Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Efficient construction of fault-tolerant neutral-atom cluster states

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single high-finesse optical cavity could build fault-tolerant cluster states from neutral atoms, with loss and Pauli errors an order of magnitude below threshold.

desk verdict The redistribution strategy is a real contribution, but the claimed 10x error margin fails on the paper's own Eq. (3) when the listed 4ε_G term is included. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20009 v1 pith:BBXDJ3I4 submitted 2025-07-26 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Luke M. Stewart , Gefen Baranes , Joshua Ramette , Josiah Sinclair , Vladan Vuletić This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph MSC 81P6881P40 PACS 03.67.Lx42.50.Pq03.67.Pp
keywords measurement-basedquantumcomputationclusterstatesneutralatomsopticalcavitycounterfactualcarvingheraldedentanglinggatesRaussendorf-Harrington-Goyallatticeerrorcorrection
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 argues that a single high-finesse optical cavity, the kind already demonstrated in laboratories, can serve as both a factory for large entangled resource states and a connector that merges them into a three-dimensional cluster state suitable for fault-tolerant measurement-based quantum computation. The proposed protocol uses counterfactual carving to prepare star-shaped multipartite entangled states in one step, then a heralded cavity-mediated gate to join leaves of neighboring stars, with a redistribution strategy that reassigns unused leaves to whichever bond needs them. Under the paper's error model, a cavity cooperativity of 160 and 15-atom resource states would put both qubit loss and Pauli errors an order of magnitude below their respective thresholds. If correct, this means near-term cavity technology would be enough to make neutral-atom measurement-based error correction practical, avoiding the overhead that has made earlier probabilistic-gate proposals unattractive.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the star-graph resource state and the heralded merging gate. A star graph is a central qubit connected by C-phase entangling operations to leaf qubits; the leaves supply redundancy so that failed gate attempts do not break bonds. Counterfactual carving prepares the star in a single step by using a dispersively coupled cavity to suppress odd Dicke levels of an initially coherent spin state, with the source atom's final state heralding success or failure. The merging operation is a cavity-mediated heralded C-phase gate with success probability $1 - 6/\sqrt{C}$ and high post-selected fidelity. The redistribution strategy, in which a leaf is not preassigned to a bond direction, is what makes the resource overhead low enough to reach the claimed parameter regime.

What would settle it

Measure the full per-qubit error budget of the assembled protocol: prepare 15-atom resource states in a cavity with cooperativity near 160, merge them into a distance-10 RHG lattice, and compare the achieved loss fraction and Pauli error rate with $1.45\%$ and $0.067\%$. If the observed $\varepsilon_N$ exceeds about $4\times 10^{-5}$, or if the edge-failure fraction departs from the predicted $6/\sqrt{C}$ scaling, the claimed ten-fold margin disappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a cavity-mediated, heralded construction of an RHG cluster state can be made fault-tolerant with currently feasible hardware. Counterfactual carving produces a GHZ state of $N$ atoms with post-selected infidelity $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{CF}} \sim \exp(-(8/\pi^2)C/N)$, exponentially suppressed in the ratio of single-atom cooperativity $C$ to resource size $N$. Those GHZ states, once locally rotated, are star-graph resource states; their leaf qubits are merged by a heralded cavity-assisted C-phase gate whose failure probability is $6/\sqrt{C}$. The paper's Monte Carlo and analytic comparisons show that a 'redistribution' merge strategy, where any leaf may be used for any bond, lowers the required cooperativity and resource size substantially relative to a fixed-direction 'partitioning' strategy. At $C=160$, $N=15$, and a non-carving infidelity of $\varepsilon_N = 3\times 10^{-5}$ per qubit, the simulated distance-10 lattice has edge failure rate and physical Pauli error rate both around one order of magnitude below their respective thresholds of 14.5% and 0.67%.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the per-qubit non-carving infidelity can actually be held at $\varepsilon_N = 3\times 10^{-5}$ when all steps—carving, transport, measurement, and gate operation—run together; the paper treats this value as an input parameter rather than a measured quantity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $C=160$ and $N=15$ are realized, a distance-10 RHG cluster state can be built with edge failure rate about $1.45\%$, ten times below the 14.5% entanglement-failure threshold.
  • If non-carving errors are kept at or below $3\times 10^{-5}$ per qubit, physical Pauli errors remain below $0.067\%$, ten times below the Pauli-error threshold for the RHG geometry.
  • The redistribution merge strategy is essential: with partitioning, achieving the same edge-failure suppression requires much larger resource states, moving outside practical experimental limits.
  • Since non-carving infidelity below about $4\times 10^{-5}$ yields little further relaxation in required cooperativity, the protocol is robust to measurement and decoherence imperfections at currently demonstrated levels.
  • The same physical cavity serves both resource-state generation and merging, so the architecture avoids a separate entangling-gate layer and its associated overhead.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct experimental milestone would be to prepare a 15-atom GHZ state by counterfactual carving in a cavity with cooperativity near 160 and verify the claimed exponential fidelity scaling; this would test the core assumption without building the full cluster.
  • Because the protocol converts failed gate attempts into loss events that remain far below the adaptive-loss threshold, it may combine naturally with erasure-conversion techniques used elsewhere in neutral-atom quantum error correction, potentially improving effective logical thresholds.
  • The reliance on one cavity as a shared resource suggests a modular architecture in which a single cavity sequentially serves many lattice sites, making the per-qubit cavity cost negligible in large arrays; the paper does not analyze that multiplexing trade-off.
  • If the heralded gate success probability can be improved beyond the assumed $6/\sqrt{C}$ scaling, the same construction would tolerate smaller resource states or lower cooperativity, giving a quantitative target for gate-engineering efforts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a neutral-atom measurement-based quantum computing architecture in which star-shaped resource states are generated in a single step by counterfactual carving in an optical cavity, and are then merged into a three-dimensional Raussendorf-Harrington-Goyal cluster state using a heralded cavity-mediated C-phase gate. The authors analyze two merging strategies, partitioning and redistribution, by analytic formula and Monte Carlo simulation, respectively, and explore the (cavity cooperativity, resource-state size) parameter space. The central claim is that for a per-qubit non-carving infidelity of 3e-5, a cooperativity of 160, and 15-atom resource states, the resulting cluster state has edge-failure and Pauli-error rates one order of magnitude below the respective thresholds, thereby providing a low-overhead route to fault-tolerant neutral-atom MBQC.

Significance. If the central claim is established, this is a significant proposal: it would show that a single high-finesse optical cavity can both generate high-fidelity multipartite resource states and perform the heralded entangling gates needed to assemble a fault-tolerant cluster state, with resource overheads competitive with or better than previously analyzed probabilistic-gate approaches. The paper has several concrete strengths: the partitioning formula in Eq. (2) is transparent and checkable; the Monte Carlo treatment of redistribution goes beyond a purely analytic estimate; and the parametric curves in Figs. 3 and 4 make the trade-offs explicit. The proposed operating point is tied to specific experimental capabilities (cooperativity >100, cavity readout, coherent transport), so the proposal is actionable by experimentalists. The analysis would be strengthened by a fully specified error budget and a combined-threshold simulation, but the central idea is credible and worth publishing in revised form.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (3) and Fig. 4] The claimed 10x margin at (C=160, N=15, ε_N=3e-5) is much thinner than the text implies. With C/N=10.67, the carving term in Eq. (3) is exp(-8/π^2 * 160/15) = 1.76e-4, and N ε_N = 4.5e-4, giving a total of 6.26e-4. This is only about 7% below the one-tenth-threshold target of 6.7e-4. The gate-error term 4ε_G in Eq. (3) is listed but never assigned a value in the operating-point discussion; if ε_G is of order 1e-4, as is typical for any imperfect two-qubit gate, the margin disappears. The authors must either include a concrete value of ε_G in the error budget, justify setting it to zero, or revise the claim to a parametric statement that shows how the factor-of-10 margin depends on ε_G.
  2. [Section IV and Fig. 3c] The value ε_N=3e-5 is an input parameter, not a demonstrated quantity, and the cited experimental support is incomplete. The text cites cavity-assisted measurement infidelity of 1e-3 from Ref. [44] and transport times below 1e-3 T2 as evidence that ε_N=3e-5 is realistic; however, inserting ε_M=1e-3 into the N(ε_M + t/τ + ...) term of Eq. (3) gives N ε_M = 1.5e-2 for N=15, which is approximately 20 times above the target Pauli-error rate of 6.7e-4. The paper does not explain how the full sequence of carving, transport, gate attempts, and measurement compresses the individual error rates to 3e-5. Moreover, Fig. 3c shows that the viable window closes when ε_N exceeds roughly 4e-5 for N=15, so the operating point is very close to the boundary of the region in which the claim holds. The authors should provide a bottom-up estimate of ε_N from the constituent operations, or weaken the central claim to a conditional one.
  3. [Section IV, thresholds in Figs. 3 and 4] The protocol requires that both the edge-failure rate and the Pauli-error rate are simultaneously an order of magnitude below their respective thresholds, but the two thresholds are taken from different references with different error models (Ref. [31] for Pauli errors and Ref. [33] for entanglement failures). The paper does not present a decoding or logical-error-rate simulation of the full RHG cluster state with both loss and Pauli errors present at the proposed operating point. Given the narrow margin identified above, the factor-of-10 claim is not fully established. A concrete test would be a Monte Carlo simulation of a distance-10 or larger RHG lattice with the error rates from Eq. (3), decoded with a matching or integer-programming decoder, to confirm that the logical failure rate is actually suppressed by the claimed factor.
  4. [Section III and Fig. 3b] The Monte Carlo results for the redistribution method are presented without error bars or trial counts. The level curves in Fig. 3b and the operating-point outlines in Fig. 4 derive from these simulations, and the factor-of-10 claim is sensitive to small shifts in the edge-failure rate. The authors should report the number of simulated lattice constructions per (C,N) point, the statistical uncertainty in the edge-failure fraction, and a reproducibility statement (for example, a public code repository).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (1)] The scaling of the carving infidelity in Eq. (1) is written as (1/Ps) - C/N, which appears to be a typo for an exponential form; the Appendix Eq. (4) gives εCF ~ exp(-8/π^2 C/N). Please align Eq. (1) with Eq. (4) and define Ps in the same place.
  2. [Section IV, Fig. 4 caption] The text and figure use both ε_N and ε_n for the non-carving infidelity; please choose one notation and use it consistently throughout.
  3. [Section IV, paragraph after Fig. 3d] The sentence 'Prior carving proposals with infidelities that scale as (C/N)-1 require inconveniently large cooperativities' is missing a comparison to the present exponential scaling; please make the improvement explicit.
  4. [Section IV, last paragraph] The phrase 'enabling unprecedented logical success rates' is not supported by a logical-error-rate simulation; please either add such a simulation or temper the wording.
  5. [Introduction, Refs. [44,45]] Ref. [44] is from 2010 and is described as a recent experimental demonstration; the wording should be adjusted, and more recent cavity-assisted readout demonstrations should be cited if available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is a conditional parameter-regime calculation based on external thresholds and an independent prior scaling law, not a fit or self-definition.

full rationale

The paper's headline performance claim (Section IV, Fig. 4) is a conditional parameter study. Equation (3) combines the counterfactual-carving infidelity exp(-8/pi^2 * C/N), taken from the authors' prior Ref. [35], with an assumed per-qubit non-carving error epsilon_N, and compares the result with externally established thresholds (0.67% Pauli-error threshold from Ref. [31]; 14.5% entanglement-failure threshold from Ref. [33]). The output is computed directly from these stated inputs rather than being the input itself: changing epsilon_N or C/N changes the resulting error rate, and the operating point (C=160, N=15, epsilon_N=3e-5) is selected, not fitted to data. The merging and redistribution simulations in Section III are independent numerical constructions of RHG cluster states and do not encode the target error rates by construction. The only same-author citation that is load-bearing is Ref. [35] for counterfactual carving, but that is a parameter-free scaling formula with stated assumptions (dispersive cavity limit, O(1) success probability) that does not include the present cluster-state threshold claim; per the review rules, such an externally falsifiable prior result counts as independent support and does not by itself constitute circularity. A legitimate concern, acknowledged implicitly by the presence of the epsilon_N and 4*epsilon_G terms in Eq. (3), is that the quoted factor-of-10 margin is sensitive to unvalidated input values (e.g., the 4*epsilon_G gate-error term is not assigned a value in the headline point), but that is an assumption-risk and correctness issue, not a circularity of the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proposal's feasibility rests on a small number of physical assumptions from prior literature (carving formula, gate success scaling, thresholds) plus a modeling assumption about error decomposition. No new entities are introduced. The operating point uses assumed experimental parameters (ε_N, C, N).

free parameters (3)
  • non-carving infidelity ε_N = 3e-5 (operating point); also 5.5e-5 and 1e-5 explored
    Per-qubit error rate from measurement, decoherence, and other sources assumed based on cited experimental demonstrations; central feasibility claim depends on this value being achievable.
  • cavity cooperativity C = 160 (operating point)
    Chosen design value within the scanned range 10-300, assumed achievable based on Ref [45].
  • resource state size N = 15 atoms (operating point)
    Chosen design value; the paper shows N=15 suffices when combined with C=160 and ε_N=3e-5.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Counterfactual carving infidelity scales as ε_CF ~ e^{-8/π^2 * C/N} for O(1) success probability (Eq. 4).
    Taken from Ref [35] (same research group), used in the error budget Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption Heralded cavity C-phase gate has failure probability 6/√C and arbitrarily high post-selected fidelity (Ref [32]).
    Used to compute edge-failure rates in Eqs. (2) and in the Monte Carlo.
  • domain assumption The RHG cluster-state thresholds apply: 14.5% entanglement-failure threshold (Ref [33]) and 0.67% Pauli error threshold (Ref [31]).
    The paper compares simulated edge-failure and Pauli error rates to these independent thresholds without re-simulating the full code.
  • ad hoc to paper Error model Eq. (3) decomposes the total error into carving, N-linear non-carving, and constant terms, with errors treated as independent.
    This modeling assumption is stated but not derived; it underpins the parameter-space analysis in Figs. 3 and 4.
  • domain assumption The adaptive approach for handling failed edges (measuring one qubit in Z) is valid for the constructed RHG state.
    Taken from Ref [33]; assumed to hold in the redistribution and partitioning strategies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient construction of fault-tolerant neutral-atom cluster states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BBXDJ3I4

@misc{pith2026250720009,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient construction of fault-tolerant neutral-atom cluster states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BBXDJ3I4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20009}
}
read the original abstract

Cluster states are a useful resource in quantum computation, and can be generated by applying entangling gates between next-neighbor qubits. Heralded entangling gates offer the advantage of high post-selected fidelity, and can be used to create cluster states at the expense of large space-time overheads. We propose a low-overhead protocol to generate and merge high-fidelity many-atom entangled states into a 3D cluster state that supports fault-tolerant universal logical operations. Our simulations indicate that a state-of-the-art high-finesse optical cavity is sufficient for constructing a scalable fault-tolerant cluster state with loss and Pauli errors remaining an order of magnitude below their respective thresholds. This protocol reduces the space-time resource requirements for cluster state construction, highlighting the measurement-based method as an alternative approach to achieving large-scale error-corrected quantum processing with neutral atoms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.20009 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. c,d illustrates the fundamental trade-off between the entanglement failure rate and the physical qubit error rate in constructing the RHG lattice. Although carving larger resource states lowers the chance of a failed edge, for fixed cooperativity the fidelity of the output resource state decreases with size (1). This introduces Pauli errors to the RHG lattice when the star graphs are merged to￾gether. Importantly, t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: explores the intersection between level curves of constant edge failure and physical qubit Pauli er￾rors to identify a target cooperativity and resource state size that enable sub-threshold performance while remain￾ing achievable in state-of-the-art experiments. Fig. 4…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Cavity layout ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [44]

    W. Chen, J. Hu, Y. Duan, B. Braverman, H. Zhang, and V. Vuleti´ c, Carving complex many-atom entangled states by single-photon detection, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250502 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [31]

    Raussendorf, J

    R. Raussendorf, J. Harrington, and K. Goyal, Topologi- cal fault-tolerance in cluster state quantum computation, New Journal of Physics 9, 199 (2007)

    work page 2007

  3. [33]

    J. M. Auger, H. Anwar, M. Gimeno-Segovia, T. M. Stace, and D. E. Browne, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with nondeterministic entangling gates, Phys. Rev. A97, 030301 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [1]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, K. H. Leung, X. Lv, and M. Endres, A tweezer array with 6100 highly coherent atomic qubits (2024), arXiv:2403.12021 [quant- ph]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [2]

    Bluvstein, H

    D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner, et al., A quantum processor based on coherent transport of entangled atom arrays, Nature 604, 451 (2022)

    2022

  6. [3]

    Jenkins, J

    A. Jenkins, J. W. Lis, A. Senoo, W. F. McGrew, and A. M. Kaufman, Ytterbium nuclear-spin qubits in an op- tical tweezer array, Phys. Rev. X 12, 021027 (2022)

    2022

  7. [4]

    S. Ma, G. Liu, P. Peng, B. Zhang, S. Jandura, J. Claes, A. P. Burgers, G. Pupillo, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, High-fidelity gates and mid-circuit erasure conversion in an atomic qubit, Nature 622, 279 (2023)

    2023

  8. [5]

    M. E. Beverland, P. Murali, M. Troyer, K. M. Svore, T. Hoefler, V. Kliuchnikov, G. H. Low, M. Soeken, A. Sundaram, and A. Vaschillo, Assessing require- ments to scale to practical quantum advantage (2022), arXiv:2211.07629 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 47 references
  1. [6]

    H. Zhou, C. Zhao, M. Cain, D. Bluvstein, C. Ducker- 7 ing, H.-Y. Hu, S.-T. Wang, A. Kubica, and M. D. Lukin, Algorithmic fault tolerance for fast quantum computing (2024), arXiv:2406.17653 [quant-ph]

    2024

  2. [7]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature 626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  3. [8]

    Singh, C

    K. Singh, C. E. Bradley, S. Anand, V. Ramesh, R. White, and H. Bernien, Mid-circuit correction of correlated phase errors using an array of spectator qubits, Science 380, 1265 (2023)

    2023

  4. [9]

    M. A. Norcia, W. B. Cairncross, K. Barnes, P. Battaglino, A. Brown, M. O. Brown, K. Cas- sella, C.-A. Chen, R. Coxe, D. Crow, et al., Midcircuit qubit measurement and rearrangement in a 171Yb atomic array, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041034 (2023)

    2023

  5. [10]

    J. W. Lis, A. Senoo, W. F. McGrew, F. R¨ onchen, A. Jenkins, and A. M. Kaufman, Midcircuit operations using the omg architecture in neutral atom arrays, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041035 (2023)

    2023

  6. [11]

    B. W. Reichardt, A. Paetznick, D. Aasen, I. Basov, J. M. Bello-Rivas, P. Bonderson, R. Chao, W. van Dam, M. B. Hastings, R. V. Mishmash, et al., Fault-tolerant quan- tum computation with a neutral atom processor (2025), arXiv:2411.11822 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  7. [12]

    M. N. H. Chow, V. Buchemmavari, S. Omanakuttan, B. J. Little, S. Pandey, I. H. Deutsch, and Y.-Y. Jau, Circuit-based leakage-to-erasure conversion in a neutral- atom quantum processor, PRX Quantum 5, 040343 (2024)

    2024

  8. [13]

    J. A. Muniz, D. Crow, H. Kim, J. M. Kindem, W. B. Cairncross, A. Ryou, T. C. Bohdanowicz, C. A. Chen, Y. Ji, A. M. W. Jones, et al., Repeated ancilla reuse for logical computation on a neutral atom quantum com- puter (2025), arXiv:2506.09936 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Zhang, G

    B. Zhang, G. Liu, G. Bornet, S. P. Horvath, P. Peng, S. Ma, S. Huang, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, Leverag- ing erasure errors in logical qubits with metastable 171Yb atoms (2025), arXiv:2506.13724 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [15]

    Baranes, M

    G. Baranes, M. Cain, J. P. B. Ataides, D. Bluvstein, J. Sinclair, V. Vuletic, H. Zhou, and M. D. Lukin, Lever- aging atom loss errors in fault tolerant quantum algo- rithms (2025), arXiv:2502.20558 [quant-ph]

    2025

  11. [16]

    Y. Li, Y. Bao, M. Peper, C. Li, and J. D. Thompson, Fast, continuous and coherent atom replacement in a neutral atom qubit array (2025), arXiv:2506.15633 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [17]

    N.-C. Chiu, E. C. Trapp, J. Guo, M. H. Abobeih, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, P. Stroganov, M. Kalinowski, A. A. Geim, S. J. Evered, et al., Continuous operation of a coherent 3,000-qubit system (2025), arXiv:2506.20660 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [18]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, S. J. Evered, J. P. B. Ataides, G. Baranes, A. Gu, T. Manovitz, M. Xu, M. Kalinowski, et al., Architectural mechanisms of a universal fault-tolerant quantum computer (2025), arXiv:2506.20661 [quant-ph]

    2025

  14. [19]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, Resilient quan- tum computation: error models and thresholds, Proc. Roy. Soc. 454, 365 (1998)

    1998

  15. [20]

    L. Luo, Z. Ma, D. Lin, and H. Wang, Fault-tolerance thresholds for code conversion schemes with quantum reed-muller codes, Quantum Science and Technology 5, 045022 (2020)

    2020

  16. [21]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 86, 032324 (2012)

    2012

  17. [22]

    A. M. Stephens, Fault-tolerant thresholds for quantum error correction with the surface code, Phys. Rev. A 89, 022321 (2014)

    2014

  18. [23]

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara, et al., High-fidelity parallel entangling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature 622, 268 (2023)

    2023

  19. [24]

    Finkelstein, R

    R. Finkelstein, R. B.-S. Tsai, X. Sun, P. Scholl, S. Di- rekci, T. Gefen, J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, and M. Endres, Universal quantum operations and ancilla-based read-out for tweezer clocks, Nature 634, 321 (2024)

    2024

  20. [25]

    J. A. Muniz, M. Stone, D. T. Stack, M. Jaffe, J. M. Kindem, L. Wadleigh, E. Zalys-Geller, X. Zhang, C.-A. Chen, M. A. Norcia, et al., High-fidelity universal gates in the 171Yb ground-state nuclear-spin qubit, PRX Quan- tum 6, 020334 (2025)

    2025

  21. [26]

    Raussendorf and H

    R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A one-way quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188 (2001)

    2001

  22. [27]

    Raussendorf, D

    R. Raussendorf, D. E. Browne, and H. J. Briegel, Measurement-based quantum computation on cluster states, Phys. Rev. A 68, 022312 (2003)

    2003

  23. [28]

    H. J. Briegel, D. E. Browne, W. D¨ ur, R. Raussendorf, and M. Van den Nest, Measurement-based quantum compu- tation, Nature Physics 5, 19 (2009)

    2009

  24. [29]

    E. S. Cooper, P. Kunkel, A. Periwal, and M. Schleier- Smith, Graph states of atomic ensembles engineered by photon-mediated entanglement, Nature Physics 20, 770 (2024)

    2024

  25. [30]

    Raussendorf and J

    R. Raussendorf and J. Harrington, Fault-tolerant quan- tum computation with high threshold in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 190504 (2007)

    2007

  26. [32]

    Borregaard, P

    J. Borregaard, P. K´ om´ ar, E. M. Kessler, A. S. Sørensen, and M. D. Lukin, Heralded quantum gates with inte- grated error detection in optical cavities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 110502 (2015)

    2015

  27. [34]

    Duan and R

    L.-M. Duan and R. Raussendorf, Efficient quantum com- putation with probabilistic quantum gates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 080503 (2005)

    2005

  28. [35]

    Ramette, J

    J. Ramette, J. Sinclair, Z. Li, and V. Vuleti´ c, Carving en- tangled multiparticle states with exponentially improved fidelity, Phys. Rev. A 111, 052426 (2025)

    2025

  29. [36]

    M. Hein, W. D¨ ur, J. Eisert, R. Raussendorf, M. V. den Nest, and H. J. Briegel, Entanglement in graph states and its applications (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0602096 [quant- ph]

    2006 arXiv

  30. [37]

    M. C. L¨ obl, S. Paesani, and A. S. Sørensen, Loss-tolerant architecture for quantum computing with quantum emit- ters, Quantum 8, 1302 (2024)

    2024

  31. [38]

    A. S. Sørensen and K. Mølmer, Measurement induced entanglement and quantum computation with atoms in optical cavities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 097905 (2003)

    2003

  32. [39]

    M. J. Kastoryano, F. Reiter, and A. S. Sørensen, Dis- sipative preparation of entanglement in optical cavities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 090502 (2011). 8

    2011

  33. [40]

    Welte, B

    S. Welte, B. Hacker, S. Daiss, S. Ritter, and G. Rempe, Photon-mediated quantum gate between two neutral atoms in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. X8, 011018 (2018)

    2018

  34. [41]

    Grinkemeyer, E

    B. Grinkemeyer, E. Guardado-Sanchez, I. Dimitrova, D. Shchepanovich, G. E. Mandopoulou, J. Borregaard, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Error-detected quantum operations with neutral atoms mediated by an optical cavity, Science 387, 1301 (2025)

    2025

  35. [42]

    non-carving

    with a code distance of 10, using both the redistribu- tion and partitioning methods to compare performance in terms of entanglement failure rates in the resulting clus- ter state. This quantity can be directly calculated for the partitioning method using Eq. (2). For the Mont...

  36. [43]

    Tzitrin, T

    I. Tzitrin, T. Matsuura, R. N. Alexander, G. Dauphi- nais, J. E. Bourassa, K. K. Sabapathy, N. C. Menicucci, and I. Dhand, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with static linear optics, PRX Quantum 2, 040353 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    R. Gehr, J. Volz, G. Dubois, T. Steinmetz, Y. Colombe, B. L. Lev, R. Long, J. Est` eve, and J. Reichel, Cavity- based single atom preparation and high-fidelity hyperfine state readout, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 203602 (2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    Colombe, T

    Y. Colombe, T. Steinmetz, G. Dubois, F. Linke, D. Hunger, and J. Reichel, Strong atom–field coupling for bose–einstein condensates in an optical cavity on a chip, Nature 450, 272 (2007)

    2007

  39. [47]

    Sahay, J

    K. Sahay, J. Jin, J. Claes, J. D. Thompson, and S. Puri, High-threshold codes for neutral-atom qubits with biased erasure errors, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041013 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.