Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 80 references

The Pangaea architecture claims that a quantum bus—an auxiliary gauge-code strip—extends lattice surgery into a three-dimensional fault-tolerant interconnect, enabling long-range and multi-qubit parity measurements across heterogeneous topo

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

2026-08-04 18:48 UTC pith:5WPAYNQH

load-bearing objection Real architecture idea with believable simulations, but the O(dN) advantage rests on an unproven distance claim. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.01887 v1 pith:5WPAYNQH submitted 2026-08-03 quant-ph

The Pangaea Architecture: Fault-Tolerant Heterogeneous Topological Codes via a Quantum Bus

Sheir Yarkoni , Chen Scheim , Daniel Hakshuri , Nadav Katz This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P7081P68 PACS 03.67.Pp
keywords quantum error correctionlattice surgerytopological codessurface codecolor codequantum busheterogeneous codesmagic state distillation
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 claims a quantum bus—an auxiliary gauge-code strip—can mediate fault-tolerant logical operations between remote, heterogeneous topological code patches while keeping nearest-neighbor physical connectivity. The bus is presented as a three-dimensional generalization of lattice surgery: products of local gauge-check outcomes reconstruct joint logical operators, so long-range and multi-qubit Pauli measurements are native. The main quantitative claim is that this costs O(d N_L) physical qubits for N_L distance-d logical qubits, compared with O(d^2 N_L) for planar lattice-surgery routing, giving up to a 10-fold qubit reduction at the 50-logical-qubit scale. Fault tolerance is supported by pseudo-threshold simulations for surface–surface and surface–color joint measurements and by a subsystem-code accounting of the merged bus. If correct, the bus resolves the routing bottleneck of planar architectures and enables code-agnostic modular quantum computing.

Core claim

The central discovery is that lattice surgery's mediating strip can be stretched into a shared bus orthogonal to the code patches, so that N_L logical qubits plug into slots along the bus and their boundary ancillas double as bus check qubits. During a joint measurement the merged system is a subsystem code with parameters [[n_merge, N_L−1, µ(d−1)/2, d]], where µ is the number of color-code patches; the dropped checks at color-code boundaries become gauge degrees of freedom, and the bus stores no logical information. Intermediate Pauli factors cancel row by row, leaving only the intended boundary logical operators dressed by a known bus stabilizer. The paper verifies fault tolerance with pse

What carries the argument

The quantum bus is an auxiliary gauge-code strip of width d and length ℓ=N_L−1, connecting N_L code patches; the scissors operator is the four-stage fault-tolerant protocol (pre-op, merge, split, post-op) that realizes joint parity measurements through the bus. The bus works by measuring local gauge checks whose row-by-row products cancel intermediate Pauli factors, leaving only the boundary logical operators, and by reusing patch boundary ancillas as bus checks so the extra qubit cost is dℓ rather than d^2ℓ. It also serves as a heterogeneous interface: fixing the bus's gauge degrees to match a patch's rough boundary lets surface and color codes share one measurement primitive, with dropped

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the merged code—logical patches plus bus—keeps distance-d protection for the joint measurement, including at heterogeneous surface–color interfaces; the paper supports this with a degree-of-freedom count rather than a proof that no lower-weight logical operator exists.

What would settle it

A circuit-level fault-path enumeration over the merged surface–color bus: if any fault chain of weight less than d flips the measured joint parity without triggering a detector—for example, for a color-code patch in a middle bus slot after the stabilizer-splitting correction—the distance-d assumption fails, and the pseudo-threshold trends would not persist to larger codes.

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

If this is right

  • Measurement-based CNOTs can be performed between non-adjacent logical qubits without moving or expanding the code patches.
  • At N_L=50 and code distances 9–13, Pangaea uses roughly 3.5× to 10× fewer physical qubits than planar surface-code lattice surgery at matched logical error rates.
  • Surface–color joint parity measurements are fault tolerant with pseudo-thresholds close to homogeneous surface–surface values (0.36% vs 0.43% at d=3; 1.25% vs 1.27% at d=7).
  • The native heterogeneous 15-to-1 magic-state distillation module uses roughly half the space-time volume of a conventional surface-code-only factory (66 vs 121 tile-time units).
  • Additional logical qubits can be added by extending the bus rather than redesigning the interaction region, making the architecture modular.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the merged-code distance truly stays d at every bus length, the bus would make inter-logical connectivity overhead nearly linear in distance, potentially shifting the breakeven point at which high-rate qLDPC codes become necessary—a comparison the paper does not make.
  • The O(dN) advantage is computed at the logical level under the assumption that three-dimensional inter-layer couplers are as clean as planar nearest-neighbor links; the paper lists flip-chip and through-silicon vias as candidates, but correlated noise across stacked layers could eat into the gain.
  • The same gauge-fixing construction may port to planar tile codes or other high-rate codes, but the anti-commutation fix for mid-bus patches would need to be re-derived for each new code family; the paper leaves that as future work.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Pangaea, a fault-tolerant quantum architecture in which a three-dimensional quantum bus—an auxiliary gauge-code strip—mediates joint logical parity measurements between remote surface-code and color-code patches, generalizing lattice surgery. It claims that multi-qubit interactions for N_L distance-d logical qubits require only O(d N_L) physical qubits, versus O(d^2 N_L) for traditional two-dimensional layouts, and reports a 10x qubit reduction at the 50-logical-qubit scale. The main numerical evidence consists of pseudo-threshold simulations for bus-mediated M_XX primitives for homogeneous surface-surface and heterogeneous surface-color layouts at d=3,5,7 and bus lengths up to 7. The paper also proposes a heterogeneous 15-to-1 magic-state distillation module and a native multi-qubit Pauli measurement primitive.

Significance. If the central distance-preservation claim can be established, Pangaea would be a significant architectural contribution: it offers a native heterogeneous code interface, long-range multi-qubit parity measurements, and an asymptotic qubit saving over planar lattice surgery. The paper's strengths include explicit circuit-level Stim simulations with a detailed and carefully documented detector model (Appendix C), pseudo-thresholds for both homogeneous and heterogeneous cases, and a coherent degree-of-freedom bookkeeping in Appendix E. The main load-bearing gap is that the distance of the merged bus-plus-patch code is asserted but not proven; the scaling and resource comparisons depend directly on this assumption. The paper also explicitly assumes the M_ZZ case by symmetry and extrapolates logical error rates beyond the simulated distances.

major comments (3)
  1. [III.A, Eq. (6), Appendix E] The merged code distance d in Eq. (6) is asserted, not proven. Appendix E counts only n, k, and r (rank/gauge degrees of freedom); it never computes the minimum weight of a logical operator of the merged code. This cannot rule out a sub-d logical operator localized at the dropped-check interface shown in Fig. 5(c), especially for heterogeneous surface-color boundaries. The verification criterion in Sec. III.B ('no undetected single-fault logical error') is checked only at d=3,5,7, not for all d. Since the O(dN_L) scaling and the 10x resource comparison at d=13 rely on distance-d protection of the merged code, this is load-bearing. Please provide a proof of distance, or an explicit minimum-weight-logical-operator computation for representative merged patches.
  2. [III.B, M_ZZ assumption] Only the M_XX primitive is simulated; the text states that 'the result also holds for M_ZZ under a simple exchange of observables.' The measurement-based CNOT (Sec. II.C) and the heterogeneous distillation module (Sec. IV) depend on Z-type bus interactions. The Z-bus has different boundary and commutation details (see the non-commuting weight-6 stabilizers in Appendix D), so the exchange symmetry is not self-evident. Add M_ZZ pseudo-threshold simulations, or else give a rigorous argument that the detector-error model and logical-operator weights are identical under Z<->X exchange.
  3. [III.C, Fig. 7(b)] The d>=9 logical-error rates in Fig. 7(b) are extrapolated from a fit of p_L = A(d) p_phys^{(d+1)/2} to d=3,5,7 simulated points. The 'up to 10x fewer qubits' claim at matched p_L is therefore a model-dependent projection, not a simulated result, and it inherits the unproven distance-d assumption from Eq. (6). The text labels these as order-of-magnitude estimates, but the abstract presents the 10x figure as an outcome. Re-label the claim as conditional on distance preservation and provide independent evidence (simulations at d=9, or a rigorous scaling argument) before asserting the advantage.
minor comments (5)
  1. [II.B] The statement that a length-\ell bus provides 'simultaneous protection of up to 2d+\ell in the complementary basis' is not derived. A short argument or citation would help.
  2. [III.B / Fig. 6] The caption should clarify that the dashed vertical lines are finite-distance crossing estimates from linear interpolation, not an asymptotic threshold fit; the text already says this but the figure alone is ambiguous.
  3. [Appendix C] The simulation setup is described in impressive detail, but no code or data repository is referenced. For reproducibility, please provide the Stim circuits and decoder configuration, or state a public repository.
  4. [IV] The 15-to-1 distillation resource estimate (A_P≈6, V_P=66) is not simulated; it assumes bus-mediated rotations have the same logical error rate and timescale as standard lattice surgery. State this explicitly and classify the comparison as an estimate.
  5. [Eq. (6)] In Eq. (6), the subsystem-code parameters should be defined explicitly (n, k, r, d). The symbol \mu is defined in the text, but a reader encountering Eq. (6) only may confuse the third parameter with distance. Consider using [[n,k,r,d]] notation with an explicit definition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified: the central qubit-count scaling is derived by explicit counting, the fault-tolerance primitives are tested by independent simulations, and the d>=9 resource projection is transparently labeled as an extrapolation rather than a hidden fit.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the main claims do not reduce to their inputs. The O(dN_L) bus overhead is derived in Appendix B by explicit counting: n_bus = (ell+1)(d+1)/2 + d ell = O(dN_L), compared with O(d^2 N_L) for the 2D ancilla region; there is no fitted parameter in this step. The fault-tolerance of the bus primitive is supported by independent Stim simulations at d=3,5,7 with MWPM and BPOSD decoders, with pseudo-thresholds obtained as finite-distance crossing estimates rather than as restatements of the desired conclusion. The heterogeneous merged-code parameters in Eq. (6) and Appendix E count degrees of freedom to establish k and r, but Appendix E does not compute the minimum-weight logical operator, so the distance label d in Eq. (6) is asserted rather than proved. That is a genuine support gap for the larger-distance resource claims, but it is not circularity: the paper does not define the merged code's distance in terms of the conclusion it draws from that distance. The 10x projection in Fig. 7(b) extrapolates the authors' own simulated p_L data to d>=9, and the paper explicitly states these points 'should be read as order-of-magnitude estimates, not as simulated results'; this is an openly labeled extrapolation, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. There are no load-bearing self-citations: no result is justified by the present authors' prior work, and the cited lattice-surgery, subsystem-surgery, and gauge-fixing facts are external. Consequently, no load-bearing step is equivalent by construction to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on the untested distance-d of the merged heterogeneous code, the applicability of subsystem lattice surgery, and a fitted error-rate extrapolation. The quantum bus itself is an architectural proposal with internal simulation evidence only.

free parameters (2)
  • A(d) = not reported (fit to simulated p_L at d=3,5,7)
    The logical error rate model p_L = A(d) p_phys^((d+1)/2) is fitted to the authors' simulation data and extrapolated to d>=9 to produce the 10x qubit advantage claim in Sec III C and Fig 7(b).
  • p_phys = 1e-3
    Assumed physical error rate for the resource comparison in Sec III C. It is a chosen target input, not a fitted value, but the 10x claim depends on it.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Standard lattice surgery and subsystem lattice surgery framework apply to the bus geometry
    The protocol is built on the claim that the bus is a direct extension of lattice surgery (Sec II A, II B), relying on refs [11,23,28,78] for the fault-tolerant properties of merge/split.
  • domain assumption Color-code patches lose (d-1)/2 boundary checks during the merge
    Used in Appendix E to compute gauge degrees of freedom; cited from ref [28] without proof for the specific superdense color-code layout.
  • ad hoc to paper The merged bus-plus-patch code has distance d
    The central fault-tolerance claim assumes distance-d protection of the joint measurement (Sec II B, Sec III A). The degree-of-freedom counting in Appendix E does not bound logical operator weights.
  • ad hoc to paper The superdense color-code geometry supports a rough boundary compatible with the bus
    Sec III A states the boundary is defined to match the bus structure, but no explicit stabilizer map or proof of compatibility is provided beyond a figure.
invented entities (1)
  • Quantum bus no independent evidence
    purpose: Auxiliary gauge-code strip that mediates long-range and multi-qubit logical Pauli measurements between heterogeneous topological code patches
    The bus is a proposed architectural component. Its fault-tolerance is supported only by in-paper pseudo-threshold simulations, not by an externally falsifiable prediction.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
read the original abstract

We introduce Pangaea, a fault-tolerant quantum architecture that uses a quantum bus to mediate logical operations between remote patches of two-dimensional topological codes. The bus is an auxiliary gauge-code strip whose measurements reconstruct joint logical operators while preserving nearest-neighbor physical connectivity. Enabling native heterogeneous topological codes and multi-qubit Pauli operations, the quantum bus can be interpreted as a three-dimensional generalization of lattice surgery. We require only $O(dN_L)$ physical qubits to implement multi-qubit interactions for $N_L$ distance-$d$ logical qubits, compared to $O(d^2N_L)$ of traditional two-dimensional architectures. At the 50-logical-qubit scale, Pangaea uses up to $10\times$ fewer physical qubits than planar surface-code architectures at matched logical error rates. We verify fault-tolerance of long-range measurement-based CNOT primitives for both surface--surface and surface--color joint parity measurements using pseudo-threshold simulations. We use this protocol to construct a native heterogeneous 15-to-1 magic-state distillation module using the quantum bus. These results establish Pangaea as a scalable architecture for three-dimensional fault-tolerant quantum computing that resolves the routing bottleneck of planar lattice surgery.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01887 by Chen Scheim, Daniel Hakshuri, Nadav Katz, Sheir Yarkoni.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Lattice surgery between two distance-3 rotated surface-code patches via a quantum bus, shown explicitly for an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Three-dimensional layout of two orthogonal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Full measurement-based CNOT between non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Circuit-level description of a measurement-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Bird’s-eye view of a single bus strip connecting surface-to-surface (left) and surface-to-color (right) patches. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Pseudo-threshold simulations for bus-mediated M [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Physical qubit count and iso-resource comparison [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Pangaea implementation of the 15-to-1 magic-state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. An illustration of a native three-qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. A middle logical-qubit of distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.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

80 extracted references · 55 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation, Physical Review A86, 032324 (2012), arXiv:1208.0928 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Dennis, A

    E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Topological quantum memory, Journal of Mathematical Physics43, 4452 (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0110143

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  3. [3]

    J. F. Marques, B. M. Varbanov, M. S. Moreira, H. Ali, N. Muthusubramanian, C. Zachariadis, F. Battistel, M. Beekman, N. Haider, W. Vlothuizen, A. Bruno, B. M. Terhal, and L. DiCarlo, Logical-qubit operations in an error-detecting surface code, Nature Physics18, 80 (2022), arXiv:2102.13071 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Bomb ´ ın and M

    H. Bomb ´ ın and M. A. Martin-Delgado, Topological quan- tum distillation, Physical Review Letters97, 180501 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0605138 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    Litinski, M

    D. Litinski, M. S. Kesselring, J. Eisert, and F. von Oppen, Combining topological hardware and topologi- cal software: Color-code quantum computing with topo- logical superconductor networks, Physical Review X7, 031048 (2017), arXiv:1704.01589 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Thomsen, M

    F. Thomsen, M. S. Kesselring, S. D. Bartlett, and B. J. Brown, Low-overhead quantum computing with the color code, Physical Review Research6, 043125 (2024), arXiv:2201.07806 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    D. J. C. MacKay, G. Mitchison, and P. L. McFadden, Sparse-graph codes for quantum error correction, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory50, 2315 (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0304161 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  8. [8]

    A. A. Kovalev and L. P. Pryadko, Quantum kro- necker sum-product low-density parity-check codes with finite rate, Physical Review A88, 012311 (2013), arXiv:1212.6703 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  9. [9]

    D. E. Gottesman,Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction, Ph.d. thesis, California Institute of Technol- ogy (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  10. [10]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010)

    2010

  11. [11]

    Litinski, A game of surface codes: Large-scale quan- tum computing with lattice surgery, Quantum3, 128 (2019)

    D. Litinski, A game of surface codes: Large-scale quan- tum computing with lattice surgery, Quantum3, 128 (2019)

    2019

  12. [12]

    T. J. Yoder, E. Schoute, P. Rall, E. Pritchett, J. M. Gam- betta, A. W. Cross, M. Carroll, and M. E. Beverland, Tour de gross: A modular quantum computer based on bivariate bicycle codes, (2025), arXiv:2506.03094 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature638, 920 (2025)

    2025

  14. [14]

    Besedin, M

    I. Besedin, M. Kerschbaum, J. Knoll, I. Hesner, L. B¨ odeker, L. Colmenarez, L. Hofele, N. Lacroix, C. Hellings, F. Swiadek, A. Flasby, M. Bahrami Panah, D. Colao Zanuz, M. M¨ uller, and A. Wallraff, Realizing lattice surgery on two distance-three repetition codes with superconducting qubits, Nature Physics22, 189 (2026)

    2026

  15. [15]

    Lacroix, A

    N. Lacroix, A. Bourassa, F. J. H. Heras, L. M. Zhang, J. Bausch,et al., Scaling and logic in the color code on a superconducting quantum processor, Nature645, 614 (2025)

    2025

  16. [16]

    B¨ odeker, ´A

    L. B¨ odeker, ´A. M´ arton, L. Colmenarez, I. Besedin, A. Wallraff, and M. M¨ uller, Lattice surgery for near-term experimental logical qubit entanglement creation in pla- nar architectures, (2026), arXiv:2606.15190 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    D. P. DiVincenzo, Fault-tolerant architectures for super- conducting qubits, Physica ScriptaT137, 014020 (2009), arXiv:0905.4839

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  18. [18]

    Renger, J

    M. Renger, J. Verjauw, N. Wurz, A. Hosseinkhani, C. Ockeloen-Korppi, W. Liu, A. Rath, M. J. Thapa, F. Vigneau, E. Wybo, V. Bergholm, C. F. Chan, B. Csat´ ari, S. Dahl, R. Davletkaliyev, R. Giri, D. Gusenkova, H. Heimonen, T. Hiltunen, H. Hsu, E. Hyypp¨ a, J. Ikonen, T. Jones, S. Khalid, S.-G. Kim, M. Koistinen, A. Komlev, J. Kotilahti, V. Kukushkin, J. La...

    2026

  19. [19]

    Eastin and E

    B. Eastin and E. Knill, Restrictions on transversal en- coded quantum gate sets, Physical Review Letters102, 110502 (2009), arXiv:0811.4262 [quant-ph]. 12

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  20. [20]

    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), arXiv:2308.07915 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Raussendorf and J

    R. Raussendorf and J. Harrington, Fault-tolerant quan- tum computation with high threshold in two dimensions, Physical Review Letters98, 190504 (2007), arXiv:quant- ph/0610082

    arXiv 2007

  22. [22]

    Fujiu, S

    K. Fujiu, S. Nagayama, S. Nishio, H. Kawaguchi, and T. Satoh, Dense packing of the surface code: Code deformation procedures and hook-error-avoiding gate scheduling, Physical Review A113, 042412 (2026), arXiv:2511.06758 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    Horsman, A

    C. Horsman, A. G. Fowler, S. Devitt, and R. Van Meter, Surface code quantum computing by lattice surgery, New Journal of Physics14, 123011 (2012), arXiv:1111.4022 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  24. [24]

    S. H. Choe and R. Koenig, Long-range data transmis- sion in a fault-tolerant quantum bus architecture, npj Quantum Information10, 126 (2024), arXiv:2209.09774 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    L. S. Herzog, G. Kishony, R. Wille, and A. G. Fowler, Towards lattice surgery compilation for the color code using pipe diagrams, (2026), arXiv:2607.05501 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    L. Z. Cohen, I. H. Kim, S. D. Bartlett, and B. J. Brown, Low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum computing using long-range connectivity, Science Advances8, eabn1717 (2022), arXiv:2110.10794 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    A. G. Fowler, D. S. Wang, C. D. Hill, T. D. Ladd, R. Van Meter, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Surface code quantum communication, Physical Review Letters104, 180503 (2010), arXiv:0910.4074 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  28. [28]

    H. P. Nautrup, N. T. Friis, and H. J. Briegel, Fault- tolerant interface between quantum memories and quan- tum processors, Nature Communications8, 1321 (2017)

    2017

  29. [29]

    M. E. Beverland, A. Kubica, and K. M. Svore, The cost of universality: A comparative study of the overhead of state distillation and code switching with color codes, PRX Quantum2, 020341 (2021), arXiv:2101.02211 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Shutty and C

    N. Shutty and C. Chamberland, Decoding merged color- surface codes and finding fault-tolerant clifford circuits using solvers for satisfiability modulo theories, Physi- cal Review Applied18, 014072 (2022), arXiv:2201.12450 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    L. S. Herzog, L. Berent, A. Kubica, and R. Wille, Lat- tice surgery compilation beyond the surface code, in2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE)(IEEE, 2025) arXiv:2504.10591 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Webster, L

    P. Webster, L. Berent, O. Chandra, E. T. Hockings, N. Baspin, F. Thomsen, S. C. Smith, and L. Z. Cohen, The pinnacle architecture: Reducing the cost of break- ing RSA-2048 to 100,000 physical qubits using quantum LDPC codes (2026), arXiv:2602.11457 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2048

  33. [33]

    K. Wang, Z. Lu, C. Zhang,et al., Demonstration of low- overhead quantum error correction codes, Nature Physics 22, 308 (2026)

    2026

  34. [34]

    Mathews, L

    M. Mathews, L. Pahl, D. Pahl, V. L. Addala, C. Tang, W. D. Oliver, and J. A. Grover, Placing and rout- ing quantum LDPC codes in multilayer superconduct- ing hardware, npj Quantum Information12, 114 (2026), arXiv:2507.23011 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    Rist` e, M

    D. Rist` e, M. Dukalski, C. A. Watson, G. de Lange, M. J. Tiggelman, Y. M. Blanter, K. W. Lehnert, R. N. Schouten, and L. DiCarlo, Deterministic entanglement of superconducting qubits by parity measurement and feed- back, Nature502, 350 (2013), arXiv:1306.4002 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  36. [36]

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Measurement- induced entanglement and teleportation on a noisy quan- tum processor, Nature622, 481 (2023), arXiv:2303.04792 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    P. e. a. Kurpiers, Deterministic quantum state transfer and remote entanglement using microwave photons, Na- ture (2018)

    2018

  38. [38]

    C. e. a. Axline, On-demand quantum state transfer and entanglement between remote microwave cavity memo- ries, Nature Physics (2018)

    2018

  39. [39]

    Perseguers, Fidelity threshold for long-range entan- glement in quantum networks, Physical Review A81, 012310 (2010), arXiv:0910.1459 [quant-ph]

    S. Perseguers, Fidelity threshold for long-range entan- glement in quantum networks, Physical Review A81, 012310 (2010), arXiv:0910.1459 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  40. [40]

    F. Butt, L. Colmenarez, E. Weilandt, T. Peham, R. Wille, and M. M¨ uller, Complementary 3D color codes for transversal quantum logic, arXiv:2607.05107 [quant- ph] (2026), arXiv:2607.05107 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    Roffe, D

    J. Roffe, D. R. White, S. Burton, and E. T. Campbell, Decoding across the quantum low-density parity-check code landscape, Physical Review Research2, 043423 (2020), arXiv:2005.07016 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    B¨ aumer, V

    E. B¨ aumer, V. Tripathi, D. S. Wang, P. Rall, E. H. Chen, S. Majumder, A. Seif, and Z. K. Minev, Efficient long- range entanglement using dynamic circuits, PRX Quan- tum5, 030339 (2024), arXiv:2308.13065 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Y. Wang, F. Shen, H. Xie, A. Zhang, Y. Gao, C. Zhang, X. Zhu, F. Jin, Y. Zou, N. Wang, Z. Cui, Z. Bao, Z. Zhu, J. Zhong, G. Liu, J.-N. Yang, Y. Han, Y. He, J. Shen, H. Wang, J. Huang, X. Zhang, S. Zhou, H. Dong, J. Deng, Y. Wu, Z. Song, H. Li, Z. Wang, C. Song, Q. Guo, P. Zhang, H. Wang, and Y. Li, A supercon- ducting surface-code processor with lattice-s...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    Hirano, R

    Y. Hirano, R. Toshio, T. Itogawa, and K. Fujii, Effi- cient magic state cultivation with lattice surgery, (2025), arXiv:2510.24615 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Gidney, Stim: A fast stabilizer circuit simulator, Quantum5, 497 (2021)

    C. Gidney, Stim: A fast stabilizer circuit simulator, Quantum5, 497 (2021)

    2021

  46. [46]

    A. G. Fowler, Minimum weight perfect matching of fault- tolerant topological quantum error correction in average O(1) parallel time, Quantum Information and Computa- tion15, 145 (2015), arXiv:1307.1740 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  47. [47]

    Koutsioumpas, T

    S. Koutsioumpas, T. Noszko, H. Sayginel, M. Webster, and J. Roffe, Colour codes reach surface code perfor- mance using vibe decoding, (2025), arXiv:2508.15743 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Bocharov, M

    A. Bocharov, M. Roetteler, and K. M. Svore, Effi- cient synthesis of universal repeat-until-success quantum circuits, Physical Review Letters114, 080502 (2015), arXiv:1404.5320 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  49. [49]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computa- tion with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Physical Review A71, 022316 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0403025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  50. [50]

    E. T. Campbell, Shorter gate sequences for quantum computing by mixing unitaries, Physical Review A95, 042306 (2017), arXiv:1612.02689 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  51. [51]

    Bravyi and J

    S. Bravyi and J. Haah, Magic state distillation with low overhead, Physical Review A86, 052329 (2012), 13 arXiv:1209.2426 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  52. [52]

    E. T. Campbell and J. O’Gorman, An efficient magic state approach to small angle rotations, Quantum Sci- ence and Technology1, 015007 (2016), arXiv:1603.04230 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  53. [53]

    Chamberland and K

    C. Chamberland and K. Noh, Very low overhead fault- tolerant magic state preparation using redundant ancilla encoding and flag qubits, npj Quantum Information6, 91 (2020), arXiv:2003.03049 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  54. [54]

    Gidney and A

    C. Gidney and A. G. Fowler, Efficient magic state fac- tories with a catalyzed|CCZ⟩to 2|T⟩transformation, Quantum3, 135 (2019), arXiv:1812.01238 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  55. [55]

    Itogawa, Y

    T. Itogawa, Y. Takada, Y. Hirano, and K. Fujii, Efficient magic state distillation by zero-level distillation, PRX Quantum6, 020356 (2025), arXiv:2403.03991 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Litinski, Magic state distillation: Not as costly as you think, Quantum3, 205 (2019), arXiv:1905.06903 [quant- ph]

    D. Litinski, Magic state distillation: Not as costly as you think, Quantum3, 205 (2019), arXiv:1905.06903 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  57. [57]

    A. M. Meier, B. Eastin, and E. Knill, Magic-state dis- tillation with the four-qubit code, Quantum Informa- tion and Computation13, 195 (2013), arXiv:1204.4221 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  58. [58]

    Tiurevet al., Parity-unfolded distillation architec- ture for noise-biased platforms, (2026), arXiv:2604.15436 [quant-ph]

    K. Tiurevet al., Parity-unfolded distillation architec- ture for noise-biased platforms, (2026), arXiv:2604.15436 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    Sales Rodriguez, J

    P. Sales Rodriguez, J. M. Robinson, P. N. Jepsen,et al., Experimental demonstration of logical magic state distil- lation, Nature645, 620 (2025)

    2025

  60. [60]

    Rosenfeldet al., Magic state cultivation on a supercon- ducting quantum processor, (2025), arXiv:2512.13908 [quant-ph]

    E. Rosenfeldet al., Magic state cultivation on a supercon- ducting quantum processor, (2025), arXiv:2512.13908 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    Vaknin, S

    Y. Vaknin, S. Jacoby, A. L. Grimsmo, and A. Ret- zker, High rate magic state cultivation on the surface code, PRX Quantum7, 020327 (2026), arXiv:2502.01743 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    Gidney, N

    C. Gidney, N. Shutty, and C. Jones, Magic state cultiva- tion: Growing t states as cheap as cnot gates, (2024), arXiv:2409.17595 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    Steffan, S

    V. Steffan, S. H. Choe, N. P. Breuckmann, F. R. F. Pereira, and J. N. Eberhardt, Tile codes: High-efficiency quantum codes on a lattice with boundary, Physical Re- view Letters135, 170601 (2025)

    2025

  64. [64]

    B. Gu, T. Noszko, V. Steffan, J. N. Eberhardt, J. Roffe, J. Eisert, and S. Koutsioumpas, Nearest-neighbour gates are all you need: High-rate quantum low-density parity- check codes on a planar grid (2026), arXiv:2606.19482 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  65. [65]

    Liang, J

    Z. Liang, J. N. Eberhardt, and Y.-A. Chen, Planar quan- tum low-density parity-check codes with open bound- aries, PRX Quantum6, 040330 (2025), arXiv:2504.08887 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Aumann, M

    P. Aumann, M. Fellner, D. Alber, M. Cykiert, C. Flecken- stein, R. ter Hoeven, L. Stenzel, R. J. Valencia-Tortora, and W. Lechner, Demonstrating record fidelity for the quantum fourier transform (2026), arXiv:2604.12465 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    C. Tong, L. Shirizly, E. H. Chen, D. S. Wang, and B. Pokharel, Learning error suppression strategies for dynamic quantum circuits, (2026), arXiv:2604.18734 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    Rosenberg, D

    D. Rosenberg, D. Kim, R. Das, D. Yost, S. Gustavs- son, D. Hover, P. Krantz, A. Melville, L. Racz, G. O. Samach, S. J. Weber, F. Yan, J. L. Yoder, A. J. Kerman, and W. D. Oliver, 3d integrated superconducting qubits, npj Quantum Information3, 42 (2017), arXiv:1706.04116 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  69. [69]

    C. e. a. Wang, Through-silicon vias for superconducting quantum circuits, Applied Physics Letters (2011)

    2011

  70. [70]

    J. M. e. a. Gambetta, Building logical qubits in a super- conducting quantum computing system, Nature (2017)

    2017

  71. [71]

    M. e. a. McEwen, Removing leakage-induced correlated errors in superconducting quantum error correction, Na- ture Communications (2021)

    2021

  72. [72]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim,et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature626, 58 (2024), arXiv:2312.03982 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  73. [73]

    Ryan-Anderson, N

    C. Ryan-Anderson, N. C. Brown, C. H. Baldwin, J. M. Dreiling, C. Foltz, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatterman, N. Hewitt, C. Holliman, C. V. Horst, J. Johansen, D. Lucchetti, T. Mengle, M. Matheny, Y. Matsuoka, K. Mayer, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, B. Neyenhuis, J. Pino, P. Siegfried, R. P. Stutz, J. Walker, and D. Hayes, High- fidelity teleportation of a logical qub...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    M. Cain, Q. Xu, R. King, L. R. B. Picard, H. Levine, M. Endres, J. Preskill, H.-Y. Huang, and D. Bluvstein, Shor’s algorithm is possible with as few as 10,000 recon- figurable atomic qubits (2026), arXiv:2603.28627 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  75. [75]

    P. W. Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: Dis- crete logarithms and factoring, Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science , 124 (1994)

    1994

  76. [76]

    Coppersmith,An Approximate Fourier Transform Useful in Quantum Factoring, Tech

    D. Coppersmith,An Approximate Fourier Transform Useful in Quantum Factoring, Tech. Rep. RC 19642 (IBM Research Division, 1994) posted to arXiv in 2002, arXiv:quant-ph/0201067 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  77. [77]

    Gidney, How to factor 2048 bit rsa integers with less than a million noisy qubits, (2025), arXiv:2505.15917 [quant-ph]

    C. Gidney, How to factor 2048 bit rsa integers with less than a million noisy qubits, (2025), arXiv:2505.15917 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2048

  78. [78]

    Vuillot, L

    C. Vuillot, L. Lao, B. Criger, C. Garc ´ ıa Almud´ ever, K. Bertels, and B. M. Terhal, Code deformation and lat- tice surgery are gauge fixing, New Journal of Physics21, 033028 (2019), arXiv:1810.10037 [quant-ph]. Appendix A: Surface-Code and Color-Code Definitions

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  79. [79]

    The Surface-Code The surface-code is a two-dimensional topological sta- bilizer code defined on a local lattice of physical qubits [2, 11, 13, 23]. In then, k, dnotation, we can describe this code as a [[n=d 2, k= 1, d]] code, wherenis the num- ber of qubits,kis the number of logical qubits, andd is the distance of the code [9]. In a planar implementa- ti...

  80. [80]

    In then, k, dnotation, we can describe this code as a [[n= (3d 2 + 1)/4, k= 1, d]] code

    The Color-Code The color-code is a two-dimensional topological sta- bilizer code defined on a trivalent lattice with three- colorable faces [4, 15]. In then, k, dnotation, we can describe this code as a [[n= (3d 2 + 1)/4, k= 1, d]] code. Physical qubits are placed on lattice vertices, and each facefsupports both anX-type and aZ-type stabilizer, S(X) f = Y...

    2000

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.