pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.07734 · v1 · pith:JLVT3ILFnew · submitted 2026-06-05 · 🪐 quant-ph

Exploring the landscape of compact magic-state distillation factories

Hugo Jacinto , Xavier Valcarce , Victor Barizien , \'Elie Gouzien , Nicolas Sangouard This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 21:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords magic-state distillationclassical error-correcting codesSAT solverno-go theoremsT gateCCZ gatefault tolerancequantum computing
0
0 comments X

The pith

Magic-state distillation protocols map exactly onto classical error-correcting codes, enabling SAT-based discovery of minimal-qubit factories and no-go theorems.

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

The paper shows that the particular error model in magic-state distillation allows every valid quantum protocol to correspond one-to-one with a classical code. A SAT solver is used to exhaustively search small codes and prove that T-to-T distillation with under eight qubits detects no more than three errors, while T-to-CCZ detects no more than two. The same search yields new protocols that set the current record for smallest qubit overhead at distances four and five for T-to-T and three and four for T-to-CCZ. A sympathetic reader would care because these factories determine how many physical qubits are needed to produce the high-quality states required for universal fault-tolerant computation. The classical reformulation turns protocol design into a standard coding-theory search problem.

Core claim

Exploiting the specific noise structure present in magic state distillation protocols, classical error-correcting codes offer a simpler framework for deriving these protocols. This formulation is particularly well suited to systematic numerical and analytical studies of distillation protocols involving a fixed number of qubits. A SAT solver derives no-go theorems that relate the number of qubits, the protocol depth, the factory distance, and the prefactor in the output error rate. Any T-to-T state distillation protocol using fewer than eight qubits can detect at most three errors, while any T-to-CCZ state distillation protocol using fewer than eight qubits can detect at most two errors. New

What carries the argument

The exact and lossless mapping of magic-state distillation noise onto classical error-correcting codes, searchable by SAT solver for fixed qubit counts.

Load-bearing premise

The noise structure in these distillation protocols allows an exact, lossless mapping to classical error-correcting codes.

What would settle it

A T-to-T distillation protocol using seven or fewer qubits that detects four or more errors would disprove the no-go theorem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.07734 by \'Elie Gouzien, Hugo Jacinto, Nicolas Sangouard, Victor Barizien, Xavier Valcarce.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Gate teleportation and Clifford correction circuit to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Producing high-fidelity magic states using the smallest possible amount of physical qubits and operations stands as a very important challenge to achieve fault-tolerant quantum computation at scale. Besides emerging proposals for alternative methods such as cultivation, magic state distillation remains essential for achieving very low error rates. Known distillation protocols are usually built through quantum codes derived from triorthogonal matrices. Here, exploiting the specific noise structure present in magic state distillation protocols, we show that classical error-correcting codes offer a simpler framework for deriving these protocols. This formulation is particularly well suited to systematic numerical and analytical studies of distillation protocols involving a fixed number of qubits. Specifically, we use a SAT solver to derive a series of no-go theorems that relate key figures of merit, including the number of qubits, the protocol depth, the factory distance, and the prefactor in the output error rate. For instance, we prove that any $T$-to-$T$ state distillation protocol using fewer than eight qubits can detect at most three errors, while any $T$-to-$\mathrm{CC}Z$ state distillation protocol using fewer than eight qubits can detect at most two errors. Our results also include new distillation protocols with the smallest number of qubits for a given distance in the literature, namely distance 4 and 5 $T$-to-$T$ state protocols supported on 10 and 11 qubits, as well as distance 3 and 4 $T$-to-$\mathrm{CC}Z$ state distillation protocols supported on 9 and 10 qubits.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the specific noise structure of magic-state distillation allows an exact, lossless reduction of T-to-T and T-to-CCZ protocols to classical error-correcting codes, which can then be exhaustively searched via SAT solvers. This yields no-go theorems (any T-to-T protocol on fewer than 8 qubits detects at most 3 errors; any T-to-CCZ protocol on fewer than 8 qubits detects at most 2 errors) together with new protocols achieving the smallest qubit counts reported for distance-4/5 T-to-T (10/11 qubits) and distance-3/4 T-to-CCZ (9/10 qubits).

Significance. If the classical-code reduction is complete, the work supplies a systematic computational method for mapping out the space of compact distillation factories, with the SAT enumeration providing strong, falsifiable evidence for the stated bounds and for the optimality of the new protocols within the encoded family. This is a clear methodological advance over ad-hoc triorthogonal-matrix constructions.

major comments (2)
  1. [SAT encoding / reduction to classical codes] The section describing the SAT encoding of distillation constraints: the no-go theorems rest on the assertion that every valid quantum protocol maps to a searchable classical code; an explicit argument or completeness check is required showing that all quantum conditions (commutation relations, phase-kickback fidelity requirements, and output-state error rates beyond parity checks) are captured, because any omitted constraint would allow protocols outside the enumerated family to evade the stated bounds.
  2. [Results on new protocols] The paragraphs reporting the new 10-/11-qubit T-to-T and 9-/10-qubit T-to-CCZ protocols: the optimality claims are conditional on exhaustive coverage of the search space; if the encoding is incomplete, these qubit counts may not be minimal among all quantum protocols, weakening the “smallest in the literature” statements.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a single sentence stating that the SAT encoding was cross-checked against known protocols or small exhaustive cases, to immediately reassure readers of the mapping’s fidelity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and for highlighting the importance of an explicit completeness argument for the classical-code reduction. We will revise the manuscript to include a dedicated proof that all relevant quantum conditions are captured by the SAT encoding. This addresses both major comments and strengthens the no-go theorems and optimality statements.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The section describing the SAT encoding of distillation constraints: the no-go theorems rest on the assertion that every valid quantum protocol maps to a searchable classical code; an explicit argument or completeness check is required showing that all quantum conditions (commutation relations, phase-kickback fidelity requirements, and output-state error rates beyond parity checks) are captured, because any omitted constraint would allow protocols outside the enumerated family to evade the stated bounds.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit completeness argument is necessary to support the no-go theorems. In the original derivation, the reduction follows from the fact that, under the Pauli noise model and Clifford operations of magic-state distillation, the commutation relations of the protocol are encoded in the linearity of the classical code, the phase-kickback fidelity conditions translate directly into the output parity-check requirements, and the error-rate bounds beyond simple parity checks are enforced by the minimum-distance condition of the code. We will add a new subsection (Section III.C in the revised manuscript) that formally proves this equivalence, including verification that no additional quantum constraints remain outside the classical formulation. This will be accompanied by a small example walk-through for a known protocol to illustrate the mapping. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The paragraphs reporting the new 10-/11-qubit T-to-T and 9-/10-qubit T-to-CCZ protocols: the optimality claims are conditional on exhaustive coverage of the search space; if the encoding is incomplete, these qubit counts may not be minimal among all quantum protocols, weakening the “smallest in the literature” statements.

    Authors: Once the completeness argument is added, the SAT enumeration becomes exhaustive over the full set of valid protocols. We will revise the relevant paragraphs (and the abstract) to state explicitly that the reported qubit counts are minimal among all protocols captured by the classical-code reduction, which we will have shown to be equivalent to the complete set of distillation protocols under the considered noise model. The “smallest in the literature” phrasing will be qualified accordingly, with a forward reference to the new completeness subsection. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; external SAT enumeration on claimed mapping

full rationale

The paper's central results (no-go theorems on error detection for T-to-T and T-to-CCZ protocols, plus new small-qubit protocols) are obtained by encoding distillation constraints into classical codes and enumerating with an external SAT solver. No step reduces a claimed prediction or theorem to a fitted parameter, self-defined quantity, or load-bearing self-citation; the mapping itself is presented as an input framework justified by noise structure rather than derived from the enumerated outputs. This is a standard computational search against an independent solver and therefore self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on the domain assumption that the distillation noise structure maps exactly onto classical codes and on the implicit assumption that the SAT encoding is complete and faithful for the chosen qubit count.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The noise structure present in magic-state distillation protocols permits an exact mapping to classical error-correcting codes.
    Invoked in the abstract as the justification for using classical codes to derive the protocols.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5814 in / 1398 out tokens · 30483 ms · 2026-06-27T21:25:56.093636+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 · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    As seen in Section IIIC, a circuitCconsists ofn columns, each being a binary vectorαk ∈F N 2 for column k

    Encoding the SAT problem We show how finding circuitsC ∈F N×n 2 that imple- ment the fault-tolerant logicalTgate on the repetition code can be expressed as a SAT problem with binary con- straints. As seen in Section IIIC, a circuitCconsists ofn columns, each being a binary vectorαk ∈F N 2 for column k. Since there are2 N such possible vectors, we assign a...

  2. [2]

    A key feature is that the distance constraints allow us to determine whether a code of distancedexists onN physical qubits

    Exploring the space of smallNcodes The SAT formulation introduced above enables a sys- tematic exploration of logicalTcircuits along several axes. A key feature is that the distance constraints allow us to determine whether a code of distancedexists onN physical qubits. Indeed, fixingNandd min, an UNSAT result certifies that no code of distancedmin or hig...

    2030

  3. [3]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Preskill, Beyond nisq: The megaquop machine, ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing6, 1–7 (2025)

    J. Preskill, Beyond nisq: The megaquop machine, ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing6, 1–7 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    E. T. Campbell, B. M. Terhal, and C. Vuillot, Roads towards fault-tolerant universal quantum computation, Nature549, 172–179 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    Gidney and M

    C. Gidney and M. Ekerå, How to factor 2048 bit rsa in- tegers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits, Quantum 5, 433 (2021)

    2048

  7. [7]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2048

  8. [8]

    Litinski, How to compute a 256-bit elliptic curve private key with only 50 million toffoli gates (2023), arXiv:2306.08585 [quant-ph]

    D. Litinski, How to compute a 256-bit elliptic curve private key with only 50 million toffoli gates (2023), arXiv:2306.08585 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Gouzien and N

    E. Gouzien and N. Sangouard, Factoring 2048-bit rsa in- tegers in 177 days with 13 436 qubits and a multimode memory, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 140503 (2021)

    2048

  10. [10]

    Gouzien, D

    E. Gouzien, D. Ruiz, F.-M. Le Régent, J. Guillaud, and N. Sangouard, Performance analysis of a repetition cat code architecture: Computing 256-bit elliptic curve log- arithm in 9 hours with 126 133 cat qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 040602 (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    H. Zhou, C. Duckering, C. Zhao, D. Bluvstein, M. Cain, A. Kubica, S.-T. Wang, and M. D. Lukin, Resource anal- ysis of low-overhead transversal architectures for recon- figurable atom arrays, inProceedings of the 52nd An- nual International Symposium on Computer Architec- ture, SIGARCH ’25 (ACM, 2025) p. 1432–1448

    2025

  12. [12]

    Jacinto, E

    H. Jacinto, E. Gouzien, and N. Sangouard, Network re- quirements for distributed quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 013205 (2026)

    2026

  13. [13]

    A. M. Dalzell, S. McArdle, M. Berta, P. Bienias, C.-F. Chen, A. Gilyén, C. T. Hann, M. J. Kastoryano, E. T. Khabiboulline, A. Kubica, G. Salton, S. Wang, and F. G. S. L. Brandão,Quantum Algorithms: A Survey of Appli- cations and End-to-end Complexities(Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2025)

    2025

  14. [14]

    Eastin and E

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

    2009

  15. [15]

    Bravyi and R

    S. Bravyi and R. König, Classification of topologically protected gates for local stabilizer codes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 170503 (2013)

    2013

  16. [16]

    Barizien, H

    V. Barizien, H. Jacinto, and N. Sangouard, Accessible quantum gates on classical stabilizer codes, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 030602 (2026)

    2026

  17. [17]

    Dennis, A

    E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Topological quantum memory, Journal of Mathematical Physics43, 4452–4505 (2002)

    2002

  18. [18]

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

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

    2019

  19. [19]

    A.G.FowlerandC.Gidney,Lowoverheadquantumcom- putation using lattice surgery (2019), arXiv:1808.06709 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, High-threshold and low- overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory, Nature627, 778–782 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    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)

    2012

  23. [23]

    Serra-Peralta, M

    M. Serra-Peralta, M. H. Shaw, and B. M. Terhal, Decod- ing across transversal clifford gates in the surface code, PRX Quantum7, 010335 (2026)

    2026

  24. [24]

    S.BravyiandA.Kitaev,Universalquantumcomputation 17 with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A 71, 022316 (2005)

    2005

  25. [25]

    J. Lee, D. W. Berry, C. Gidney, W. J. Huggins, J. R. Mc- Clean, N. Wiebe, and R. Babbush, Even more efficient quantum computations of chemistry through tensor hy- percontraction, PRX Quantum2, 030305 (2021)

    2021

  26. [26]

    Schrottenloher, Optimized point addition cir- cuits for elliptic curve discrete logarithms (2026), arXiv:2606.02235 [quant-ph]

    A. Schrottenloher, Optimized point addition cir- cuits for elliptic curve discrete logarithms (2026), arXiv:2606.02235 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Li, A magic state’s fidelity can be superior to the operations that created it, New Journal of Physics17, 023037 (2015)

    Y. Li, A magic state’s fidelity can be superior to the operations that created it, New Journal of Physics17, 023037 (2015)

    2015

  28. [28]

    Lao and B

    L. Lao and B. Criger, Magic state injection on the ro- tated surface code, inProceedings of the 19th ACM In- ternational Conference on Computing Frontiers, CF ’22 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2022) p. 113–120

    2022

  29. [29]

    Bravyi and J

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

    2012

  30. [30]

    E. T. Campbell, H. Anwar, and D. E. Browne, Magic- State Distillation in All Prime Dimensions Using Quan- tum Reed-Muller Codes, Physical Review X2, 041021 (2012)

    2012

  31. [31]

    Jones, Multilevel distillation of magic states for quan- tum computing, Physical Review A87, 042305 (2013)

    C. Jones, Multilevel distillation of magic states for quan- tum computing, Physical Review A87, 042305 (2013)

    2013

  32. [32]

    E. T. Campbell and M. Howard, Unified framework for magic state distillation and multiqubit gate synthesis with reduced resource cost, Phys. Rev. A95, 022316 (2017)

    2017

  33. [33]

    Haah and M

    J. Haah and M. B. Hastings, Codes and protocols for distillingT, controlled-S, and toffoli gates, Quantum2, 71 (2018)

    2018

  34. [34]

    Litinski, Magic state distillation: Not as costly as you think, Quantum3, 205 (2019)

    D. Litinski, Magic state distillation: Not as costly as you think, Quantum3, 205 (2019)

    2019

  35. [35]

    Londe, Local distillation from reed muller codes un- folding (2026), arXiv:2605.06284 [quant-ph]

    V. Londe, Local distillation from reed muller codes un- folding (2026), arXiv:2605.06284 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    Gidney, N

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Itogawa, Y

    T. Itogawa, Y. Takada, Y. Hirano, and K. Fujii, Efficient Magic State Distillation by Zero-Level Distillation, PRX Quantum6, 020356 (2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    Rosenfeld, C

    E. Rosenfeld, C. Gidney, G. Roberts, A. Morvan, N. Lacroix, D. Kafri, J. Marshall, M. Li, and V. S. et al., Magic state cultivation on a superconducting quantum processor (2025), arXiv:2512.13908 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Vortex lines in ultralight bosonic dark matter around rotating supermassive black holes,

    S. Nezami and J. Haah, Classification of small tri- orthogonal codes, Physical Review A106, 10.1103/phys- reva.106.012437 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2022

  41. [41]

    M. Shi, H. Lu, J.-L. Kim, and P. Sole, Triorthogo- nal codes and self-dual codes (2024), arXiv:2408.09685 [cs.IT]

    arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Baldelli, O

    A. Baldelli, O. Å. Mostad, H.-Y. Lin, E. Rosnes, and M. Battaglioni, On constructing and decoding quantum triorthogonal codes (2026), arXiv:2605.24519 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    Jones, Composite toffoli gate with two-round error detection, Phys

    C. Jones, Composite toffoli gate with two-round error detection, Phys. Rev. A87, 052334 (2013)

    2013

  44. [44]

    Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers, in22nd International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics(1998) pp

    D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers, in22nd International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics(1998) pp. 32–43, arXiv:quant-ph/9807006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  45. [45]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Phys. Rev. A70, 052328 (2004)

    2004

  46. [46]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2010)

    2010

  47. [47]

    Jones, Low-overhead constructions for the fault- tolerant Toffoli gate, Physical Review A87, 022328 (2013)

    C. Jones, Low-overhead constructions for the fault- tolerant Toffoli gate, Physical Review A87, 022328 (2013)

    2013

  48. [48]

    S. Xu, K. Liu, P. Rall, Z. He, and Y. Ding, Dis- tilling magic states in the bicycle architecture (2026), arXiv:2602.20546 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  49. [49]

    De Moura and N

    L. De Moura and N. Bjørner, Z3: an efficient smt solver, inProceedings of the Theory and Practice of Soft- ware, 14th International Conference on Tools and Al- gorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, TACAS’08/ETAPS’08 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidel- berg, 2008) p. 337–340

    2008

  50. [50]

    Perron and F

    L. Perron and F. Didier, Cp-sat (2024)

    2024

  51. [51]

    compact_distillation: SAT problem to find compact magic state distillation factories,https://github.com/ xvalcarce/compact_distillation(2026), code accom- panying the manuscript

    2026

  52. [52]

    Koutsioumpas, D

    S. Koutsioumpas, D. Banfield, and A. Kay, The smallest code with transversal t (2022), arXiv:2210.14066 [quant- ph]

    arXiv 2022

  53. [53]

    Gidney, Halving the cost of quantum addition, Quan- tum2, 74 (2018)

    C. Gidney, Halving the cost of quantum addition, Quan- tum2, 74 (2018)

    2018

  54. [54]

    G. H. Low, W. J. Huggins, D. W. Berry, T. Khattar, A. F. White, N. C. Rubin, and R. Babbush, A denser planar surface code (2026), arXiv:2605.30455 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  55. [55]

    Kasai, Breaking the orthogonality barrier in quantum ldpc codes (2026), arXiv:2601.08824 [quant-ph]

    K. Kasai, Breaking the orthogonality barrier in quantum ldpc codes (2026), arXiv:2601.08824 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    C. Zhao, C. Duckering, A. Gu, N. Maskara, and H. Zhou, Towards ultra-high-rate quantum error correction with reconfigurable atom arrays (2026), arXiv:2604.16209 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  57. [57]

    E. T. Campbell and J. O’Gorman, An efficient magic stateapproachtosmallanglerotations,QuantumScience and Technology1, 015007 (2016)

    2016

  58. [58]

    Duclos-Cianci and D

    G. Duclos-Cianci and D. Poulin, Reducing the quantum- computingoverheadwithcomplexgatedistillation,Phys. Rev. A91, 042315 (2015)

    2015

  59. [59]

    Tiurev, C

    K. Tiurev, C. Fleckenstein, C. Goeller, P. Schnabl, M. Traube, N. Sakharwade, A. Messinger, J. Unger, and W. Lechner, Parity-unfolded distillation architecture for noise-biased platforms (2026), arXiv:2604.15436 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    Gidney and A

    C. Gidney and A. G. Fowler, Efficient magic state fac- tories with a catalyzed|CCZ⟩to2|T⟩transformation, Quantum3, 135 (2019). 18 Appendix A: Commutation relations In this Appendix, we detail and prove the commuta- tion relation used to commute the T gate through the encoding circuit of the repetition code

    2019

  61. [61]

    T gate commutation More precisely, we prove for a givenN≥3: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . T = ... ... T Q i,j(CS†)ij Q i,j,k(CCZ) ijk T (A1) Proof.To do things carefully, we work in the compu- tational basis|ϵ 1, . . . , ϵN ⟩and show that both circuits have the same effect on this state, no matter the valu...

  62. [62]

    More generally, for anyL≥1and N≥L+ 3integers, commuting L√ Tthrough the CNOT ladder yields the circuit of Equation (A3)

    General case of L√ T When commuting a √ Tgate through the CNOT lad- der decoding circuit of a repetition code, one obtains Equation (A2). More generally, for anyL≥1and N≥L+ 3integers, commuting L√ Tthrough the CNOT ladder yields the circuit of Equation (A3). ... E † √ T E = ... ... √ T Q i,j(CT †)ij Q i,j,k(CCS)ijk Q i,j,k,l(CCCZ) ijkl √ T (A2) ... E † L√...

  63. [63]

    As in the main text, we denote byE† the sequence of CNOT gates implementing the decoding circuit

    Gate sequence transformation Here, we derive the commutation relation of aP π/8 gate through a repetition code decoding circuit. As in the main text, we denote byE† the sequence of CNOT gates implementing the decoding circuit. We recall that Pπ/8 = cos π 8 I−isin π 8 P, andwecanassociateavector α∈ {0,1} N such thatP= N i Z αi i . We prove that there exist...

  64. [64]

    provides a gate sequenceP1,

    SAT formulation equivalence A matrixV= α0 α1 · · · αn that obeys ∀i∈[ [1, N] ], X k αk i ≡1 mod 2, ∀i < j∈[ [1, N] ]2, X k αk i αk j ≡1 mod 2, ∀i < j < l∈[ [1, N] ] 3, X k αk i αk j αk l ≡1 mod 2. provides a gate sequenceP1, . . . , Pn (defined from the α’s in Equation (13)) that implements a logicalTgate (up to Clifford corrections) on the repetition cod...

  65. [65]

    every singlet, pair, triplet of lines should appearanoddnumberoftimesinthesupportofthegates in the circuit

    General preliminaries for the proofs In this section, we work with the partially ordered set (P([N]),⊆)and leverage the fact that a multi-qubitZ rotation can be seen as an elementA∈ P([N])where the indices inAare the qubits in the support of the gate. We gather a series of definitions and reminders from the algebra of order theory, which will be used in t...

  66. [66]

    Proof of Lemma 1 The proof of Lemma 1 is direct and consists of rein- troducing the bitvectorsαk associated with each possible gate and writing the definition ofgthrough thoseαk

    Canonical protocols proofs a. Proof of Lemma 1 The proof of Lemma 1 is direct and consists of rein- troducing the bitvectorsαk associated with each possible gate and writing the definition ofgthrough thoseαk. Lemma 1 Proof.By definition ofg, for anyB⊆[N], g(B) =|{A∈ F N , B⊆A}|mod 2. If for allA∈ F N we define a vectorαk ∈F N 2 by αk i = ( 1ifi∈A, 0otherw...

  67. [67]

    26 Number of qubitsN √ T-countnDistanced 52×602 92×5103 132×21844 TABLE III

    We can explicitly build patterns to ensured(F1 N) = ⌈N/4⌉. 26 Number of qubitsN √ T-countnDistanced 52×602 92×5103 132×21844 TABLE III. Parameters of the √ T E distillation protocols from the canonical family for smallN. •ifN= 4q, we can takeqdifferent quadruplets to partition[N]. •ifN= 4q+ 1, we can useq−1quadruplets, 1 triplet, and 1 pair. •ifN= 4q+ 2, ...

  68. [68]

    T distillation protocols The matrix associated to the64T→1Tprotocol on 10 qubits with error suppression in495p 4 is given in Equa- tion (D1)   1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0...