pith. sign in

arxiv: 2505.00683 · v3 · pith:DVXRUMNDnew · submitted 2025-05-01 · 🪐 quant-ph · math-ph· math.MP

Quantum Circuit Overhead

Oskar S{\l}owik , Piotr Dulian , Adam Sawicki This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 16:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph math-phmath.MP
keywords quantum circuit overheadT gateClifford groupHurwitz groupfinite subgroupsuniversal gate setsquantum circuit efficiencyHaar-random gates
0
0 comments X

The pith

The T gate is a highly non-optimal choice for completing the Clifford gate set in terms of upper bounds on T-Quantum Circuit Overhead, even among order-8 gates.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper defines Quantum Circuit Overhead as a measure that compares the circuit length needed by a given finite universal gate set against the shortest circuits possible with any set of the same size. It extends this to T-Quantum Circuit Overhead to count only the expensive gates while folding cheap ones into an effective set. Numerical upper bounds computed for single-qubit sets drawn from finite subgroups and Haar-random distributions then show that adding the standard T gate to the Clifford group produces higher overhead than several other order-8 gates. The same bounds also locate the best completions for both the Clifford and Hurwitz groups. A sympathetic reader would care because shorter effective circuits could reduce the resources required for quantum algorithms once a gate set is fixed.

Core claim

By exhaustive search over finite subgroups and sampling over random sets, the upper bounds on T-QCO establish that the T gate is a highly non-optimal completion for the Clifford group among order-8 gates, and the work identifies the optimal order-8 completions for both the Clifford and Hurwitz groups.

What carries the argument

The Quantum Circuit Overhead (QCO) and T-Quantum Circuit Overhead (T-QCO), which quantify the ratio of a gate set's circuit length to the minimal length achievable by any set of equal cardinality, with T-QCO restricting the count to selected costly gates.

If this is right

  • Replacing the T gate with one of the identified optimal order-8 gates would reduce the counted cost of circuits that complete the Clifford set.
  • The Hurwitz group admits an optimal completion distinct from the Clifford case, allowing different finite subgroups to be paired with different single-qubit extensions.
  • Haar-random gate sets serve as a benchmark showing that some structured finite-subgroup completions approach the performance of unstructured random choices.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Hardware platforms that can implement any of the optimal order-8 gates natively might achieve lower overhead than those limited to the standard T gate without changing the underlying error model.
  • Protocols that rely on magic-state distillation could be re-examined to target the specific states corresponding to the optimal completions rather than the T gate.
  • The absence of matching lower bounds leaves open the possibility that further analytic work could tighten the optimality ranking beyond the current numerical evidence.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical upper bounds computed for T-QCO are tight enough to support direct comparisons of optimality among different order-8 gates.

What would settle it

A matching lower bound on T-QCO for the T gate that falls below the reported upper bounds for the identified optimal gates would overturn the comparative optimality claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00683 by Adam Sawicki, Oskar S{\l}owik, Piotr Dulian.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The histograms of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The histograms of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The histograms of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The histograms of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The probability density of the singular values of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The probability density of the singular values of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We introduce a measure for evaluating the efficiency of finite universal quantum gate sets $\mathcal{S}$, called the Quantum Circuit Overhead (QCO), and the related notion of $T$-Quantum Circuit Overhead ($T$-QCO). QCO compares the circuit length required by $\mathcal S$ with the best possible length among gate sets of the same size. The $T$-QCO adapts this idea to cost models in which only selected costly gates are counted, while cheap operations are absorbed into an effective gate set. We demonstrate the usefulness of the ($T$-)QCO by extensive numerical calculations of its upper bounds, providing insight into the efficiency of various choices of single-qubit $\mathcal{S}$, including Haar-random gate sets and the gate sets derived from finite subgroups, such as Clifford and Hurwitz groups. In particular, our results suggest that, in terms of the upper bounds on the $T$-QCO, the famous T gate is a highly non-optimal choice for the completion of the Clifford gate set, even among the gates of order 8. We identify the optimal choices of such completions for both finite subgroups.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces Quantum Circuit Overhead (QCO) and T-Quantum Circuit Overhead (T-QCO) measures for finite universal quantum gate sets. QCO compares circuit length to the best possible for same-size sets, while T-QCO focuses on counting costly gates. Through numerical upper bound computations for Haar-random gate sets and finite subgroups like Clifford and Hurwitz, the paper suggests the T gate is highly non-optimal for Clifford completion even among order-8 gates and identifies optimal choices for the subgroups.

Significance. If the reported upper bounds are close to the minimal overheads, this provides practical guidance on selecting efficient gates to complete Clifford sets, which is relevant for fault-tolerant quantum computing. The extensive numerical results for both random and structured gate sets are a strength, offering data-driven insights into gate set performance. However, the optimality claims would benefit from tighter bounds to be fully convincing.

major comments (1)
  1. Abstract: The central claim that the T gate is a 'highly non-optimal choice' for completing the Clifford gate set is supported only by upper bounds on T-QCO from numerical search. Without lower bounds, quantified tightness of these upper bounds, or convergence analysis for the Haar-random sampling, the ordering of upper bounds does not necessarily imply the ordering of true T-QCO values, undermining the comparative optimality statements.
minor comments (2)
  1. No details are provided on the number of samples used in the Haar-random gate set simulations or any statistical analysis of the upper bounds obtained.
  2. The manuscript would benefit from a table listing the specific T-QCO upper bound values for the T gate and the optimal gates identified for each finite subgroup.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive feedback. We address the major comment below, clarifying the evidential basis of our claims while preserving the numerical insights from our upper-bound computations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: The central claim that the T gate is a 'highly non-optimal choice' for completing the Clifford gate set is supported only by upper bounds on T-QCO from numerical search. Without lower bounds, quantified tightness of these upper bounds, or convergence analysis for the Haar-random sampling, the ordering of upper bounds does not necessarily imply the ordering of true T-QCO values, undermining the comparative optimality statements.

    Authors: We agree that the ordering of upper bounds obtained from numerical search does not rigorously establish the ordering of the true minimal T-QCO values, as a loose upper bound for one gate set could in principle exceed a tighter upper bound for another even if the underlying minima differ. Our original abstract used the phrasing 'suggest' and 'upper bounds on the T-QCO' to signal this limitation, but we acknowledge the need for greater explicitness. In the revised manuscript we have (i) replaced 'highly non-optimal' with 'leads to substantially higher overhead in our numerical upper bounds' in the abstract, (ii) added a dedicated paragraph in the discussion section explaining that all reported figures are upper bounds and that comparative statements are therefore suggestive rather than conclusive, and (iii) included convergence diagnostics for the Haar-random ensembles showing that the minimal upper bounds stabilize after a few thousand samples. These changes make the strength and limitations of the evidence transparent without altering the reported numerical results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: QCO/T-QCO defined by direct length comparison; upper bounds obtained by search/sampling without self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper defines QCO as the ratio of circuit length for S versus the minimal length over all same-cardinality gate sets, and T-QCO by restricting the count to costly gates while absorbing cheap ones. These are explicit, non-self-referential definitions. Upper bounds are produced by exhaustive enumeration inside finite subgroups and by sampling inside Haar-random sets; neither step fits a parameter to a subset and then renames the fit as a prediction, nor does any equation reduce to its own input by construction. No load-bearing self-citation, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggling appears in the derivation chain. The comparative optimality language is therefore grounded in independently computed numerical bounds rather than tautological re-labeling.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work introduces two new measures whose definitions rest on the existence of an optimal gate set of given size and on the ability to compute or bound circuit lengths; no new physical entities or ad-hoc constants are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Finite universal gate sets exist and circuit length is well-defined for any target unitary.
    Invoked in the definition of QCO as the comparison baseline.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5724 in / 1328 out tokens · 56769 ms · 2026-05-22T16:46:12.676980+00:00 · methodology

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

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A Haar-random setS with a fixed number of ele- ments (of infinite or fixed finite orderr),

    work page

  2. [2]

    In the second scenario, we compare such random ensem- bles with some “special” choices, e.g

    A setS composed of a finite group (such as Clifford or Hurwitz group) completed with a single Haar- random gate (of infinite or fixed finite order r), making the set universal. In the second scenario, we compare such random ensem- bles with some “special” choices, e.g. theP (π/4) gate in the case of the Clifford group, gaining insight into their efficienc...

    work page

  3. [3]

    frequency

    (see Appendix C for more detailed explaination). We say a finite gate setS is efficient ifδ(νS) = δopt(S) and refer to δopt(S) as the optimal value. Note that the op- timal value depends only on the number of gates|S|. The study of δ(νS) for generic S is a hard problem as δ(νS) can not be directly calculated. However, some properties of δ(νS) are known. F...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Haar-random gate sets withn elements of (finite or infinite) order r, denoted Sµ,n,r,

    work page

  5. [5]

    We analyze two choices of one-qubitC - the Clifford group C and the Hurwitz groupH

    gate sets derived from a finite subgroupC ⊂ U(2): (a) completed with a fixed gateT, denoted CT, (b) completed with a single Haar-random gate of (infinite or fixed finite) orderr, denoted Cµ,r, following the setting (15). We analyze two choices of one-qubitC - the Clifford group C and the Hurwitz groupH. For eachC, we con- struct a random ensemble of≈ 104 ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    8 Q0 1 2Haar random r = optimal Q0.0 0.2 0.4 r = 2 4 5 6 7 8 QT 0.0 0.2 0.4Hurwitz + gate 4 5 6 7 8 QT 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 FIG

    Computations for random gates also showed that the bestQT ≈ 4.1 for t = 500 is obtained for gates close toT12. 8 Q0 1 2Haar random r = optimal Q0.0 0.2 0.4 r = 2 4 5 6 7 8 QT 0.0 0.2 0.4Hurwitz + gate 4 5 6 7 8 QT 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 FIG. 6. The histograms of QT probability density for en- sembles of typeHµ,r (bottom) vs the histogram ofQ for the correspondin...

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computa- tion and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edi- tion (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    A. Y. Kitaev, A. H. Shen, and M. N. Vyalyi,Classical and Quantum Computation (AmericanMathematicalSo- ciety, USA, 2002)

    work page 2002

  9. [9]

    The Complexity of Quantum States and Transformations: From Quantum Money to Black Holes

    S. Aaronson, The complexity of quantum states and transformations: From quantum money to black holes (2016), arXiv:1607.05256 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [10]

    Y. Ge, W. Wenjie, C. Yuheng, P. Kaisen, L. Xudong, Z. Zixiang, W. Yuhan, W. Ruocheng, and Y. Junchi, Quantum circuit synthesis and compilation optimization: Overviewandprospects(2024),arXiv:2407.00736[quant- ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Häner, D

    T. Häner, D. S. Steiger, K. Svore, and M. Troyer, A software methodology for compiling quantum programs, Quantum Science and Technology3, 020501 (2018)

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Gheorghiu, J

    V. Gheorghiu, J. Huang, S. M. Li, M. Mosca, and P. Mukhopadhyay, Reducing the CNOT count for Clif- ford+T circuits on NISQ architectures, IEEE Transac- tions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems42, 1873–1884 (2023)

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    K. Noh, L. Jiang, and B. Fefferman, Efficient classical simulation of noisy random quantum circuits in one di- mension, Quantum4, 318 (2020)

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    Eastin and E

    B. Eastin and E. Knill, Restrictions on transversal en- coded quantum gate sets, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 110502 (2009)

    work page 2009

  16. [16]

    M. P. Woods and Á. M. Alhambra, Continuous groups of transversal gates for quantum error correcting codes from finite clock reference frames, Quantum4, 245 (2020)

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    Faist, S

    P. Faist, S. Nezami, V. V. Albert, G. Salton, F. Pastawski, P. Hayden, and J. Preskill, Continu- ous symmetries and approximate quantum error correc- tion, Physical Review X10, 10.1103/physrevx.10.041018 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.10.041018 2020

  18. [18]

    Quantum Error Correction and Fault-Tolerance

    D. Gottesman, Quantum error correction and fault- tolerance (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0507174 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  19. [19]

    Luo, M.-C

    Y.-H. Luo, M.-C. Chen, M. Erhard, H.-S. Zhong, D. Wu, H.-Y. Tang, Q. Zhao, X.-L. Wang, K. Fujii, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, K. Nemoto, W. J. Munro, C.-Y. Lu, A. Zeilinger, and J.-W. Pan, Quantum teleportation of physical qubits into logical code spaces, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118, e2026250118 (2021), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pna...

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2026250118 2021

  20. [20]

    Physical Review Letters 102(11), doi:10.1103/physrevlett.102.110502

    B. Eastin and E. Knill, Restrictions on transversal en- coded quantum gate sets, Physical Review Letters102, 10.1103/physrevlett.102.110502 (2009)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.102.110502 2009

  21. [21]

    M. E. Beverland, A. Kubica, and K. M. Svore, Cost of universality: A comparative study of the overhead of state distillation and code switching with color codes, PRX Quantum2, 020341 (2021)

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    V.Gheorghiu, M.Mosca,andP.Mukhopadhyay,T-count and T-depth of any multi-qubit unitary, npj Quantum Information 8, 10.1038/s41534-022-00651-y (2022)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-022-00651-y 2022

  23. [23]

    F. J. R. Ruiz, T. Laakkonen, J. Bausch, M. Ba- log, M. Barekatain, F. J. H. Heras, A. Novikov, N. Fitzpatrick, B. Romera-Paredes, J. van de Wetering, A. Fawzi, K. Meichanetzidis, and P. Kohli, Quantum cir- cuit optimization with AlphaTensor, Nature Machine In- telligence 7, 374 (2025)

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Gosset, V

    D. Gosset, V. Kliuchnikov, M. Mosca, and V. Russo, An algorithm for the T-count, Quantum Info. Comput.14, 1261–1276 (2014)

    work page 2014

  25. [25]

    Vandaele, Lower T-count with faster algorithms (2024), arXiv:2407.08695 [quant-ph]

    V. Vandaele, Lower T-count with faster algorithms (2024), arXiv:2407.08695 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    H. Zhou, C. Zhao, M. Cain, D. Bluvstein, C. Ducker- 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]

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    An Efficient Quantum Compiler that reduces $T$ count

    L. Heyfron and E. T. Campbell, An efficient quantum compiler that reducesT count (2018), arXiv:1712.01557 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    A. G. Fowler, A. M. Stephens, and P. Groszkowski, High- threshold universal quantum computation on the surface code, Physical Review A80, 10.1103/physreva.80.052312 (2009)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.80.052312 2009

  29. [29]

    Tokusumi, A

    T. Tokusumi, A. Matsumura, and Y. Nambu, Quantum circuit model of black hole evaporation, Classical and Quantum Gravity35, 235013 (2018)

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    M. P. Fisher, V. Khemani, A. Nahum, and S. Vijay, Random quantum circuits, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics14, 335–379 (2023)

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    P. W. Claeys, M. Henry, J. Vicary, and A. Lamacraft, Exact dynamics in dual-unitary quantum circuits with projective measurements, Physical Review Research 4, 10.1103/physrevresearch.4.043212 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.4.043212 2022

  32. [32]

    Hayden and J

    P. Hayden and J. Preskill, Black holes as mirrors: quan- tum information in random subsystems, Journal of High Energy Physics2007, 120–120 (2007)

    work page 2007

  33. [33]

    Oszmaniec, M

    M. Oszmaniec, M. Kotowski, M. Horodecki, and N. Hunter-Jones, Saturation and recurrence of quantum complexity in random local quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. X14, 041068 (2024)

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Sarnak, Letter to Scott Aaronson and Andy Pollington on the Solovay-Kitaev theorem (2015)

    P. Sarnak, Letter to Scott Aaronson and Andy Pollington on the Solovay-Kitaev theorem (2015)

    work page 2015

  35. [35]

    C. M. Dawson and M. A. Nielsen, The Solovay-Kitaev algorithm (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0505030 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  36. [36]

    Kuperberg, Breaking the cubic barrier in the Solovay- Kitaev algorithm (2023), arXiv:2306.13158 [quant-ph]

    G. Kuperberg, Breaking the cubic barrier in the Solovay- Kitaev algorithm (2023), arXiv:2306.13158 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Giurgica-Tiron, Efficient universal quantum compilation: An inverse-free Solovay-Kitaev al- gorithm (2021), arXiv:2112.02040 [quant-ph]

    A.Bouland and T. Giurgica-Tiron, Efficient universal quantum compilation: An inverse-free Solovay-Kitaev al- gorithm (2021), arXiv:2112.02040 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    A. W. Harrow, B. Recht, and I. L. Chuang, Efficient dis- crete approximations of quantum gates, Journal of Math- ematical Physics43, 4445–4451 (2002)

    work page 2002

  39. [39]

    Słowik and A

    O. Słowik and A. Sawicki, Calculable lower bounds on the efficiency of universal sets of quantum gates, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical56, 115304 (2023)

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    Dolgopyat, On mixing properties of compact group extensions of hyperbolic systems, Israel Journal of Math- ematics 130, 157 (2002)

    D. Dolgopyat, On mixing properties of compact group extensions of hyperbolic systems, Israel Journal of Math- ematics 130, 157 (2002)

    work page 2002

  41. [41]

    P. P. Varjú, Random walks in compact groups, Docu- menta Mathematica18, 1137 (2013)

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    Oszmaniec, A

    M. Oszmaniec, A. Sawicki, and M. Horodecki, Epsilon- nets, unitary designs, and random quantum circuits, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 68, 989 (2022). 10

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    Słowik, O

    O. Słowik, O. Reardon-Smith, and A. Sawicki, Funda- mental solutions of heat equation on unitary groups es- tablish an improved relation betweenϵ-nets and approx- imate unitaryt-designs (2025), arXiv:2503.08577 [quant- ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    S. J. Szarek, Metric entropy of homogeneous spaces, Ba- nach Center Publications43 (1998)

    work page 1998

  45. [45]

    Kesten, Symmetric random walks on groups, Trans- actions of the American Mathematical Society92, 336 (1959)

    H. Kesten, Symmetric random walks on groups, Trans- actions of the American Mathematical Society92, 336 (1959)

    work page 1959

  46. [46]

    Bourgain and A

    J. Bourgain and A. Gamburd, On the spectral gap for finitely-generated subgroups ofSU(2), Inventiones math- ematicae 171, 83 (2007)

    work page 2007

  47. [47]

    A Spectral Gap Theorem in $SU(d)$

    J. Bourgain and A. Gamburd, A spectral gap theorem in SU(d) (2011), arXiv:1108.6264 [math.GR]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  48. [48]

    A spectral gap theorem in simple Lie groups

    Y. Benoist and N. de Saxcé, A spectral gap theorem in simple Lie groups (2014), arXiv:1405.1808 [math.RT]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  49. [49]

    Lubotzky, R

    A. Lubotzky, R. Phillips, and P. Sarnak, Hecke opera- tors and distributing points on the sphere I, Communi- cations on Pure and Applied Mathematics. Supplement: Proceedings of the Symposium on Frontiers of the Math- ematical Sciences: 1985.39, S149 (1986)

    work page 1985

  50. [50]

    Lubotzky, R

    A. Lubotzky, R. Phillips, and P. Sarnak, Hecke operators and distributing points on S2. II, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics40, 401 (1987)

    work page 1987

  51. [51]

    Bocharov, Y

    A. Bocharov, Y. Gurevich, and K. M. Svore, Efficient decomposition of single-qubit gates into V basis circuits, Physical Review A88 (2013)

    work page 2013

  52. [52]

    Selinger, Efficient Clifford+T approximation of single- qubit operators, Quantum Information and Computation 15, 159 (2015)

    P. Selinger, Efficient Clifford+T approximation of single- qubit operators, Quantum Information and Computation 15, 159 (2015)

    work page 2015

  53. [53]

    Kliuchnikov, D

    V. Kliuchnikov, D. Maslov, and M. Mosca, Practical approximation of single-qubit unitaries by single-qubit quantum Clifford and T circuits, IEEE Transactions on Computers 65, 161 (2016)

    work page 2016

  54. [54]

    Dulian and A

    P. Dulian and A. Sawicki, Matrix concentration inequal- ities and efficiency of random universal sets of quantum gates, Quantum7, 983 (2023)

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    Horsman, A

    D. Horsman, A. G. Fowler, S. Devitt, and R. V. Meter, Surface code quantum computing by lattice surgery, New Journal of Physics14, 123011 (2012)

    work page 2012

  56. [56]

    Litinski, A game of surface codes: Large-scale quan- tum computing with lattice surgery, Quantum 3, 128 (2019)

    D. Litinski, A game of surface codes: Large-scale quan- tum computing with lattice surgery, Quantum 3, 128 (2019)

    work page 2019

  57. [57]

    H.BombinandM.A.Martin-Delgado,Optimalresources for topological two-dimensional stabilizer codes: Com- parative study, Phys. Rev. A76, 012305 (2007)

    work page 2007

  58. [58]

    H.Bombin,Gaugecolorcodes: Optimaltransversalgates and gauge fixing in topological stabilizer codes (2015), arXiv:1311.0879 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  59. [59]

    Vasmer and D

    M. Vasmer and D. E. Browne, Three-dimensional surface codes: Transversal gates and fault-tolerant architectures, Phys. Rev. A100, 012312 (2019)

    work page 2019

  60. [60]

    Kubica and M

    A. Kubica and M. E. Beverland, Universal transversal gates with color codes: A simplified approach, Phys. Rev. A 91, 032330 (2015)

    work page 2015

  61. [61]

    Bravyi and J

    S. Bravyi and J. Haah, Magic-state distillation with low overhead, Phys. Rev. A86, 052329 (2012)

    work page 2012

  62. [62]

    Nayak, S

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Non-abelian anyons and topological quan- tum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1083 (2008)

    work page 2008

  63. [63]

    Bonderson, D

    P. Bonderson, D. J. Clarke, C. Nayak, and K. Shtengel, Implementing arbitrary phase gates with ising anyons, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 180505 (2010)

    work page 2010

  64. [64]

    Dulian and A

    P. Dulian and A. Sawicki, A random matrix model for random approximate t-designs, IEEE Transactions on In- formation Theory70, 2637 (2024)

    work page 2024

  65. [65]

    Parzanchevski and P

    O. Parzanchevski and P. Sarnak, Super-golden-gates for PU(2), Advances in Mathematics327, 869–901 (2018)

    work page 2018

  66. [66]

    https://github.com/pdulian/qco

    work page

  67. [67]

    A. O. Barut and R. Rączka,Theory of group represen- tations and applications (World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd., 1986)

    work page 1986

  68. [68]

    Benkart, M

    G. Benkart, M. Chakrabarti, T. Halverson, R. Leduc, C. Lee, and J. Stroomer, Tensor product representa- tions of general linear groups and their connections with Brauer algebras, J. Algebra166, 529–567 (1994). Appendix A: Unitary channels and the projective group The unitary channel U acting on a Hilbert space H ∼= Cd is the CPTP map defined viaU(ρ) = U ρ...

    work page 1994