without calibration; 63 µs decoder latency against 1.1 µs cycle time; 6.25 W per physical qubit in the RAND estimate) support the existence of these costs, not the shape or slope of the curve. To claim that the inventory “predicts” a climbing curve, the paper needs at least a scaling argument showing how these terms enter the marginal power and why they dominate the threshold theorem’s own overhead.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 8] The second proposed measurement, the “symmetric classical curve,” is not defined. The accounting rules for the classical competitor (which classical machine, which error model, which drift and calibration costs) are left unspecified, so the crossing point the text refers to cannot actually be located.
  2. [Section 5] The active-vs-passive discussion is presented as a corollary of the measure, but the historical claim that the field “entered where entry was cheap” is anecdotal and unsupported. This section could be shortened or reframed as an illustration rather than an empirical explanation.
  3. [Abstract / Section 3] The term “watts per decade” should be defined consistently as a marginal slope, not a single power reading. The distinction is made only in Objection 5 and Section 8; it belongs in the abstract and in the first definition, since the whole proposal rests on it.
  4. [References] Several references are 2026 arXiv preprints (e.g., [17], [26], [28]) and are used to support specific empirical claims. The manuscript should mark these as preprints and, where possible, cite peer-reviewed versions, so readers can assess the maturity of the evidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the watts-per-decade proposal is explicitly independent of the 2011 measure, and the flat-slope prediction, though underived, is not equivalent to the theorem's resource bound by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The 2011 resource-bounded measure is a prior published interpretation (arXiv:1101.3521) used as a lens for the threshold theorem, not as a fitted parameter or an unverified uniqueness theorem. The empirical proposal is explicitly decoupled from that interpretation: 'a reader who rejects the probability interpretation wholesale can still run those measurements.' The threshold theorem is translated, not redefined: its polylog overhead is restated as membership in the paper's Poly class, and the near-1 probability labels are definitional consequences of the 2011 measure, not fitted outputs. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then called a prediction; watts per decade is proposed as a meter reading, not as an estimate derived from the theorem. The strongest concern is that Section 3's assertion 'The theorem predicts this curve is nearly flat' is not quantitatively derived from the theorem's polylog overhead, and under surface-code scaling the marginal power per decade can grow with code distance. But that is an omitted derivation or an over-attribution—a correctness risk, not a circular reduction: the claimed prediction is not equivalent to the theorem's resource bound by construction, and the proposed measurement is externally falsifiable. Self-citations to [12] are numerous, but they are not load-bearing for the central empirical test, which is stated in watts, error rates, and downtime and is explicitly independent of the probability interpretation. No equation reduces to another and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction; accordingly, there is no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the author's own 2011 probability measure (an unbounded/open conjecture), on the physical Church–Turing thesis, and on an asserted mapping from circuit overhead to wattage. The proposed measurement is independent of the interpretation, but the classification reading of the threshold theorem is not.

free parameters (1)
  • target runtime T = 8 hours = 8 hours
    Chosen by hand, following Gidney & Ekerå [23], as the scale at which the watts-per-decade slope is to be judged (Objection 12). Not derived from the 2011 measure or the threshold theorem.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Physical dynamics are deterministic (working hypothesis 1).
    Section 2, first bullet of the five working hypotheses underlying the 2011 measure.
  • domain assumption The universe's resources are bounded, so the set of possible evolutions is finite and discrete (time–energy uncertainty).
    Section 2, hypotheses 3-4; discreteness is operationalized via [15].
  • domain assumption The physical Church–Turing thesis holds.
    Admitted in Objection 3 as a contingent working hypothesis.
  • ad hoc to paper The 2011 measure P=|A|/|S| is an objective probability satisfying Kolmogorov's axioms.
    The framework is the author's own prior theory [12]; whether it is the correct physical probability remains an open conjecture (Born-rule generalization).
  • domain assumption The threshold theorem [1,2,3] is correct under its stated assumptions.
    Section 3 relies on the theorem's correctness to attribute the 'classification claim' and the flat-slope prediction.
  • ad hoc to paper Watts (power) is the correct physical currency for the 2011 measure's resource accounting.
    Section 2 states 'the price is denominated in watts'; this mapping from the abstract measure to electrical power is not derived.
invented entities (1)
  • Watts per decade of suppressed logical error independent evidence
    purpose: The native unit proposed to measure the resource-bounded objective probability of fault-tolerant logical states; the 'single object' to which the paper claims the FTQC debate reduces.
    It is a directly measurable quantity (power meter numerator, Λ denominator) with no new physics; hence a falsifiable handle independent of the paper.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Threshold Theorem in Watts: Fault Tolerance as a Question About Objective Probability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6TU7QGSS

@misc{pith2026260722276,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Threshold Theorem in Watts: Fault Tolerance as a Question About Objective Probability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6TU7QGSS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.22276}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

In 2011 Hagar & Sergioli proposed a new interpretation of objective probability in deterministic physics. On it, the probability of a physical state supervenes on the resources, energy over time, required to realize it from a given state, relative to the resources available (arXiv:1101.3521). The motivation for that paper was an objective alternative to QBism, the view that sees quantum probabilities as subjective degrees of belief. Here I apply this interpretation to a more practical subject matter: fault-tolerant quantum computing (FTQC). Under the resource-bounded measure Hagar & Sergioli proposed, the threshold theorem becomes a claim about classification: it asserts that error-corrected logical states belong to the class of relatively cheaply realizable states, whose probability remains near 1 as the machine grows. The theorem originally derived this claim from a resource inventory that was partial, and left out four resources consumed by error correction: calibration of a drifting device, decoding within the correction cycle, coherence as a finite time budget, and entropy flush through fresh ancillas. These entered the original derivation at zero price. Here I translate the feasibility of FTQC into a measurable quantity, watts per decade of suppressed logical error (a decade, in the engineer's usage, being one factor of ten in the error rate). I then show that the published record already contains its first data points for this translation, and I state the two measurements that would settle the question empirically. The three-decade debate on FTQC, conducted so far as an exchange about noise-model assumptions, turns out to be, under this interpretation, a quantitative dispute about a single object: the resource-bounded objective probability of the target logical states.

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

46 extracted references · 8 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error rate,

    D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error rate,” inPro- ceedings of the 29th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), 176–188 (1997); SIAM J. Comput.38, 1207 (2008)

    1997

  2. [2]

    Resilient quantum computation,

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, “Resilient quantum computation,” Science279, 342 (1998)

    1998

  3. [3]

    Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction,

    A. Yu. Kitaev, “Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction,” Russ. Math. Surv.52, 1191 (1997)

    1997

  4. [4]

    Is quantum mechanics useful?

    R. Landauer, “Is quantum mechanics useful?” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A353, 367 (1995)

    1995

  5. [5]

    Maintaining coherence in quantum computers,

    W. G. Unruh, “Maintaining coherence in quantum computers,” Phys. Rev. A51, 992 (1995)

    1995

  6. [6]

    Internal consistency of fault-tolerant quantum error correction in light of rigorous derivations of the quantum Markovian limit,

    R. Alicki, D. A. Lidar, and P. Zanardi, “Internal consistency of fault-tolerant quantum error correction in light of rigorous derivations of the quantum Markovian limit,” Phys. Rev. A73, 052311 (2006)

    2006

  7. [7]

    The argument against quantum computers,

    G. Kalai, “The argument against quantum computers,” inQuantum, Probability, Logic: The Work and Influence of Itamar Pitowsky, edited by M. Hemmo and O. Shenker (Springer, Cham, 2020), pp. 399–422

    2020

  8. [8]

    Multilinear formulas and skepticism of quantum computing,

    S. Aaronson, “Multilinear formulas and skepticism of quantum computing,” arXiv:quant-ph/0311039 (2004)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  9. [9]

    Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold,

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, “Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold,” Nature638, 920 (2024)

    2024

  10. [10]

    Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays,

    D. Bluvstein et al., “Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays,” Nature626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  11. [11]

    Experimental quantum error correction below the surface code threshold via all-microwave leakage suppression,

    T. He, W. Lin, R. Wang et al., “Experimental quantum error correction below the surface code threshold via all-microwave leakage suppression,” Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 260601 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    Counting steps: a new approach to objective probability in physics,

    A. Hagar and G. Sergioli, “Counting steps: a new approach to objective probability in physics,” arXiv:1101.3521 (2011)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  13. [13]

    Pitowsky,Quantum Probability — Quantum Logic, Lecture Notes in Physics, vol

    I. Pitowsky,Quantum Probability — Quantum Logic, Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 321, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1989

    1989

  14. [14]

    On the computational complexity of algorithms,

    J. Hartmanis and R. E. Stearns, “On the computational complexity of algorithms,” Trans. Am. Math. Soc.117, 285 (1965)

    1965

  15. [15]

    Measuring energy, estimating Hamiltonians, and the time– energy uncertainty relation,

    Y. Aharonov, S. Massar, and S. Popescu, “Measuring energy, estimating Hamiltonians, and the time– energy uncertainty relation,” Phys. Rev. A66, 052107 (2002)

    2002

  16. [16]

    Surface codes: towards practical large-scale quantum computation,

    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

  17. [17]

    Quantum Energetic Advantage before Computational Advantage in Boson Sampling

    A. Soret, N. Dridi, S. C. Wein, V. Giesz, S. Mansfield and P.E. Emeriau, “Quantum Energetic Advantage before Computational Advantage in Boson Sampling.” arXiv:2601.08068 (2026). 14

    arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    Optimizing quantum gates towards the scale of logical qubits,

    P. V. Klimov et al., “Optimizing quantum gates towards the scale of logical qubits,” Nat. Commun.15, 2442 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    Reinforcement learning control of quantum error correction,

    Google Quantum AI, “Reinforcement learning control of quantum error correction,” arXiv:2511.08493 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    CaliQEC: in-situ qubit calibration for surface code quantum error correction,

    “CaliQEC: in-situ qubit calibration for surface code quantum error correction,” inProceedings of the 52nd Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA)(2025)

    2025

  21. [21]

    CaliScalpel: in-situ and fine-grained qubit calibration integrated with surface code quantum error correction,

    “CaliScalpel: in-situ and fine-grained qubit calibration integrated with surface code quantum error correction,” arXiv:2412.02036 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    ReloQate: transient drift detection and in-situ recalibration in surface code quantum error correction,

    M. Poster et al., “ReloQate: transient drift detection and in-situ recalibration in surface code quantum error correction,” arXiv:2603.00837 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits,

    C. Gidney and M. Eker ˚ a, “How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits,” Quantum5, 433 (2021)

    2048

  24. [24]

    Quantum error correction for quantum memories,

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

    2015

  25. [25]

    Engineering cryogenic setups for 100-qubit scale superconducting circuit systems,

    S. Krinner et al., “Engineering cryogenic setups for 100-qubit scale superconducting circuit systems,” EPJ Quantum Technol.6, 2 (2019)

    2019

  26. [26]

    CryoZip: an efficient cryogenic compressor for quantum error correction syndromes,

    G. Tao et al., “CryoZip: an efficient cryogenic compressor for quantum error correction syndromes,” arXiv:2606.30805 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    QECOOL: on-line quantum error correc- tion with a superconducting decoder for surface code,

    Y. Ueno, M. Kondo, M. Tanaka, Y. Suzuki, and Y. Tabuchi, “QECOOL: on-line quantum error correc- tion with a superconducting decoder for surface code,” inProceedings of the 58th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), 451–456 (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    Towards a control interpretation of quantum advantage,

    D. Pighin, “Towards a control interpretation of quantum advantage,” arXiv:2606.13481 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Optimizing resource efficiencies for scalable full-stack quantum computers,

    M. Fellous-Asiani, J. H. Chai, Y. Thonnart, H. K. Ng, R. S. Whitney, and A. Auff` eves, “Optimizing resource efficiencies for scalable full-stack quantum computers,” PRX Quantum4, 040319 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    Limitations in quantum computing from resource constraints,

    M. Fellous-Asiani, J. H. Chai, R. S. Whitney, A. Auff` eves, and H. K. Ng, “Limitations in quantum computing from resource constraints,” PRX Quantum2, 040335 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    Estimating the energy requirements to operate a cryptanalytically relevant quantum computer,

    E. Parker and M. J. D. Vermeer, “Estimating the energy requirements to operate a cryptanalytically relevant quantum computer,” RAND Working Paper WR-A2427-3 (RAND Corporation, 2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    Noiseless quantum codes,

    P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, “Noiseless quantum codes,” Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 3306 (1997)

    1997

  33. [33]

    Decoherence-free subspaces for quantum computation,

    D. A. Lidar, I. L. Chuang, and K. B. Whaley, “Decoherence-free subspaces for quantum computation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 2594 (1998)

    1998

  34. [34]

    Dynamically generated decoherence-free subspaces and subsystems on superconduct- ing qubits,

    G. Quiroz et al., “Dynamically generated decoherence-free subspaces and subsystems on superconduct- ing qubits,” Rep. Prog. Phys.87, 097601 (2024)

    2024

  35. [35]

    The resource theory of stabilizer quantum computation,

    V. Veitch, S. A. H. Mousavian, D. Gottesman, and J. Emerson, “The resource theory of stabilizer quantum computation,” New J. Phys.16, 013009 (2014). 15

    2014

  36. [36]

    Application of a resource theory for magic states to fault-tolerant quantum computing,

    M. Howard and E. Campbell, “Application of a resource theory for magic states to fault-tolerant quantum computing,” Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 090501 (2017)

    2017

  37. [37]

    Thermodynamic constraints on quantum information gain and error correction,

    A. Danageozian and M. M. Wilde, “Thermodynamic constraints on quantum information gain and error correction,” PRX Quantum3, 020318 (2022)

    2022

  38. [38]

    Quantum technologies need a quantum energy initiative,

    A. Auff` eves, “Quantum technologies need a quantum energy initiative,” PRX Quantum3, 020101 (2022)

    2022

  39. [39]

    Energetics of a single qubit gate,

    J. Stevens, D. Szombati, M. Maffei, C. Elouard, R. Assouly, N. Cottet, R. Dassonneville, Q. Ficheux, S. Zeppetzauer, A. Bienfait, A. N. Jordan, A. Auff` eves and B. Huard, “Energetics of a single qubit gate,” Physical Review Letters129, 110601 (2022)

    2022

  40. [40]

    Energy-efficient quantum computing,

    J. Ikonen, J. Salmilehto and M. M¨ ott¨ onen, “Energy-efficient quantum computing,” npj Quantum Infor- mation3, 17 (2017)

    2017

  41. [41]

    Is quantum computing green? An estimate for an energy-efficiency quantum advantage,

    D. Jaschke and S. Montangero, “Is quantum computing green? An estimate for an energy-efficiency quantum advantage,” Quantum Science and Technology8, 025001 (2023)

    2023

  42. [42]

    Energy use in quantum data centers: scaling the impact of computer architecture, qubit performance, size, and thermal parameters,

    M. J. Martin, C. Hughes, G. Moreno, E. B. Jones, D. Sickinger, S. Narumanchi and R. Grout, “Energy use in quantum data centers: scaling the impact of computer architecture, qubit performance, size, and thermal parameters,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Computing7, 864 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    Energy-consumption advantage of quantum computation,

    F. Meier and H. Yamasaki, “Energy-consumption advantage of quantum computation,” PRX Energy 4, 023008 (2025)

    2025

  44. [44]

    The Snake optimizer for learning quantum processor control parameters,

    P. V. Klimov, J. Kelly, J. M. Martinis and H. Neven, “The Snake optimizer for learning quantum processor control parameters,” arXiv:2006.04594 (2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  45. [45]

    Pour-El and I

    M. Pour-El and I. Richards,Computability in Analysis and Physics(Springer, Berlin, 1989)

    1989

  46. [46]

    Non-Turing computers and non-Turing computability,

    M. Hogarth, “Non-Turing computers and non-Turing computability,” inPSA 1994, Vol. 1, edited by D. Hull, M. Forbes, and R. M. Burian (Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, 1994), pp. 126–138. 16

    1994

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.