Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

The 3D toric code keeps about 2% phase-flip and 11% bit-flip thresholds even when syndrome measurements fail at the same rate.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 08:26 UTC pith:NXZHLCTM

load-bearing objection The paper's only genuinely new number, p^Z,M≈2%, is a plausible but unanchored inference through an approximate duality applied to an unsimulated model, while the X-sector result is established; worth peer review, not desk rejection. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.20489 v3 pith:NXZHLCTM submitted 2025-10-23 quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elhep-lat

Phenomenological Noise Models and Optimal Thresholds of the 3D Toric Code

Ji-Ze Xu , Yin Zhong , Miguel A. Martin-Delgado , Hao Song , Ke Liu This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elhep-lat PACS 03.67.Pp05.50.+q75.10.Nr
keywords 3D toric codefault-tolerant thresholdmeasurement errorsrandom 2-form Z2 gauge theoryNishimori linegeneralized dualitystatistical-mechanical mappingtopological quantum error correction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper asks how well the 3D toric code — a leading code for fault-tolerant non-Clifford gates — performs when syndrome measurements are themselves noisy, not just the qubits. It claims that under equal-rate qubit and measurement errors the code has optimal thresholds of roughly 11% for bit-flip errors and 2% for phase-flip errors, only modest declines from the perfect-measurement values of about 23% and 3.3%. The overall threshold is set by the lower phase-flip value, about 2%. The authors reach these numbers not by simulating the 4D disordered models directly but through a generalized duality that relates both error sectors to known random spin models. If right, realistic measurement noise is not a major obstacle for 3D toric-code-based quantum computing, and decoder designers gain concrete upper-bound benchmarks.

Core claim

The central claim is that the 3D toric code's optimal phenomenological thresholds are p^{X,M}_th ≈ 11% and p^{Z,M}_th ≈ 2% when qubit and measurement errors occur at the same rate. The bit-flip sector maps to a 4D random-plaquette Z2 gauge model, which is self-dual, and self-duality pins the threshold to the Shannon entropy point H ≈ 1/2. The phase-flip sector maps to a new 4D random 2-form (random-cube) Z2 gauge theory with plaquette variables and six-body cube interactions; the paper argues this model is dual to the 4D random-bond Ising model, whose known critical point near 28% yields p^{Z,M}_th ≈ 2% through the approximate relation H(p_c)+H(ṕ_c)≈1. This makes the 3D toric code robust to

What carries the argument

The engine is the generalized Kramers-Wannier duality with quenched disorder, expressed along the Nishimori line as the approximate Shannon-entropy relation H(p_c)+H(ṕ_c)≈1, where H is binary entropy and p_c and ṕ_c are the critical points of a model and its dual. This lets the authors infer the phase transition of the difficult new 4D random 2-form Z2 gauge model — spins on plaquettes, six-body random cube couplings, Wilson-surface order parameter — from the known 4D random-bond Ising transition. The self-dual 4D random-plaquette gauge model carries the bit-flip argument, while the random-cube gauge model carries the phase-flip argument.

Load-bearing premise

The 2% phase-flip threshold rests on transferring the approximate entropy relation H(p_c)+H(ṕ_c)≈1, validated on ordinary one-form spin and gauge models, to the new four-dimensional random two-form gauge model — a step the paper flags as approximate, with no explicit dual mapping shown and no existing numerics for the model.

What would settle it

Run a Monte Carlo simulation of the four-dimensional random-cube Z2 gauge model on the Nishimori line, locate its critical error rate p_c, and check whether H(p_c)+H(0.28) equals 1 within error bars; a substantial deviation would invalidate the generalized duality for two-form models and remove the support for the claimed 2% threshold.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If correct, the 3D toric code has an overall phenomenological threshold near 2%, set by phase-flip errors, with bit-flip errors tolerated up to about 11%.
  • The bit-flip threshold exceeds values reported for neural-network (~7%) and single-shot (~3%) decoding approaches and approaches a recent overlapping-window decoder result (~9.65%), indicating practical decoders still have room to improve.
  • Measurement noise damages the 3D toric code far less than the 2D toric code, whose threshold drops from about 11% to 3.3%.
  • The mapping produces a new disordered 2-form gauge theory from a quantum error-correcting code, directly connecting fault tolerance with higher-form gauge theory.
  • Because these are optimal thresholds, they serve as hard upper-bound benchmarks: no decoder can exceed them under the same noise model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the generalized entropy duality extends beyond the models tested in the paper, the same derivation could yield analytic thresholds for 3D color codes and fracton codes under faulty measurements, likely generating further higher-form gauge models.
  • Editorial inference: the small phase-flip drop (3.3% to 2%) suggests the Z sector of 3D codes is inherently less measurement-sensitive than 2D surface codes, so biased-noise engineering may improve overall 3D thresholds more than it does in 2D.
  • Editorial inference: the decisive test is a direct Monte Carlo simulation of the 4D random-cube gauge model along the Nishimori line; if its critical point does not satisfy H(p_c)+H(0.28)≈1 within uncertainty, the 2% figure would need revision, with the error inherited from the unpropagated uncertainty in the 28% input.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the 3D toric code under phenomenological noise with both qubit Pauli errors and faulty syndrome measurements at equal rate. It derives two effective 4D random lattice gauge models: for bit-flip (X) errors a 4D random-plaquette Z2 gauge model (RPGM), which is self-dual and yields a threshold p^{X,M}_th ≈ 11%; for phase-flip (Z) errors a 4D random 2-form (random-cube) Z2 gauge model (RCGM), Eq. (9). Since the RCGM has no existing numerics, the paper infers its threshold p^{Z,M}_th ≈ 2% from the approximate generalized entropy duality H(p_c)+H(ṕ_c)≈1, Eq. (19), using the known 4D random-bond Ising critical point ṕ_c≈28% (Ref. [55]). The abstract and discussion present these as the optimal phenomenological thresholds of the 3D toric code and conclude that the code is robust against measurement errors.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is the first determination of optimal thresholds of a 3D topological code under measurement errors, providing a benchmark for the growing effort to realize 3D codes. The derivation of a random 2-form gauge theory from a fault-tolerance setting is an interesting contribution in its own right, and the X-sector threshold (11%) is solid, being fixed by self-duality and consistent with known results. However, the headline Z-sector threshold (2%) rests on an approximate duality relation that is validated only on ordinary spin/1-form gauge models and is applied here to a new 2-form model with no independent numerical anchor. The significance of the paper is therefore conditional on closing this gap, either by a direct derivation of Eq. (19) for 2-form models, by numerical verification of the RCGM transition, or by explicitly reframing the 2% value as a conjecture.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (19) and SI §III.2, Eq. (S35)] The 2% Z threshold is not computed from the RCGM directly but inferred from the approximate generalized duality H(p_c)+H(ṕ_c)≈1. The derivation of this relation uses the uncontrolled approximation w≈w̃ at SI Eq. (S35). The relation is calibrated on spin/1-form gauge models (3D RBIM/RPGM, 4D self-dual RPGM), but the RCGM is a 2-form theory with different symmetry and order parameter. The paper explicitly states there are no existing numerics for this model. Since dH/dp near p=0.02 is about 5.6 per unit p, even a small error in Eq. (19) or in the input ṕ_c≈28% shifts the inferred threshold substantially. The abstract claims p^{Z,M}_th≈2% as an established optimal threshold; this is not supported without either an explicit derivation of Eq. (19) for 2-form theories or numerical evidence for the RCGM phase transition. At minimum, the claim should be softened to a prediction.
  2. [Eq. (9) and SI §I.3] The mapping from the faulty-measurement Z-error sector to the 4D random-cube gauge model is asserted in the main text (Eq. (9) and surrounding discussion) but not derived. SI §I.3 formulates the chain-complex description of measurement errors, but the explicit step from the 1-chain constraint in the 4D spacetime lattice to the 2-form gauge model with six-body cube interactions is not shown. This mapping is load-bearing: if the effective model is not exactly the RCGM, the entropy-relation inference is moot. The authors should provide the explicit derivation of Eq. (9), or at least a detailed outline in the main text.
  3. [Table 2 and Ref. [55]] The 2% value depends on the external Monte Carlo result ṕ_c≈28% for the 4D random-bond Ising model (Ref. [55]). The statistical uncertainty of that estimate is not propagated, and the sensitivity of p^{Z,M}_th to variations in ṕ_c is not discussed. Given the steepness of H(p) near p=0.02, this is not a negligible effect. The paper should state the uncertainty in the input and, if possible, provide a range for p^{Z,M}_th.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References] Reference [47] is titled 'Analog information decoding of bosonic quantum low-density parity-check codes', which appears unrelated to the quoted matching-decoder threshold 0.0126 for the 3D toric code. Please verify this citation and, if correct, clarify the connection.
  2. [Fig. 4 and Eq. (9)] The text says the RCGM is defined on the dual lattice, but Fig. 4(b) shows the dual lattice with plaquette variables and cube interactions; the relationship between the cube index c* and the original lattice could be made more explicit for readability.
  3. [Table 2] The entry for the faulty-Z sector lists p_c≈2% and ṕ_c≈28% without error bars or a note that the former is derived from the latter via the approximate relation. A footnote would help the reader distinguish directly computed values from inferred ones.
  4. [General notation] The symbol p is used both for the physical error rate and as the probability argument of the Shannon entropy H(p). This is standard, but a brief reminder near Eq. (19) would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No by-construction circularity: the 2% Z-threshold is an approximate duality inference from an external 4D-RBIM critical point, not a fit or self-citation tautology.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The X-threshold p_X,M≈11% follows from the self-duality of the 4D RPGM and H(p_c)+H(p_c)=1, with p_c determined directly by H(p)=1/2. The Z-threshold p_Z,M≈2% is obtained by applying the approximate generalized entropy relation H(p_c)+H(ṕ_c)≈1 (Eq. 19) to the external 4D random-bond Ising critical point ṕ_c≈28% from Hartmann [55]; no parameter is fitted to the target 2% value, so the prediction is not equivalent to its input by construction. Eq. (19) is re-derived in the SI through the replica method, with the uncontrolled but explicit step 'we expect' w≈w̃ (SI Eq. S35), and it is cross-checked on known models. The self-citations to Ref. [39] for the entropy relation's pedigree and for the spin-glass exclusion along the Nishimori line are ancillary: the SI contains an independent derivation, and the spin-glass exclusion is a standard Nishimori-line result. The paper itself flags the real weakness: 'There are no existing numerics for this model,' and the faulty-measurement-to-RCGM mapping is asserted rather than fully exhibited. Those are correctness and verification risks, not circular reductions. Accordingly, no step in the derivation chain has been shown to reduce to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are postulated; the 4D random 2-form gauge model is a classical statistical-mechanical model claimed to be derived from the code, not an invented dynamical entity. The ledger's burden is carried by the approximate entropy relation and the borrowed 4D-RBIM critical point, plus the asserted-but-deferred RCGM mapping.

free parameters (3)
  • 4D RBIM Nishimori-line critical point ṕ_c = ≈0.28 [55]
    Monte-Carlo-fitted critical point taken from Hartmann 2001. The headline Z threshold p≈2% is a deterministic function of this value via Eq. (19); its uncertainty is not propagated.
  • Right-hand side '1' of the entropy relation H(p_c)+H(ṕ_c)≈1 = 1 (approximate)
    The relation is calibrated against known random models and CSS-code thresholds [37,39,43]; the paper labels it approximate and then uses it to predict the new RCGM threshold. The central claim depends on this empirical constant.
  • 4D random-plaquette gauge model self-dual point = ≈0.11 [43]
    Known self-duality result (H(p)=1/2) taken from the literature; constitutes the X-sector half of the headline threshold pair.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Statistical-mechanical mapping: the optimal decoding threshold equals the phase transition of a disordered spin model on the Nishimori line (Dennis et al. framework).
    Foundational to the entire calculation; standard in the field (citations [1,37]). The paper's novelty is built on this mapping without re-deriving it.
  • domain assumption Nishimori-line relation e^{-2βJ}=p/(1-p), with qubit and measurement error rates taken equal (p=q).
    Methods: 'we have assumed qubits and measurements have the same error rate'. A stated simplifying assumption; thresholds for general (p,q) are not computed.
  • ad hoc to paper Generalized duality / entropy relation H(p_c)+H(ṕ_c)≈1 (Eq. 19), derived via replica trick with the approximation w≈w̃ (SI Eq. S35).
    The engine of the paper. It is explicitly approximate ('≈', 'we expect') and its known-case validation includes the self-cited [39] and [43]. Applied to a model with no independent numerics.
  • domain assumption Absence of spin-glass phase along the Nishimori line.
    SI S.II: 'has been shown not to pass through the spin-glass phase [39]'. Support is self-cited to the authors' prior work.
  • domain assumption The 4D random-bond Ising model has its Nishimori-line ferromagnetic transition at ṕ_c≈28%.
    External Monte-Carlo input (Hartmann 2001 [55]); the 2% result is H^{-1}(1−H(0.28)). If the correct value differs, the headline Z threshold shifts.
  • ad hoc to paper The Z-error sector with faulty measurements is exactly described by the 4D random-cube (2-form) gauge model H^{Z,M} (Eq. 9).
    The core new mapping, asserted in 'Imperfect Measurements (4D Models)' with the explicit constraint-solving steps deferred; no independent check exists in the paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25473 in / 26222 out tokens · 232677 ms · 2026-08-04T08:26:46.834403+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phenomenological Noise Models and Optimal Thresholds of the 3D Toric Code." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NXZHLCTM

@misc{pith2026251020489,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phenomenological Noise Models and Optimal Thresholds of the 3D Toric Code},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NXZHLCTM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.20489}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) topological codes offer the advantage of supporting fault-tolerant implementations of non-Clifford gates, yet their performance against realistic noise remains largely unexplored. In this work, we focus on the paradigmatic 3D toric code and investigate its fault-tolerance thresholds in the presence of both Pauli and measurement errors. Two randomly coupled lattice gauge models that describe the code's correctability are derived, including a random 2-form $\mathbb{Z}_2$ gauge theory. By exploiting a generalized duality technique, we show that the 3D toric code exhibits optimal thresholds of $p^{X,M}_{th} \approx 11\%$ and $p^{Z,M}_{th} \approx 2\%$ against bit-flip and phase-flip errors, respectively. These threshold values show modest reductions compared to the case of perfect measurements, establishing the robustness of the 3D toric code against measurement errors. Our results constitute a substantial advance towards assessing the practical performance of 3D topological codes. This contribution is timely and in high demand, as rapid hardware advancements are bringing complex codes into experimental reach. Moreover, our work highlights the interdisciplinary nature of fault-tolerant quantum computation and holds significant interest for quantum information science, high-energy physics, and condensed matter physics.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Confinement as Decoding: Higher Form Codes and Lattice Yang-Mills Theory

    hep-th 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0

    Decoding a higher-form quantum code with Wilson-line noise is the same computation as comparing center-twisted Yang-Mills partition functions; the paper works out this dictionary and its strong-coupling consequences.

  2. Homomorphic Quantum Error Correction

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Establishes necessary and sufficient criterion for [[n,1,d]] stabilizer codes to preserve code space under restricted transversal block-Pauli masking U_enc(a,b)=(X^a Z^b)^⊗n for homomorphic quantum error correction.

  3. Error Resilience of Fracton Codes and Near Saturation of Code-Capacity Threshold in Three Dimensions

    quant-ph 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The checkerboard fracton code achieves a code-capacity threshold of p_th ≈ 0.107(3) under stochastic Pauli noise, the highest among known 3D codes and near the theoretical limit.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Journal of Mathematical Physics43(9), 4452–4505 (2002) https://doi.org/10

    Dennis, E., Kitaev, A., Landahl, A., Preskill, J.: Topological quantum memory. Journal of Mathematical Physics43(9), 4452–4505 (2002) https://doi.org/10. 1063/1.1499754

    2002

  2. [2]

    Fowler, A.G., Mariantoni, M., Martinis, J.M., Cleland, A.N.: Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation. Phys. Rev. A86, 032324 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.86.032324

    doi:10.1103/physreva.86.032324 2012

  3. [3]

    Shor, P.W.: Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory. Phys. Rev. A52, 2493–2496 (1995) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.52.R2493

    doi:10.1103/physreva.52.r2493 1995

  4. [4]

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

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.77.793 1996

  5. [5]

    Annals of Physics 303(1), 2–30 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4916(02)00018-0

    Kitaev, A.Y.: Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons. Annals of Physics 303(1), 2–30 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4916(02)00018-0

    doi:10.1016/s0003-4916(02)00018-0 2003

  6. [6]

    arXiv preprint quant-ph/9811052 (1998)

    Bravyi, S.B., Kitaev, A.Y.: Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary. arXiv preprint quant-ph/9811052 (1998)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  7. [7]

    Bombin, H., Martin-Delgado, M.A.: Topological quantum distillation. Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 180501 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.180501

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.97.180501 2006

  8. [8]

    Science374(6572), 1237–1241 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abi8378 17

    Satzinger, K.J., Liu, Y.-J., Smith, A., Knapp, C., Newman, M., Jones, C., Chen, Z., Quintana, C., Mi, X., Dunsworth, A., Gidney, C., Aleiner, I., Arute, F., Arya, K., Atalaya, J., Babbush, R., Bardin, J.C., Barends, R., Basso, J., Bengtsson, A., Bilmes, A., Broughton, M., Buckley, B.B., Buell, D.A., Burkett, B., Bush- nell, N., Chiaro, B., Collins, R., Co...

    2021

  9. [9]

    Nature605(7911), 669–674 (2022) https://doi

    Krinner, S., Lacroix, N., Remm, A., Di Paolo, A., Genois, E., Leroux, C., Hellings, C., Lazar, S., Swiadek, F., Herrmann, J., Norris, G.J., Andersen, C.K., M¨ uller, M., Blais, A., Eichler, C., Wallraff, A.: Realizing repeated quantum error correction in a distance-three surface code. Nature605(7911), 669–674 (2022) https://doi. org/10.1038/s41586-022-04566-8

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04566-8 2022

  10. [10]

    Zhao, Y., Ye, Y., Huang, H.-L., Zhang, Y., Wu, D., Guan, H., Zhu, Q., Wei, Z., He, T., Cao, S., Chen, F., Chung, T.-H., Deng, H., Fan, D., Gong, M., Guo, C., Guo, S., Han, L., Li, N., Li, S., Li, Y., Liang, F., Lin, J., Qian, H., Rong, H., Su, H., Sun, L., Wang, S., Wu, Y., Xu, Y., Ying, C., Yu, J., Zha, C., Zhang, K., Huo, Y.-H., Lu, C.-Y., Peng, C.-Z., ...

    2022

  11. [11]

    Ye, Y., He, T., Huang, H.-L., Wei, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhao, Y., Wu, D., Zhu, Q., Guan, H., Cao, S., Chen, F., Chung, T.-H., Deng, H., Fan, D., Gong, M., Guo, C., Guo, S., Han, L., Li, N., Li, S., Li, Y., Liang, F., Lin, J., Qian, H., Rong, H., Su, H., Wang, S., Wu, Y., Xu, Y., Ying, C., Yu, J., Zha, C., Zhang, K., Huo, Y.-H., Lu, C.- Y., Peng, C.-Z., Zhu, X.,...

    2023

  12. [12]

    Nature638(8052), 920–926 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08449-y

    Acharya, R., Abanin, D.A., Aghababaie-Beni, L., Aleiner, I., Andersen, T.I., Ansmann, M., Arute, F., Arya, K., Asfaw, A., Astrakhantsev, N., Atalaya, J., Babbush, R., Bacon, D., Ballard, B., Bardin, J.C., Bausch, J., Bengtsson, A., Bilmes, A., Blackwell, S., Boixo, S., Bortoli, G., Bourassa, A., Bovaird, J., Brill, L., Broughton, M., Browne, D.A., Buchea,...

    2025

  13. [13]

    Nature (2025) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09061-4

    Lacroix, N., Bourassa, A., Heras, F.J.H., Zhang, L.M., Bausch, J., Senior, A.W., Edlich, T., Shutty, N., Sivak, V., Bengtsson, A., McEwen, M., Higgott, O., Kafri, D., Claes, J., Morvan, A., Chen, Z., Zalcman, A., Madhuk, S., Acharya, R., Aghababaie Beni, L., Aigeldinger, G., Alcaraz, R., Andersen, T.I., Ansmann, M., Arute, F., Arya, K., Asfaw, A., Atalaya...

    2025

  14. [14]

    Science385(6715), 1327–1331 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1126/science

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

    doi:10.1126/science 2024

  15. [15]

    Nature626(7997), 58–65 (2024) https://doi.org/10

    Bluvstein, D., Evered, S.J., Geim, A.A., Li, S.H., Zhou, H., Manovitz, T., Ebadi, S., Cain, M., Kalinowski, M., Hangleiter, D., Bonilla Ataides, J.P., Maskara, N., Cong, I., Gao, X., Sales Rodriguez, P., Karolyshyn, T., Semeghini, G., Gullans, M.J., Greiner, M., Vuleti´ c, V., Lukin, M.D.: Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays. Nat...

    2024

  16. [16]

    Nature645(8081), 620–625 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09367-3

    Sales Rodriguez, P., Robinson, J.M., Jepsen, P.N., He, Z., Duckering, C., Zhao, C., Wu, K.-H., Campo, J., Bagnall, K., Kwon, M., Karolyshyn, T., Weinberg, P., Cain, M., Evered, S.J., Geim, A.A., Kalinowski, M., Li, S.H., Manovitz, T., Amato-Grill, J., Basham, J.I., Bernstein, L., Braverman, B., Bylinskii, A., Choukri, A., DeAngelo, R.J., Fang, F., Fiewege...

    2025

  17. [17]

    Nature589(7841), 220–224 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-03079-6 20

    Erhard, A., Poulsen Nautrup, H., Meth, M., Postler, L., Stricker, R., Stadler, M., Negnevitsky, V., Ringbauer, M., Schindler, P., Briegel, H.J., Blatt, R., Friis, N., Monz, T.: Entangling logical qubits with lattice surgery. Nature589(7841), 220–224 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-03079-6 20

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-03079-6 2021

  18. [18]

    Science345(6194), 302–305 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1253742

    Nigg, D., M¨ uller, M., Martinez, E.A., Schindler, P., Hennrich, M., Monz, T., Martin-Delgado, M.A., Blatt, R.: Quantum computations on a topologi- cally encoded qubit. Science345(6194), 302–305 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1253742

    2014

  19. [19]

    Bravyi, S., K¨ onig, R.: Classification of topologically protected gates for local stabilizer codes. Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 170503 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.110.170503

    2013

  20. [20]

    Bravyi, S., Kitaev, A.: Universal quantum computation with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas. Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevA.71.022316

    2005

  21. [21]

    Nature627(8005), 778–782 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07107-7

    Bravyi, S., Cross, A.W., Gambetta, J.M., Maslov, D., Rall, P., Yoder, T.J.: High- threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory. Nature627(8005), 778–782 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07107-7

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07107-7 2024

  22. [22]

    IEEE Transactions on Information Theory60(2), 1193–1202 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2013

    Tillich, J.-P., Z´ emor, G.: Quantum ldpc codes with positive rate and minimum distance proportional to the square root of the blocklength. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory60(2), 1193–1202 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2013. 2292061

    doi:10.1109/tit.2013 2014

  23. [23]

    Xu, Q., Zhou, H., Zheng, G., Bluvstein, D., Ataides, J.P.B., Lukin, M.D., Jiang, L.: Fast and parallelizable logical computation with homological product codes. Phys. Rev. X15, 021065 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.15.021065

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.15.021065 2025

  24. [24]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Bombin, H., Martin-Delgado, M.A.: Topological computation without braiding. Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 160502 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98. 160502

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.98 2007

  26. [26]

    Vasmer, M., Browne, D.E.: Three-dimensional surface codes: Transversal gates and fault-tolerant architectures. Phys. Rev. A100, 012312 (2019) https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.012312

    doi:10.1103/physreva.100.012312 2019

  27. [27]

    SciPost Phys.16, 122 (2024) https://doi.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.16.5.122

    Barkeshli, M., Hsin, P.-S., Kobayashi, R.: Higher-group symmetry of (3+1)D fermionicZ 2 gauge theory: Logical CCZ, CS, and T gates from higher symmetry. SciPost Phys.16, 122 (2024) https://doi.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.16.5.122

    doi:10.21468/scipostphys.16.5.122 2024

  28. [28]

    Quantum5, 585 (2021) https://doi.org/10.22331/ q-2021-11-22-585 21

    Panteleev, P., Kalachev, G.: Degenerate Quantum LDPC Codes With Good Finite Length Performance. Quantum5, 585 (2021) https://doi.org/10.22331/ q-2021-11-22-585 21

    2021

  29. [29]

    PRX Quantum2, 020340 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.020340

    Quintavalle, A.O., Vasmer, M., Roffe, J., Campbell, E.T.: Single-shot error cor- rection of three-dimensional homological product codes. PRX Quantum2, 020340 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.020340

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.020340 2021

  30. [30]

    Nature Communications7(1), 12302 (2016) https://doi

    Brown, B.J., Nickerson, N.H., Browne, D.E.: Fault-tolerant error correction with the gauge color code. Nature Communications7(1), 12302 (2016) https://doi. org/10.1038/ncomms12302

    doi:10.1038/ncomms12302 2016

  31. [31]

    Bombin, H., Andrist, R.S., Ohzeki, M., Katzgraber, H.G., Martin-Delgado, M.A.: Strong resilience of topological codes to depolarization. Phys. Rev. X2, 021004 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.2.021004

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.2.021004 2012

  32. [32]

    Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e D8(2), 269–321 (2021)

    Chubb, C.T., Flammia, S.T.: Statistical mechanical models for quantum codes with correlated noise. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e D8(2), 269–321 (2021)

    2021

  33. [33]

    PRX Quantum5, 020343 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.020343

    Fan, R., Bao, Y., Altman, E., Vishwanath, A.: Diagnostics of mixed-state topolog- ical order and breakdown of quantum memory. PRX Quantum5, 020343 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.020343

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.020343 2024

  34. [34]

    Huang, Z.-M., Colmenarez, L., M¨ uller, M., Diehl, S.: Coherent information as a mixed-state topological order parameter of fermions. Phys. Rev. Res.7, 043009 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1103/fx56-8nvy

    work page doi:10.1103/fx56-8nvy 2025

  35. [35]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2412.16727

    Colmenarez, L., Kim, S., M¨ uller, M.: Fundamental thresholds for computational and erasure errors via the coherent information (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2412.16727

    arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    PRX Quantum6, 040305 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1103/gskb-t5ql

    Behrends, J., B´ eri, B.: Statistical mechanical mapping and maximum-likelihood thresholds for the surface code under generic single-qubit coherent errors. PRX Quantum6, 040305 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1103/gskb-t5ql

    doi:10.1103/gskb-t5ql 2025

  37. [37]

    Annals of Physics303(1), 31–58 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4916(02)00019-2

    Wang, C., Harrington, J., Preskill, J.: Confinement-higgs transition in a disor- dered gauge theory and the accuracy threshold for quantum memory. Annals of Physics303(1), 31–58 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4916(02)00019-2

    doi:10.1016/s0003-4916(02)00019-2 2003

  38. [38]

    Kubica, A., Beverland, M.E., Brand˜ ao, F., Preskill, J., Svore, K.M.: Three- dimensional color code thresholds via statistical-mechanical mapping. Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 180501 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.180501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.180501 2018

  39. [39]

    Song, H., Sch¨ onmeier-Kromer, J., Liu, K., Viyuela, O., Pollet, L., Martin-Delgado, M.A.: Optimal thresholds for fracton codes and random spin models with sub- system symmetry. Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 230502 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.129.230502

    2022

  40. [40]

    PRX Quantum2, 020341 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum

    Beverland, M.E., Kubica, A., Svore, K.M.: Cost of universality: A compara- tive study of the overhead of state distillation and code switching with color codes. PRX Quantum2, 020341 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum. 22 2.020341

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum 2021

  41. [41]

    npj Quantum Information10(1), 136 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-024-00945-3

    Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Chen, Y.-A., Zhang, W., Zhang, T., Hu, J., Chen, W., Gu, Y., Liu, Z.-W.: Efficient fault-tolerant implementations of non-clifford gates with reconfigurable atom arrays. npj Quantum Information10(1), 136 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-024-00945-3

    doi:10.1038/s41534-024-00945-3 2024

  42. [42]

    Xu, Q., Zhou, H., Bluvstein, D., Cain, M., Kalinowski, M., Preskill, J., Lukin, M.D., Maskara, N.: Batched high-rate logical operations for quantum ldpc codes (2025) arXiv:2510.06159 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Journal of Statistical Physics126(4), 977–986 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10955-006-9156-1

    Nishimori, H.: Duality in finite-dimensional spin glasses. Journal of Statistical Physics126(4), 977–986 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10955-006-9156-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10955-006-9156-1 2007

  44. [44]

    Quantum2, 68 (2018) https://doi.org/10.22331/ q-2018-05-24-68

    Breuckmann, N.P., Ni, X.: Scalable Neural Network Decoders for Higher Dimensional Quantum Codes. Quantum2, 68 (2018) https://doi.org/10.22331/ q-2018-05-24-68

    2018

  45. [45]

    [29] compared to our convention, thus their correponding thresholds

    Note that the definitions ofX-checks andZ-checks are swapped in Ref. [29] compared to our convention, thus their correponding thresholds

  46. [46]

    Hillmann, T., Dauphinais, G., Tzitrin, I., Vasmer, M.: Single-shot and measurement-based quantum error correction via fault complexes. Phys. Rev. A 112, 040401 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1103/cjb4-l57n

    work page doi:10.1103/cjb4-l57n 2025

  47. [47]

    PRX Quantum5, 020349 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.020349

    Berent, L., Hillmann, T., Eisert, J., Wille, R., Roffe, J.: Analog information decod- ing of bosonic quantum low-density parity-check codes. PRX Quantum5, 020349 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.020349

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.020349 2024

  48. [48]

    Kogut, J.B.: An introduction to lattice gauge theory and spin systems. Rev. Mod. Phys.51, 659–713 (1979) https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.51.659

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.51.659 1979

  49. [49]

    Journal of High Energy Physics2015(2), 172 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP02(2015)172

    Gaiotto, D., Kapustin, A., Seiberg, N., Willett, B.: Generalized global symmetries. Journal of High Energy Physics2015(2), 172 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP02(2015)172

    2015

  50. [50]

    Wen, X.-G.: Emergent anomalous higher symmetries from topological order and from dynamical electromagnetic field in condensed matter systems. Phys. Rev. B 99, 205139 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.99.205139

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.99.205139 2019

  51. [51]

    Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics14(Volume 14, 2023), 57–82 (2023) https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-040721-021029

    McGreevy, J.: Generalized symmetries in condensed matter. Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics14(Volume 14, 2023), 57–82 (2023) https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-040721-021029

    doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-040721-021029 2023

  52. [52]

    Journal of Mathematical Physics12(10), 2259–2272 (1971) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1665530 23

    Wegner, F.J.: Duality in generalized ising models and phase transitions with- out local order parameters. Journal of Mathematical Physics12(10), 2259–2272 (1971) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1665530 23

    doi:10.1063/1.1665530 1971

  53. [53]

    Johnston, D.A.:𭟋 2 lattice gerbe theory. Phys. Rev. D90, 107701 (2014) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.107701

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.107701 2014

  54. [54]

    [69–71], Fig S1 for error channels, and Fig S2 for error worldlines

    See Supplemental Information for details of the homological formalism, the statistical-mechanical mapping, and the generalized duality method, which con- tains additional Refs. [69–71], Fig S1 for error channels, and Fig S2 for error worldlines

  55. [55]

    Hartmann, A.K.: Ferromagnetic–spin-glass transition in a four-dimensional random-bond ising model. Phys. Rev. B64, 224430 (2001) https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevB.64.224430

    2001

  56. [56]

    Vijay, S., Haah, J., Fu, L.: Fracton topological order, generalized lattice gauge theory, and duality. Phys. Rev. B94, 235157 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevB.94.235157

    2016

  57. [57]

    Canossa, G., Pollet, L., Martin-Delgado, M.A., Song, H., Liu, K.: Exotic sym- metry breaking properties of self-dual fracton spin models. Phys. Rev. Res.6, 013304 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.013304

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.6.013304 2024

  58. [58]

    Nature Communications12(1), 2172 (2021) https://doi

    Bonilla Ataides, J.P., Tuckett, D.K., Bartlett, S.D., Flammia, S.T., Brown, B.J.: The xzzx surface code. Nature Communications12(1), 2172 (2021) https://doi. org/10.1038/s41467-021-22274-1

    doi:10.1038/s41467-021-22274-1 2021

  59. [59]

    PRX Quantum4, 030338 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.4.030338

    Huang, E., Pesah, A., Chubb, C.T., Vasmer, M., Dua, A.: Tailoring three- dimensional topological codes for biased noise. PRX Quantum4, 030338 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.4.030338

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.4.030338 2023

  60. [60]

    npj Quantum Information11(1), 149 (2025) https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41534-025-01074-1

    Setiawan, F., McLauchlan, C.: Tailoring dynamical codes for biased noise: the x3z3 floquet code. npj Quantum Information11(1), 149 (2025) https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41534-025-01074-1

    doi:10.1038/s41534-025-01074-1 2025

  61. [61]

    Haah, J.: Local stabilizer codes in three dimensions without string logical oper- ators. Phys. Rev. A83, 042330 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.83. 042330

    doi:10.1103/physreva.83 2011

  62. [62]

    Li, Y., Fisher, M.P.A.: Statistical mechanics of quantum error correcting codes. Phys. Rev. B103, 104306 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.103.104306

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.103.104306 2021

  63. [63]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2403

    Lyons, A.: Understanding Stabilizer Codes Under Local Decoherence Through a General Statistical Mechanics Mapping (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2403. 03955

    2024

  64. [64]

    Su, K., Yang, Z., Jian, C.-M.: Tapestry of dualities in decohered quantum error correction codes. Phys. Rev. B110, 085158 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevB.110.085158 24

    2024

  65. [65]

    Chen, K., Liu, Y., Zhang, Y., Liang, Z., Chen, Y.-A., Liu, K., Song, H.: Anyon theory and topological frustration of high-efficiency quantum low-density parity-check codes. Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 076603 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1103/ 86j7-cmsw

    2025

  66. [66]

    PRX Quantum6, 020357 (2025) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/rmy6-9n89

    Liang, Z., Liu, K., Song, H., Chen, Y.-A.: Generalized toric codes on twisted tori for quantum error correction. PRX Quantum6, 020357 (2025) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/rmy6-9n89

    doi:10.1103/rmy6-9n89 2025

  67. [67]

    PRX Quantum6, 030330 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1103/ 7x71-8j7k

    De Roeck, W., Khemani, V., Li, Y., O’Dea, N., Rakovszky, T.: Low-density parity-check stabilizer codes as gapped quantum phases: Stability under graph- local perturbations. PRX Quantum6, 030330 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1103/ 7x71-8j7k

    2025

  68. [68]

    Com- munications in Mathematical Physics324(2), 351–399 (2013) https://doi.org/10

    Haah, J.: Commuting pauli hamiltonians as maps between free modules. Com- munications in Mathematical Physics324(2), 351–399 (2013) https://doi.org/10. 1007/s00220-013-1810-2

    2013

  69. [69]

    Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York (2001)

    Nishimori, H.: Statistical Physics of Spin Glasses and Information Processing: an Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York (2001)

    2001

  70. [70]

    Physica68(3), 570–578 (1973) https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0031-8914(73)90381-9

    Wegner, F.J.: A transformation including the weak-graph theorem and the duality transformation. Physica68(3), 570–578 (1973) https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0031-8914(73)90381-9

    1973

  71. [71]

    +” and the differential “∂

    Maillard, J.-M., Nemoto, K., Nishimori, H.: Symmetry, complexity and multicrit- ical point of the two-dimensional spin glass. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General36(38), 9799 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/36/38/301 25 — Supplementary Information — Phenomenological Noise Models and Optimal Thresholds of the 3D Toric Code S.I Homologica...

    work page doi:10.1088/0305-4470/36/38/301 2003