Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 74 references

A diagrammatic field theory of quantum error correction

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-13 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Local error footprints organize quantum error correction: measure total charge without reading the logical state, then recover fibrewise.

desk verdict Solid organizational paper: fibrewise KL under syndrome-admissibility plus an explicit Ising nontrivial fibre, with a correctly conditional Peierls threshold; soft spot is architectural verification of (P2), not the formal core. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.08911 v1 pith:5KFKUCBY submitted 2026-07-09 quant-ph hep-thmath-phmath.AGmath.MPmath.RT

Steven Rayan This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phhep-thmath-phmath.AGmath.MPmath.RT MSC 81P7318M2057K1681T4581T4018M3081P70
keywords quantumerrorcorrectionfusion-spacecodeunitaryfusioncategoryfootprintprojectorsyndrome-admissiblealgebrafibrewiseKnill–LaflammePeierlsthresholdIsinganyons
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

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 reframes quantum error correction as a field-theoretic problem on fusion spaces. An error history leaves a local “footprint”—visible total-charge or fusion-channel data on a chosen cluster—and a carefully chosen commuting algebra of footprint projectors can be measured as a syndrome without revealing the encoded state. Once that measurement is done, exact correctability is equivalent to the ordinary Knill–Laflamme conditions holding inside each measured sector alone, so recovery factors as measure-then-recover. Contractible neutral defect composites act as scalars and supply a categorical sufficient criterion. Explicit Ising calculations show both complementary logical diagnostics (four σ-punctures) and a genuine syndrome-admissible code with same-footprint decoding ambiguity (six σ-punctures). For growing families the paper proves a conditional Peierls-type threshold: under bounded local growth, local stochastic noise, local neutralizability of small residuals, and decoder balance, logical failure decays exponentially below a nonzero error rate.

What carries the argument

The syndrome-admissible footprint algebra: a commuting family of total-charge projectors that leaves the code untouched in the no-error sector and resolves chosen error representatives into measured sectors. Theorem 3.12 then reduces exact correction to fibrewise Knill–Laflamme, giving a measure-then-recover factorization; the Peierls hypotheses (P1)–(P3) convert that organization into an exponential failure bound.

What would settle it

Exhibit a concrete growing family of fusion-space or string-net codes that satisfies bounded region growth, local stochastic noise, and decoder balance, yet still admits non-scalar residual components smaller than the claimed neutralization scale, so that the exponential Peierls bound on logical failure fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For fusion-space codes in a unitary fusion category, exact recovery conditioned on a syndrome-admissible footprint algebra exists if and only if the fibrewise Knill–Laflamme equations hold inside every measured sector. Under a contractible-vacuum hypothesis, closed neutral composites evaluate to scalars and therefore satisfy those equations. The same footprint language yields a conditional Peierls threshold theorem for growing families that meet explicit local geometric, noise, neutralizability, and decoder-balance hypotheses.

Load-bearing premise

Small closed residual error histories must act harmlessly (as scalars, or as pure gauge) on the encoded space; the paper assumes this local-neutralizability condition rather than deriving it for arbitrary field theories.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stabilizer syndromes, anyonic charge measurements, and fusion-channel readouts become special cases of one intermediate datum—the footprint—rather than separate formalisms.
  • Exact correction factors cleanly into classical sector measurement followed by fibrewise recovery, so decoder design can treat cross-sector and within-fibre ambiguities separately.
  • Geometry-dependent conformal-block weights supply soft likelihood factors that can rank same-footprint histories once a physical noise model is fixed.
  • Any architecture that verifies the four Peierls hypotheses inherits an exponential memory threshold without needing a full surface-code homology argument from scratch.
  • The same footprint language extends, at least as a design checklist, to string-net, condensation, holographic, and measurement-based realizations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The four- versus six-σ Ising contrast suggests a general design rule: redundancy that freezes selected pair charges is what turns diagnostic fusion measurements into safe syndromes.
  • Because the Peierls hypotheses are portable, numerical threshold searches for non-Abelian string-net or Fibonacci codes can be organized as checks of neutralizability and decoder balance rather than ad-hoc Monte Carlo alone.
  • Higgs-bundle and Jacobian directions in the later sections hint that continuous-variable or oscillator codes may admit an analogous “spectral footprint” once polarization data replace fusion labels.
  • If same-footprint logical ambiguity is generic once error families enlarge, practical decoders will need priors (locality, conformal weights, or energy) even after perfect syndrome extraction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a field-theoretic organization of quantum error correction for fusion-space codes in unitary fusion categories. Admissible clusters determine total-charge sectors and orthogonal footprint projectors; the central distinction is between diagnostic footprint algebras and syndrome-admissible commuting algebras that can be measured without revealing logical information. For the latter, exact correctability is equivalent to fibrewise Knill–Laflamme conditions (Theorem 3.12), with a contractible-vacuum sufficient criterion for scalar action (Proposition 3.15, Corollary 3.17). Explicit Ising calculations separate complementary diagnostics on four σ-punctures from a genuine syndrome-admissible six-σ code with exact recovery and a nontrivial same-footprint fibre (Propositions 7.2–7.3). Conformal-block likelihood data and geometry-dependent four-point weights are formulated. For growing families a conditional Peierls-type threshold theorem is proved under bounded connected-region growth, local stochastic noise, local neutralizability of small residuals, and componentwise decoder balance (Theorem 8.6). Later sections sketch representation-theoretic and algebro-geometric extensions.

Significance. If the organizational claims hold, the paper supplies a portable intermediate language that unifies stabilizer syndromes, anyonic fusion measurements, and defect-network decoding under a single footprint datum, with an explicit criterion separating diagnostics from syndrome-admissible measurements. The fibrewise Knill–Laflamme theorem and the measure-then-recover factorization are carefully scoped and openly equivalent to ordinary Knill–Laflamme after sector resolution. The six-σ Ising example is fully explicit (Majorana bilinears, projectors, recovery) and demonstrates both exact recovery and a nontrivial footprint fibre. The Peierls threshold is correctly conditional and recovers the surface-code counting mechanism as a special case. These are genuine strengths of clarity and organization rather than new unconditional thresholds or non-Clifford scalable constructions. The work is a useful conceptual contribution for categorical and topological QEC, provided the conditional scope of the threshold and the speculative character of Sections 9–10 remain clearly marked.

major comments (2)
  1. Theorem 8.6 and Definition 8.5 (P2): the local-neutralizability hypothesis is load-bearing for the exponential bound, yet it is stated as an assumption rather than derived for any growing nonabelian or conformal family. The paper correctly notes that (P2) is intentionally broader than the contractible-vacuum criterion of Proposition 3.15 and must be verified architecture-by-architecture (Remark 8.7). For the central claim of a “conditional Peierls-type threshold theorem” this is acceptable only if the abstract and introduction continue to emphasize that no automatic extension to arbitrary TQFT/CFT codes is claimed; any stronger phrasing should be removed.
  2. Sections 9–10: the representation-theoretic and algebro-geometric directions (tube algebras, Yangians, Higgs bundles, spectral curves, Jacobians, GKP analogies) are almost entirely programmatic. They do not follow from Theorems 3.12 or 8.6 and contain no theorems that close the loop back to syndrome-admissible recovery. Either a concrete, fully worked test case (e.g., an explicit rank-2 spectral-curve footprint with a verified fibrewise Knill–Laflamme check) should be supplied, or these sections should be substantially shortened and clearly labelled as open directions so that they do not dilute the formal core.
minor comments (5)
  1. Abstract and §1.1: the phrase “diagrammatic field theory of quantum error correction” is slightly overstated relative to the content; the ZX material is a stabilizer shadow and the later geometric sections are speculative. Soften to match the carefully conditional body.
  2. Proposition 5.1 and Figure 5: the Clifford-shadow circuit is clear, but an explicit statement that the optional braid B2 is not required for the pure X-type footprint measurement would avoid a possible misreading.
  3. §7.3, Eqs. (59)–(60): the normalized block-norm weights are correctly presented as a minimal likelihood model, not a universal noise law; a one-sentence reminder that physical priors and detector likelihoods must still be supplied would help non-CFT readers.
  4. Notation: the dual use of “footprint” for both the abstract boundary datum and the measured syndrome is carefully distinguished in Definition 3.18, but a short glossary or consistent subscripting (fp vs Synd) in later sections would reduce occasional ambiguity.
  5. References: the interface literature on measurement-only topological computation, detector-error models, and nonabelian decoding is well cited; a few recent works on Floquet and dynamically generated codes could be added for completeness in §8.8.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: fibrewise Knill–Laflamme is openly equivalent to ordinary KL after sector resolution, and the Peierls bound is a conditional counting argument under explicit hypotheses.

  1. renaming known result [Theorem 3.12 and Remark 3.13]
    "Under syndrome-admissibility, Theorem 3.12 is equivalent to the ordinary Knill–Laflamme criterion applied to the sector-resolved error family. Indeed, if s(α)≠s(β), then the cross-sector compression vanishes automatically, so the corresponding Knill–Laflamme scalar is zero; within a fixed sector, the equations are exactly the usual scalar equations. No stronger exact-correction criterion is claimed."

    The fibrewise statement is ordinary Knill–Laflamme after the error family is partitioned by measured sectors. The paper renames the post-measurement residual problem as a “footprint fibre” and presents the measure-then-recover factorization as the main organizational contribution. Because Remark 3.13 states the equivalence explicitly and claims no stronger criterion, this is mild renaming rather than a hidden circular derivation; it does not force the Peierls threshold or the Ising examples.

full rationale

The paper’s central formal claims are reorganizations and conditional theorems, not hidden fits or self-definitional predictions. Theorem 3.12 states that for a syndrome-admissible footprint algebra, exact recovery exists iff the fibrewise Knill–Laflamme equations hold; Remark 3.13 immediately records that this is equivalent to ordinary Knill–Laflamme on the sector-resolved family and claims no stronger criterion. That is honest reorganization, not a circular derivation. Proposition 3.15 and Corollary 3.17 give a sufficient contractible-vacuum scalarity criterion that is proved from the categorical evaluation End_C(1)≅ℂ, not assumed as the conclusion. Theorem 8.6 is a standard Peierls counting argument under four named hypotheses (P1)–(P3); the softest of these, local neutralizability (P2), is stated as an architectural assumption that must be verified per family (Remark 8.7), not smuggled in as a derived fact. The Ising four- and six-σ calculations are explicit finite checks of diagnostics, syndrome-admissibility, exact recovery, and a nontrivial footprint fibre; conformal-block weights are computed from standard Ising blocks with common prefactors cancelled in ratios. No free parameters are fitted to produce a threshold, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from overlapping-author prior work as a load-bearing premise. The mild organizational renaming of syndrome/boundary data as “footprint” is presented as such in the introduction and does not force the theorems by definition. Score 1 reflects only that mild renaming/reorganization of known KL structure, not a circular reduction of the claimed results.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper works inside standard unitary fusion categories and modular functors; the only load-bearing extra assumptions are the syndrome-admissibility conditions and the four Peierls hypotheses for the threshold. No numerical free parameters are fitted. The invented terminology (footprint, syndrome-admissible algebra) is definitional packaging rather than new physical entities.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption C is a unitary fusion category (finite semisimple rigid C*-tensor category with simple unit).
    Stated at the opening of §3.1; all footprint projectors and the vacuum-scalar criterion rely on it.
  • domain assumption Syndrome-admissibility: no-error measurement reveals no logical information and chosen error representatives are footprint-resolved (Definition 3.6).
    Necessary for the measure-then-recover factorization of Theorem 3.12; not automatic for arbitrary local charge measurements.
  • ad hoc to paper Peierls hypotheses (P1)–(P3): bounded connected-region growth, local neutralizability of small residuals, componentwise decoder balance (Definition 8.5).
    Required for Theorem 8.6; the paper explicitly notes they must be verified per architecture and do not follow from the categorical core alone.
  • standard math Contractible-vacuum locality: closed neutral composites in a puncture-free disk evaluate in End_C(1) ≅ ℂ (Proposition 4.1).
    Standard TQFT gluing/locality; used as a sufficient criterion for scalar action (Proposition 3.15).
invented entities (2)
  • Footprint (and footprint projector / footprint algebra) independent evidence
    purpose: Intermediate local boundary datum left by an error history, measured to produce a syndrome when admissible.
    Definitional packaging of total-charge sectors already present in fusion spaces; no new physical object is postulated.
  • Syndrome-admissible footprint algebra independent evidence
    purpose: Commuting measurement algebra that does not reveal logical information and resolves chosen errors into sectors.
    Operational restriction on which footprint measurements may be used as QEC syndromes; again definitional rather than a new particle or force.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A diagrammatic field theory of quantum error correction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5KFKUCBY

@misc{pith2026260708911,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A diagrammatic field theory of quantum error correction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5KFKUCBY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08911}
}
abstract

We develop a field-theoretic framework for quantum error correction centred on fusion-space codes in unitary fusion categories. Admissible clusters determine total-charge sectors and orthogonal footprint projectors recording locally visible data left by error histories. The central distinction is between diagnostic footprint algebras and syndrome-admissible commuting algebras: the latter can be measured without revealing logical information and resolve chosen error representatives into measured sectors. For such algebras, exact correctability is equivalent to fibrewise Knill--Laflamme conditions, yielding a measure-then-recover factorization. Under a contractible-vacuum locality hypothesis, closed neutral composites give a categorical sufficient criterion for scalar action on the code. In the Ising theory, four $\sigma$ punctures show that pair-charge footprints can be complementary logical diagnostics and realize an exact one-qubit Clifford shadow. A proper six-$\sigma$ code instead admits a syndrome-admissible pair-charge measurement and exact recovery from an explicit Majorana bilinear error. A second bilinear has the same measured footprint but differs by a logical bit flip, producing a concrete nontrivial footprint fibre and genuine decoding ambiguity. We also formulate conformal-block likelihood data and compute geometry-dependent Ising four-point weights. For growing code families, we prove a conditional Peierls-type threshold theorem: bounded connected-region growth, local stochastic noise, local neutralizability of small residual components, and componentwise decoder balance imply $\Pr_L(\mathrm{fail})\le C|\Omega_L|e^{-cL}$ below a nonzero constant error rate. We conclude with representation-theoretic and algebro-geometric directions involving tube and Hopf algebras, Yangian-type structures, Higgs bundles, spectral curves, Jacobians, and abelian varieties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08911 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The compatibility triangle desired of a model-dependent stabilizer lift. If a lift ι is specified for an appropriate ZX fragment, one asks that direct stabilizer evaluation agree with evaluation after passage to the defect/string-net calculus. The figure records the target compatibility condition for a specified lift ι. A second useful picture is supplied by the spiders themselves [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Basic colored spider diagrams in the ZX-calculus. Left: a green spider encoding a Z-type merge/split structure. Middle: a red spider encoding the complementary X-type structure. Right: the spider-fusion rewrite for like￾colored spiders, shown in the green case. In the present article these spiders serve as stabilizer shadows of more general topological and conformal operations. ZX shadow ⇝ pair-of-pants cobordism α … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A schematic field-theoretic lift of ZX spiders. Left: a green spider is interpreted as the stabilizer shadow of a pair-of-pants cobordism or fusion vertex. Right: a red spider is interpreted as the shadow of a complementary defect-junction or condensable-boundary operation. The lift is not unique; it is model-dependent and encodes the idea that familiar ZX generators arise from more geometric and categorical operati… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The four-σ Ising conformal-block qubit. Four σ-punctures with total vacuum charge support a two-dimensional fusion space. In the displayed fusion basis, |0L⟩ and |1L⟩ are distinguished by whether the pairs (1, 2) and (3, 4) fuse through the vacuum channel 1 or the ferm…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A stabilizer-shadow circuit for complementary footprint measure￾ments in the four-σ Ising code. The upper ancilla extracts the local fusion footprint of the pair (1, 2) by phase-kickback from the logical observable Z (12) f . As drawn, an optional braid gate B2 is inse…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: summarizes the geometry used below. The measured pair is (5, 6); the bilinear T = iγ4γ5 is local on the linear arrangement, whereas E′ = iγ1γ6 connects the two ends and produces the same measured footprint. σ1 σ2 σ3 σ4 σ5 σ6 measured pair (5, 6) Z3 = +1 on C6 T = iγ4γ5…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Knill and R

    E. Knill and R. Laflamme,Theory of quantum error-correcting codes, Phys. Rev. A55(1997), 900–911; arXiv:quant-ph/9604034, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.55.900

    arXiv doi:10.1103/physreva.55.900 1997

  2. [2]

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

    D. Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology, 1997; arXiv:quant-ph/9705052

    arXiv 1997

  3. [3]

    A. R. Calderbank and P. W. Shor,Good quantum error-correcting codes exist, Phys. Rev. A54(1996), 1098–1105; arXiv:quant-ph/9512032, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.54.1098

    arXiv doi:10.1103/physreva.54.1098 1996

  4. [4]

    A. M. Steane,Error correcting codes in quantum theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.77(1996), 793–797; doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.793

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.77.793 1996

  5. [5]

    Kribs, R

    D. Kribs, R. Laflamme, and D. Poulin,A unified and generalized approach to quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. Lett.94(2005), 180501; arXiv:quant-ph/0412076, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.180501

    arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.94.180501 2005

  6. [6]

    Information preserving structures: A general framework for quantum zero-error information

    R. Blume-Kohout, H. K. Ng, D. Poulin, and L. Viola,Information preserving structures: A gen- eral framework for quantum zero-error information, Phys. Rev. A82(2010), 062306; arXiv:1006.1358, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.82.062306

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1103/physreva.82.062306 2010

  7. [7]

    Bravyi, B

    S. Bravyi, B. Leemhuis, and B. M. Terhal,Majorana fermion codes, New J. Phys.12(2010), 083039; arXiv:1004.3791, doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/8/083039

    arXiv doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/8/083039 2010

  8. [8]

    Plasma Analogy and Non-Abelian Statistics for Ising-type Quantum Hall States

    P. Bonderson, V. Gurarie, and C. Nayak,Plasma analogy and non-Abelian statistics for Ising-type quantum Hall states, Phys. Rev. B83(2011), 075303; arXiv:1008.5194, doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.83.075303

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevb.83.075303 2011

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Gottesman,Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant overhead, Quantum Inf

    D. Gottesman,Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant overhead, Quantum Inf. Comput.14 (2014), 1338–1371; arXiv:1310.2984, doi:10.26421/QIC14.15-16-5. A DIAGRAMMATIC FIELD THEORY OF QUANTUM ERROR CORRECTION 67

    2014 doi arXiv

  2. [11]

    P.-J. H. S. Derks, A. Townsend-Teague, A. G. Burchards, and J. Eisert,Designing fault-tolerant circuits using detector error models, arXiv:2407.13826 (2024)

    2024

  3. [12]

    N. P. Breuckmann and B. M. Terhal,Constructions and noise threshold of hyperbolic surface codes, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory62(2016), 3731–3744; arXiv:1506.04029, doi:10.1109/TIT.2016.2555700

    2016 doi arXiv

  4. [13]

    Guth and A

    L. Guth and A. Lubotzky,Quantum error-correcting codes and 4-dimensional arithmetic hyperbolic manifolds, J. Math. Phys.55(2014), 082202; arXiv:1310.5555, doi:10.1063/1.4891487

    2014 doi arXiv

  5. [14]

    T. D. Ellison, Y.-A. Chen, A. Dua, W. Shirley, N. Tantivasadakarn, and D. J. Williamson,Pauli topological subsystem codes from Abelian anyon theories, Quantum7(2023), 1137; arXiv:2211.03798, doi:10.22331/q- 2023-10-12-1137

    2023 doi arXiv

  6. [15]

    Bonderson, K

    P. Bonderson, K. Shtengel, and J. K. Slingerland,Interferometry of non-Abelian anyons, Ann. Phys.323 (2008), 2709–2755; arXiv:0707.4206, doi:10.1016/j.aop.2008.01.012

    2008 doi arXiv

  7. [16]

    M. B. Hastings and J. Haah,Dynamically generated logical qubits, Quantum5(2021), 564; arXiv:2107.02194, doi:10.22331/q-2021-10-19-564

    2021 doi arXiv

  8. [17]

    A. J. Ferris and D. Poulin,Tensor networks and quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014), 030501; arXiv:1312.4578, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.030501

    2014 doi arXiv

  9. [18]

    Bravyi, M

    S. Bravyi, M. Suchara, and A. Vargo,Efficient algorithms for maximum likelihood decoding in the surface code, Phys. Rev. A90(2014), 032326; arXiv:1405.4883, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.90.032326

    2014 doi arXiv

  10. [19]

    Bonderson, M

    P. Bonderson, M. Freedman, and C. Nayak,Measurement-only topological quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett.101(2008), 010501; arXiv:0802.0279, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.010501

    2008 doi arXiv

  11. [20]

    Nayak, S

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma,Non-Abelian anyons and topological quantum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys.80(2008), 1083–1159; arXiv:0707.1889, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.80.1083

    2008 doi arXiv

  12. [21]

    Burton, C

    S. Burton, C. G. Brell, and S. T. Flammia,Classical simulation of quantum error correction in a Fibonacci anyon code, Phys. Rev. A95(2017), 022309; arXiv:1506.03815, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.95.022309

    2017 doi arXiv

  13. [22]

    J. R. Wootton and A. Hutter,Active error correction for Abelian and non-Abelian anyons, Phys. Rev. A93 (2016), 022318; arXiv:1506.00524, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.93.022318

    2016 doi arXiv

  14. [23]

    Dauphinais and D

    G. Dauphinais and D. Poulin,Fault-tolerant quantum error correction for non-Abelian anyons, Comm. Math. Phys.355(2017), 519–560; arXiv:1607.02159, doi:10.1007/s00220-017-2923-9

    2017 doi arXiv

  15. [24]

    Lyons and B

    A. Lyons and B. J. Brown,Quantum computing with anyons is fault tolerant, arXiv:2602.11258, 2026

    2026

  16. [25]

    A. Yu. Kitaev,Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Ann. Phys.303(2003), 2–30; arXiv:quant- ph/9707021, doi:10.1016/S0003-4916(02)00018-0

    2003 doi

  17. [26]

    Kitaev,Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond, Ann

    A. Kitaev,Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond, Ann. Phys.321(2006), 2–111; arXiv:cond- mat/0506438, doi:10.1016/j.aop.2005.10.005

    2006 doi

  18. [27]

    Dennis, A

    E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill,Topological quantum memory, J. Math. Phys.43(2002), 4452–4505; arXiv:quant-ph/0110143, doi:10.1063/1.1499754

    2002 doi arXiv

  19. [28]

    Aharonov and M

    D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or,Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error rate, SIAM J. Comput. 38(2008), 1207–1282; arXiv:quant-ph/9906129, doi:10.1137/S0097539799359385

    2008 doi arXiv

  20. [29]

    Bravyi and B

    S. Bravyi and B. Terhal,A no-go theorem for a two-dimensional self-correcting quantum memory based on stabilizer codes, New J. Phys.11(2009), 043029; arXiv:0810.1983, doi:10.1088/1367-2630/11/4/043029

    2009 doi arXiv

  21. [30]

    M. A. Levin and X.-G. Wen,String-net condensation: A physical mechanism for topological phases, Phys. Rev. B71(2005), 045110; arXiv:cond-mat/0404617, doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.71.045110

    2005 doi arXiv

  22. [31]

    Koenig, G

    R. Koenig, G. Kuperberg, and B. W. Reichardt,Quantum computation with Turaev–Viro codes, Ann. Phys. 325(2010), 2707–2749; arXiv:1002.2816, doi:10.1016/j.aop.2010.08.001

    2010 doi arXiv

  23. [32]

    Schotte, G

    A. Schotte, G. Zhu, L. Burgelman, and F. Verstraete,Quantum error correction thresholds for the universal Fibonacci Turaev–Viro code, Phys. Rev. X12(2022), 021012; arXiv:2012.04610, doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.12.021012

    2022 doi arXiv

  24. [33]

    M. S. Kesselring, J. C. Magdalena de la Fuente, F. Thomsen, J. Eisert, S. D. Bartlett, and B. J. Brown,Anyon condensation and the color code, PRX Quantum5(2024), 010342; arXiv:2212.00042, doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.010342

    2024 doi arXiv

  25. [34]

    Pastawski, B

    F. Pastawski, B. Yoshida, D. Harlow, and J. Preskill,Holographic quantum error-correcting codes: Toy models for the bulk/boundary correspondence, JHEP2015(2015), 149; arXiv:1503.06237, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2015)149

    2015 doi arXiv

  26. [35]

    Backens,The ZX-calculus is complete for stabilizer quantum mechanics, New J

    M. Backens,The ZX-calculus is complete for stabilizer quantum mechanics, New J. Phys.16(2014), 093021; arXiv:1307.7025, doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/9/093021. 68 STEVEN RAYAN

    2014 doi arXiv

  27. [36]

    Coecke and A

    B. Coecke and A. Kissinger,Picturing Quantum Processes: A First Course in Quantum Theory and Diagrammatic Reasoning, Cambridge University Press, 2017

    2017

  28. [37]

    de Beaudrap and D

    N. de Beaudrap and D. Horsman,The ZX calculus is a language for surface code lattice surgery, Quantum4 (2020), 218; arXiv:1704.08670, doi:10.22331/q-2020-01-09-218

    2020 doi arXiv

  29. [38]

    Chancellor, A

    N. Chancellor, A. Kissinger, J. Roffe, S. Zohren, and D. Horsman,Graphical structures for design and verification of quantum error correction, Quantum Sci. Technol.8(2023), 045028; arXiv:1611.08012, doi:10.1088/2058-9565/acf157

    2023 doi arXiv

  30. [39]

    Bombin, D

    H. Bombin, D. Litinski, N. Nickerson, F. Pastawski, and S. Roberts,Unifying flavors of fault tolerance with the ZX calculus, Quantum8(2024), 1379; arXiv:2303.08829, doi:10.22331/q-2024-06-18-1379

    2024 doi arXiv

  31. [40]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill,Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Phys. Rev. A64(2001), 012310; arXiv:quant-ph/0008040, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.64.012310

    2001 doi arXiv

  32. [41]

    Raussendorf, J

    R. Raussendorf, J. Harrington, and K. Goyal,Topological fault-tolerance in cluster state quantum computation, New J. Phys.9(2007), 199; arXiv:quant-ph/0703143, doi:10.1088/1367-2630/9/6/199

    2007 doi arXiv

  33. [42]

    Newman, L

    M. Newman, L. A. de Castro, and K. R. Brown,Generating fault-tolerant cluster states from crystal structures, Quantum4(2020), 295; arXiv:1909.11817, doi:10.22331/q-2020-07-13-295

    2020 doi arXiv

  34. [43]

    Moore and N

    G. Moore and N. Read,Nonabelions in the fractional quantum Hall effect, Nucl. Phys. B360(1991), 362–396; doi:10.1016/0550-3213(91)90407-O

    1991 doi

  35. [44]

    Read and G

    N. Read and G. Moore,Fractional quantum Hall effect and nonabelian statistics, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 107(1992), 157–166; arXiv:hep-th/9202001, doi:10.1143/PTPS.107.157

    1992 doi arXiv

  36. [45]

    V. G. Knizhnik and A. B. Zamolodchikov,Current algebra and Wess–Zumino model in two dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B247(1984), 83–103; doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90374-2

    1984 doi

  37. [46]

    Tsuchiya, K

    A. Tsuchiya, K. Ueno, and Y. Yamada,Conformal field theory on universal family of stable curves with gauge symmetries, Adv. Stud. Pure Math.19(1989), 459–566; doi:10.2969/aspm/01910459

    1989 doi

  38. [47]

    Beauville and Y

    A. Beauville and Y. Laszlo,Conformal blocks and generalized theta functions, Comm. Math. Phys.164 (1994), 385–419; arXiv:alg-geom/9309003

    1994 arXiv

  39. [48]

    V. G. Turaev and O. Y. Viro,State sum invariants of 3-manifolds and quantum 6j-symbols, Topology31 (1992), 865–902; doi:10.1016/0040-9383(92)90015-A

    1992 doi

  40. [49]

    Reshetikhin and V

    N. Reshetikhin and V. G. Turaev,Invariants of 3-manifolds via link polynomials and quantum groups, Invent. Math.103(1991), 547–597; doi:10.1007/BF01239527

    1991 doi

  41. [50]

    V. G. Turaev,Quantum Invariants of Knots and 3-Manifolds, De Gruyter Studies in Mathematics, vol. 18, Walter de Gruyter, 1994

    1994

  42. [51]

    Bakalov and A

    B. Bakalov and A. Kirillov Jr.,Lectures on Tensor Categories and Modular Functors, University Lecture Series, vol. 21, American Mathematical Society, 2001

    2001

  43. [52]

    Müger,From subfactors to categories and topology II: The quantum double of tensor categories and subfac- tors, J

    M. Müger,From subfactors to categories and topology II: The quantum double of tensor categories and subfac- tors, J. Pure Appl. Algebra180(2003), 159–219; arXiv:math/0111205, doi:10.1016/S0022-4049(02)00248-7

    2003 doi arXiv

  44. [53]

    V. G. Drinfeld,Hopf algebras and the quantum Yang–Baxter equation, Soviet Math. Dokl.32(1985), no. 1, 254–258

    1985

  45. [54]

    V. G. Drinfeld,Quantum groups, inProceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Berkeley, 1986, vol. 1, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1987, pp. 798–820

    1986

  46. [55]

    Jimbo,A q-difference analogue ofU(g)and the Yang–Baxter equation, Lett

    M. Jimbo,A q-difference analogue ofU(g)and the Yang–Baxter equation, Lett. Math. Phys.10(1985), 63–69; doi:10.1007/BF00704588

    1985 doi

  47. [56]

    Chari and A

    V. Chari and A. Pressley,A Guide to Quantum Groups, Cambridge University Press, 1994

    1994

  48. [57]

    Molev,Yangians and Classical Lie Algebras, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol

    A. Molev,Yangians and Classical Lie Algebras, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 143, American Mathematical Society, 2007

    2007

  49. [58]

    Maulik and A

    D. Maulik and A. Okounkov,Quantum groups and quantum cohomology, Astérisque No.408(2019), ix+209 pp.; arXiv:1211.1287, doi:10.24033/ast.1074

    2019 doi arXiv

  50. [59]

    Tsymbaliuk,The affine Yangian of gl1 revisited, Adv

    A. Tsymbaliuk,The affine Yangian of gl1 revisited, Adv. Math.304(2017), 583–645; arXiv:1404.5240, doi:10.1016/j.aim.2016.08.041

    2017 doi arXiv

  51. [60]

    Kassel,Quantum Groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol

    C. Kassel,Quantum Groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 155, Springer, 1995; doi:10.1007/978-1- 4612-0783-2

    1995 doi

  52. [61]

    Boalch,Symplectic manifolds and isomonodromic deformations, Adv

    P. Boalch,Symplectic manifolds and isomonodromic deformations, Adv. Math.163(2001), 137–205; doi:10.1006/aima.2001.1998

    2001 doi

  53. [62]

    N. J. Hitchin,Stable bundles and integrable systems, Duke Math. J.54(1987), 91–114; doi:10.1215/S0012- 7094-87-05408-1

    1987 doi

  54. [63]

    Beauville, M

    A. Beauville, M. S. Narasimhan, and S. Ramanan,Spectral curves and the generalised theta divisor, J. Reine Angew. Math.398(1989), 169–179; doi:10.1515/crll.1989.398.169. A DIAGRAMMATIC FIELD THEORY OF QUANTUM ERROR CORRECTION 69

    1989 doi

  55. [64]

    C. T. Simpson,Higgs bundles and local systems, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Etudes Sci.75(1992), 5–95; doi:10.1007/BF02699491

    1992 doi

  56. [65]

    Rayan,Co-Higgs bundles onP 1, New York J

    S. Rayan,Co-Higgs bundles onP 1, New York J. Math.19(2013), 925–945; arXiv:1010.2526

    2013 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Rayan and E

    S. Rayan and E. Sundbo,Twisted argyle quivers and Higgs bundles, Bull. Sci. Math.146(2018), 1–32; arXiv:1803.04531, doi:10.1016/j.bulsci.2018.03.003

    2018 doi arXiv

  58. [67]

    Rayan,Aspects of the topology and combinatorics of Higgs bundle moduli spaces, SIGMA14(2018), Paper No

    S. Rayan,Aspects of the topology and combinatorics of Higgs bundle moduli spaces, SIGMA14(2018), Paper No. 129, 18 pp.; arXiv:1809.05732, doi:10.3842/SIGMA.2018.129

    2018 doi arXiv

  59. [68]

    Mayrand and B

    M. Mayrand and B. Royer,Complex abelian varieties and quantum error correction: a mathematical framework for GKP codes, arXiv:2605.28784, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Azam and S

    M. Azam and S. Rayan,TQFTs and quantum computing, Bull. Sci. Math.194(2024), 103454; arXiv:2210.03556, doi:10.1016/j.bulsci.2024.103454

    2024 doi arXiv

  61. [70]

    A. A. Mahmoud, K. M. Ali, and S. Rayan,Systematic approach to hyperbolic quantum error correction codes, Phys. Rev. A113(2026), 042426; arXiv:2504.07800, doi:10.1103/95mp-w7kr

    2026 doi arXiv

  62. [71]

    A. A. Mahmoud, G. Tournaire, S. Bachmann, and S. Rayan,Hyperbolic cluster states for fault-tolerant measurement-based quantum computing, arXiv:2603.27004, 2026

    2026

  63. [72]

    Ocneanu,Chirality for operator algebras, inSubfactors (Kyuzeso, 1993), H

    A. Ocneanu,Chirality for operator algebras, inSubfactors (Kyuzeso, 1993), H. Araki, Y. Kawahigashi, and H. Kosaki (eds.), World Scientific, 1994, pp. 39–63

    1993

  64. [73]

    Kitaev and L

    A. Kitaev and L. Kong,Models for gapped boundaries and domain walls, Comm. Math. Phys.313(2012), 351–373; arXiv:1104.5047, doi:10.1007/s00220-012-1500-5

    2012 doi arXiv

  65. [74]

    M. H. Freedman, M. J. Larsen, and Z. Wang,A modular functor which is universal for quantum computation, Comm. Math. Phys.227(2002), 605–622; arXiv:quant-ph/0001108, doi:10.1007/s002200200645

    2002 doi arXiv

  66. [75]

    Almheiri, X

    A. Almheiri, X. Dong, and D. Harlow,Bulk locality and quantum error correction in AdS/CFT, J. High Energy Phys.04(2015), 163; arXiv:1411.7041, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)163. Centre for Quantum Topology and Its Applications (quanTA) and Department of Mathematics and Statistics, U...

    2015 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 13, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.