Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Taming coherent noise with teleportation

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that teleportation-based error correction exactly converts single-qubit pure Z-coherent errors into Pauli noise, restoring efficient classical simulation and an analytic surface-code threshold.

desk verdict Solid paper; the main equivalence is real, but the proof needs a few explicit steps on conditioning before I'd call it fully rigorous. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.04947 v1 pith:SPMKWK74 submitted 2025-08-07 quant-ph

Kathleen Chang , Qile Su , Shruti Puri This is my paper
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Pp
keywords coherenterrorsteleportationPaulitwirlmeasurement-basedquantumerrorcorrectionnoisetailoringsurfacecodethresholdCSScodesfoliated
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Coherent errors—small unitary over-rotations—are the hard case for quantum error correction: they can interfere constructively over a long circuit, they have resisted analytical threshold proofs for topological codes, and they cannot be efficiently classically simulated. This paper argues that teleportation, the engine of measurement-based quantum error correction, tames this noise for free. The central result is an exact equivalence: if every single-qubit error in the foliation of a CSS code is a pure Z-coherent channel, the whole circuit behaves exactly as if each error were a Pauli channel with a calculable probability. That makes measurement-based error correction under such noise efficiently simulable, yields an analytical threshold lower bound $\theta_{\mathrm{th}} \ge \arcsin(1/10)/5 \approx 0.02$ for the teleported surface code, and suggests that teleportation-based schemes may not need randomized compiling.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the teleportation-induced random Pauli frame: each one-bit teleportation applies a random $Z^m$ and a Hadamard, so after $t$ steps the frame $P F_t$ is uniformly random. In the interaction picture a physical error $E_t$ appears as $E'_t = P F_t^{-1} E_t P F_t$, and averaging over the frames twirls the error. The key structural identity is the decomposition of any channel into a Pauli component $E_I$ and coherent components $E_X, E_Y, E_Z$ by sign behaviour under Pauli conjugation; a Z-like coherent error has $E_X = E_Y = 0$, i.e. $N = \alpha I + \beta Z$. For such channels the average removes $E_Z$ exactly, and on a foliated CSS code the same argument replaces c

What would settle it

Simulate a foliated CSS code (e.g., the teleported surface code) with injected pure Z over-rotations $e^{i\theta Z}$ at every space-time location, and simulate the same circuit with the mapped Pauli channels (bit/phase-flip probability $p = \sin^2(5\theta)$ after combining locations per round). The two logical error rates must agree at every code distance; a systematic discrepancy, or logical error rates that grow faster than linearly with the number of rounds, would falsify the equivalence. As a boundary check, injecting $e^{i\theta X}$ errors should break the map exactly where the pure-Z con

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Random teleportation outcomes generate a random Pauli frame; averaging over the frames converts each single-qubit error channel into its Pauli twirl. For Z-like coherent errors—channels with no X or Y coherence, of the form $E_t = E_{I,t} + E_{Z,t}$—the decoherence is exact, and infidelity grows at worst linearly with chain length. Theorem 2 extends this to measurement-based error correction: if every single-qubit error throughout a foliated CSS code has pure Z-coherence, single-qubit Pauli channels computable with $O(W)$ $4\times4$ matrix multiplications exactly reproduce the logical channel. Ancilla errors become classical measurement errors; the logical channel stays Pauli, so coherent-no

Load-bearing premise

The exact equivalence assumes every noise event is a single-qubit channel with pure Z-coherence (no X or Y coherence, and the Z-to-Z Pauli-transfer element equal to one), so arbitrary-axis rotations, two-qubit errors such as $e^{i\theta ZZ}$, and channels with X or Y coherence sit outside the mapping and outside the derived threshold—a limitation the paper itself states in its conclusion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Measurement-based error correction under circuit-level pure Z-coherent noise becomes efficiently classically simulable: the equivalent Pauli model runs under Gottesman–Knill-style Clifford simulation.
  • The teleported surface code acquires an analytical threshold under coherent $e^{i\theta Z}$ errors, lower bounded by $\theta_{\mathrm{th}} \ge \arcsin(1/10)/5 \approx 0.02$, obtained by reducing to Pauli noise and applying a matching-based threshold proof.
  • The logical error channel after each round of error correction is Pauli, so logical errors from different rounds cannot constructively interfere—the quadratic infidelity growth characteristic of coherent errors is absent.
  • Because teleportation itself tailors the noise, teleportation-based computing may not need randomized compiling or echo-based error-canceling pulses to suppress residual single-qubit coherent errors.
  • The exact equivalence holds for any CSS code in foliated (measurement-based) form, not just the surface code.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the proof stops at single-qubit channels, the practical reach of the mapping depends on how well two-qubit coherent errors such as $e^{i\theta ZZ}$ can be suppressed or decomposed; testing the map against full two-qubit noise is the natural next step.
  • The analytic threshold bound is derived by adapting a known matching-threshold argument and is conservative (numerical estimates place the surface-code threshold near 0.035), so MBEC robustness to coherent noise may be substantially better than the proved bound.
  • The frame-averaging mechanism suggests a general principle—any scheme that repeatedly randomizes the Pauli frame, including Floquet codes and teleportation-based logical gates, may inherit similar noise tailoring; the authors list these as future directions.
  • A direct experimental discriminator is available: inject calibrated Z over-rotations into a teleported code and compare logical error rates against the mapped Pauli model; agreement within shot noise would confirm the equivalence, while systematic deviation would mark the onset of non-Z coherence.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the random Pauli frames intrinsic to teleportation tailor coherent noise into Pauli noise. It first analyzes a single-qubit teleportation chain: for small arbitrary-axis unitary errors it gives an approximate linear-in-time infidelity bound, for Z-like coherent errors it gives an exact twirling proof, and for general small-coherence channels it proves a linear growth bound (Theorem 1 and Corollary 1.1). The main result is Theorem 2: in a foliated CSS code (MBEC), if every space-time location suffers a single-qubit channel with pure Z-coherence, then the whole circuit is exactly equivalent to a set of single-qubit Pauli channels, computable from the original channels. This is used to claim efficient classical simulation of such MBEC circuits and an analytical threshold lower bound for the teleported surface code under eiθZ noise, θ_th ≥ arcsin(1/10)/5.

Significance. If Theorem 2 is correct, the paper would be an important step: it would provide the first analytical topological-code threshold under a coherent error model, and would justify efficient Pauli-level simulation of MBEC with a physically motivated noise model. The single-qubit results in Sec. III are clean and appear sound, especially the exact Z-like twirling proof in Sec. III.D. The paper is also honest about the restricted noise model (pure Z-coherence, single-qubit errors only), and it makes a concrete, falsifiable quantitative prediction (the threshold bound). However, the proof of the central MBEC equivalence has a serious conditioning gap that is load-bearing for Theorem 2 and its corollary. The paper is well written and the circuit-manipulation framework is elegant, but the main claim is not yet established as written.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV.C, Eqs. (39)-(40)] The averaging step that removes the coherent terms is not justified. The text says: 'we fix the cluster state stabilizers {s'_t}, and average over independent and random {m(i,t)}.' But the cluster stabilizer outcomes are defined in App. C as s'_t = s_t + s_{t-2} + u_t(m(i,t)); hence the syndrome record is a function of the same teleportation outcomes m(i,t) that enter the signs x(i,t) and z(i,t) in Eqs. (32)-(35). Conditioning on a fixed syndrome therefore generically biases the distribution of m(i,t), so the expectation E[(-1)^{x(i,t)} | {s'}] and E[(-1)^{z(i,t)} | {s'}] need not vanish. The paper neither proves these conditional expectations are zero nor shows that the projectors M[s'_t] commute with the average over m. Without this, the replacement of N'_{x/z,(i,t)} by the Pauli channels in Eq. (40) is unsupported, and Corollary 2.1 does not follow. A direct calculation for a single t
  2. [Sec. IV.D, Lemma IV.1 and Eq. (44)-(47)] The ancilla reduction in Sec. IV.D assumes that the code-qubit state is a mixture of definite stabilizer eigenstates. This is true only if the code-qubit noise has already been shown to be Pauli, which is exactly the unproven conclusion of Sec. IV.C. Thus the ancilla argument inherits the conditioning gap: if the syndrome-conditioned code-qubit channel retains coherent terms, the state after the code-qubit noise is not a definite stabilizer eigenstate, and the cancellation in Eq. (44) (which relies on ρ0 being a stabilizer eigenstate) no longer applies. The ancilla reduction is internally consistent conditional on Sec. IV.C, but it cannot independently rescue Theorem 2.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III, Corollary 1.1 proof] The proof concludes 'The last line is obtained via graphing.' An analytic verification of the inequality (1 - 17r0) for r0 ≤ 1/100 should be provided; a graph is not a proof step. This is local and easily fixable.
  2. [Eq. (47)] There is a typographical bracket mismatch in the definition of the Pauli channel: 'Pz[p = 1/2 (1 − W sqrt(1 − 2|β(l,t)|2)])' has an extra closing bracket. Please fix.
  3. [Eq. (30)] The notation Nz,(γ,t,w) is used both for the channel and for one of its Kraus operators (Nz,(γ,t,w) = Nz,(γ,t,w) · N†_{z,(γ,t,w)}). This overloaded notation is confusing and should be changed, e.g., by introducing a separate symbol for the Kraus operator.
  4. [Appendix A] Typo: 'we sill show' should be 'we will show'.
  5. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption and the inline notation around the circuit ('PFSX SZ', 'PFH HZ⊗Sx', etc.) are hard to parse. A clearer explanation of the circuit-manipulation steps and the symbols would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; central Pauli mapping is a derivation, and the sole self-citation (numerical threshold estimate) is not load-bearing.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain. Theorem 2's input is the set of single-qubit channels satisfying Eqs. (28)-(29); the output F[{N_L}] is constructed by commuting pure Z-coherent errors, conjugating by the teleportation Pauli frame, averaging the sign-dependent coherent parts, and identifying the surviving EI terms as bit/phase-flip channels (Eqs. (32)-(33), (36), (40), (41)). This is not a fit: no parameter of F is chosen to reproduce the logical channel EL, and the equality EL[Nz] = EL[F[Nz]] is argued from syndrome-conditioned equivalence rather than assumed. The analytical threshold lower bound pth ≥ 1/100 comes from the independent Fowler theorem [5], and the PTM bounds in Corollary 1.1 come from independent reference [23]; the 'graphing' step is a numerical verification of an inequality, not a data fit. The only overlap with the authors is the numerical estimate θth ≈ 0.035 cited from [46] (Claes/Bourassa/Puri) and [47]; the paper uses it as a supplementary estimate, not as support for Theorem 2 or the lower bound, so it is not circular. The paper also explicitly limits Theorem 2 to single-qubit pure Z-coherent errors (Eqs. (28)-(29)) and says arbitrary-axis rotations or eiθZZ errors are left to future work, so the result is not overextended by definition. A possible proof gap—conditioning on syndrome outcomes {s'_t} while averaging over teleportation outcomes {m(i,t)}—would be a correctness concern, but it is not a circular reduction of the kind that would raise the circularity score.

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

No free parameters are fitted; all constants (e.g., the 17/2 prefactor, the 1/100 threshold) are derived, not adjusted. The only model choice is the physically motivated pure Z-coherent noise assumption. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Pure Z-coherent noise model at every spacetime location, Eqs. (28)-(29): [N_L]_{P,XP}=[N_L]_{P,YP}=0 ∀P and [N_L]_{Z,Z}=1.
    The exact equivalence in Theorem 2 and the threshold bound are proved only for this class of single-qubit channels; the authors explicitly exclude arbitrary-axis and two-qubit coherent errors.
  • domain assumption Ideal teleportation statistics: each measurement outcome m_{i,t} is uniformly random and independent, giving the Pauli frame distribution of Eq. (6) with short-lived correlations.
    The twirl-by-teleportation argument averages over these outcomes; biased or correlated measurement outcomes would break the exact reduction.
  • standard math PTM element bounds from Beale et al. [23]: for a channel with infidelity r0, diagonal elements ≥1-3r0 and off-diagonal elements ≤ sqrt(6r0).
    Used in the proof of Corollary 1.1 to bound the coherence parameter ϵ.
  • standard math Fowler's threshold theorem [5]: a surface code with matching decoder has finite threshold p_th ≥ 1/[2(B-1)]^2, B being the maximum decoding-graph degree.
    Repurposed for the equivalent Pauli error model on the RHG cluster state to obtain θ_th ≥ arcsin(1/10)/5.
  • standard math Gottesman-Knill theorem enables efficient classical simulation of Clifford circuits with Pauli noise.
    Basis for the claim that MBEC under the mapped Pauli model can be efficiently simulated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Taming coherent noise with teleportation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SPMKWK74

@misc{pith2026250804947,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Taming coherent noise with teleportation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SPMKWK74}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.04947}
}
abstract

Compared to the more widely studied Pauli errors, coherent errors present several new challenges in quantum computing and quantum error correction (QEC). For example, coherent errors may interfere constructively over a long circuit and significantly increase the overall failure rate compared to Pauli noise. Additionally, there is so far no analytical proof for a topological code threshold under coherent errors. Moreover, it is hard to even numerically estimate the performance of QEC under coherent errors as their effect in a Clifford circuit cannot be efficiently classically simulated. In this work, we demonstrate that teleportation effectively tailors coherent errors into Pauli errors, for which analytical and numerical results are abundant. We first show that repeated teleportation of a single qubit decoheres errors, and the average infidelity grows at worst linearly with the number of teleportations, similar to Pauli errors. We then analyze a physically motivated pure $Z$-coherent error model for teleported CSS codes in which over-rotation errors accompany every gate, and find that such an error model is equivalent to a Pauli error model. Our result implies that the performance of a CSS code implemented via teleportation-based error correction or measurement-based error correction with such coherent noise can be efficiently simulated on a classical computer and has an analytically provable threshold. The intrinsic noise-tailoring property of teleportation may ultimately remove the need for randomized compiling in teleportation-based quantum computing schemes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.04947 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) We adopt an equivalent interpretation of the cluster state. We start with qubits on the left in a code state of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Simplified circuit-level decoding using Knill error correction

    quant-ph 2026-03 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Knill error correction reduces circuit-level decoding for quantum LDPC codes to the simpler code-capacity decoder while remaining fault-tolerant under locally decaying noise.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Using re- sults from sections IV B and IV D, this corollary states that replacing error channels Nz,(γ,t,w) with Eq

    Pauli channels yield equivalent logical channels as coherent errors We now justify corollary 2.1 of theorem 2. Using re- sults from sections IV B and IV D, this corollary states that replacing error channels Nz,(γ,t,w) with Eq. (41) on code qubits and Eq. (47) on ancilla qubits gives the same logical channel as if there were physical coherent errors at ev...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Dennis, A

    E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Topological quantum memory, Journal of Mathematical Physics 43, 4452–4505 (2002)

    2002

  3. [3]

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

    arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    T. M. Stace, S. D. Barrett, and A. C. Doherty, Thresholds for Topological Codes in the Presence of Loss, Physical Review Letters 102, 200501 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    A. Yu. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  6. [6]

    Gottesman, (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052 [quant- ph]

    D. Gottesman, (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052 [quant- ph]

    arXiv 1997

  7. [7]

    A. G. Fowler, Proof of Finite Surface Code Threshold for Matching, Physical Review Letters 109, 180502 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Such drifts necessitate frequent recalibrations of control parameters [52] or the use of pulse sequences that are insensitive to amplitude errors [10]

    work page

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Gottesman, The Heisenberg Representation of Quan- tum Computers (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9807006

    D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg Representation of Quan- tum Computers (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9807006

    1998 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Bluvstein, H

    D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, A quantum processor based on coherent transport of en- tangled atom arrays, Nature 604, 451 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    J. J. Burnett, A. Bengtsson, M. Scigliuzzo, D. Niepce, M. Kudra, P. Delsing, and J. Bylander, Decoherence benchmarking of superconducting qubits, npj Quantum Information 5, 54 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Huang, B

    S. Huang, B. Lienhard, G. Calusine, A. Veps¨ al¨ ainen, J. Braum¨ uller, D. K. Kim, A. J. Melville, B. M. Niedziel- ski, J. L. Yoder, B. Kannan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavs- son, and W. D. Oliver, Microwave Package Design for Superconducting Quantum Processors, PRX Quantum2, 020...

    2021

  5. [13]

    Paladino, Y

    E. Paladino, Y. M. Galperin, G. Falci, and B. L. Alt- shuler, $\mathbsf{1}/\mathbsfit{f}$ noise: Implications for solid-state quantum information, Reviews of Modern Physics 86, 361 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    (A2) and (A3) derived in appendix A

    The average error channel Nt and the corresponding average infidelity r(Nt) can be computed exactly using Eqs. (A2) and (A3) derived in appendix A. Second-order upper and lower bounds on r(Nt) can be computed from theorem (1) Eq. (26) by tak- ing appropriate combinations of ex...

  7. [15]

    Sarovar, T

    M. Sarovar, T. Proctor, K. Rudinger, K. Young, E. Nielsen, and R. Blume-Kohout, Detecting crosstalk errors in quantum information processors, Quantum 4, 321 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    P. Zhao, K. Linghu, Z. Li, P. Xu, R. Wang, G. Xue, Y. Jin, and H. Yu, Quantum Crosstalk Analysis for Simultaneous Gate Operations on Superconducting Qubits, PRX Quantum 3, 020301 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    K. X. Wei, E. Magesan, I. Lauer, S. Srinivasan, D. F. Bogorin, S. Carnevale, G. A. Keefe, Y. Kim, D. Klaus, W. Landers, N. Sundaresan, C. Wang, E. J. Zhang, M. Steffen, O. E. Dial, D. C. McKay, and A. Kandala, Hamiltonian Engineering with Multicolor Drives for Fast Entangling ...

    2022

  10. [18]

    L. M. K. Vandersypen and I. L. Chuang, NMR techniques for quantum control and computation, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics 76, 1037 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    Ezzell, B

    N. Ezzell, B. Pokharel, L. Tewala, G. Quiroz, and D. A. Lidar, Dynamical decoupling for superconducting qubits: A performance survey, Physical Review Applied 20, 064027 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kali- nowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lu...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Acharya, I

    R. Acharya, I. Aleiner, R. Allen, T. I. Andersen, M. Ans- mann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. Atalaya, R. Bab- bush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, J. Basso, A. Bengtsson, S. Boixo, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, J. Bovaird, L. Brill, M. Broughton, B. B. Buckley, D. A. Buell, T. Burger, ...

    2023

  14. [22]

    Acharya, D

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

    2025

  15. [23]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 10th ed. (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge; New York, 2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    Huang, A

    E. Huang, A. C. Doherty, and S. Flammia, Performance of quantum error correction with coherent errors, Physi- cal Review A 99, 022313 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    S. J. Beale, J. J. Wallman, M. Guti´ errez, K. R. Brown, and R. Laflamme, Quantum error correction decoheres noise, Physical review letters 121, 190501 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Bravyi, M

    S. Bravyi, M. Englbrecht, R. K¨ onig, and N. Peard, Cor- recting coherent errors with surface codes. npj quan- tum information, 4, 1-6, arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.02270 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A. Jain, P. Iyer, S. D. Bartlett, and J. Emerson, Im- proved quantum error correction with randomized com- piling, Physical Review Research 5, 033049 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    M´ arton and J

    ´A. M´ arton and J. K. Asb´ oth, Coherent errors and readout errors in the surface code, Quantum 7, 1116 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Venn and B

    F. Venn and B. B´ eri, Error-correction and noise- decoherence thresholds for coherent errors in planar- graph surface codes, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043412 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    A. S. Darmawan, Optimal adaptation of surface-code de- coders to local noise (2024), arXiv:2403.08706 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    J. K. Iverson and J. Preskill, Coherence in logical quan- tum channels, New Journal of Physics 22, 073066 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    B. Pato, J. W. Staples Jr, and K. R. Brown, Log- ical coherence in 2d compass codes, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.09287 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    J. J. Wallman and J. Emerson, Noise tailoring for scalable quantum computation via randomized compiling, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052325 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Raussendorf, S

    R. Raussendorf, S. Bravyi, and J. Harrington, Long- range quantum entanglement in noisy cluster states, Physical Review A 71, 062313 (2005)

    2005

  27. [35]

    Raussendorf, J

    R. Raussendorf, J. Harrington, and K. Goyal, A fault- tolerant one-way quantum computer, Annals of Physics 321, 2242 (2006)

    2006

  28. [36]

    Raussendorf and J

    R. Raussendorf and J. Harrington, Fault-Tolerant Quan- tum Computation with High Threshold in Two Dimen- sions, Physical Review Letters 98, 190504 (2007)

    2007

  29. [37]

    B. J. Brown and S. Roberts, Universal fault-tolerant measurement-based quantum computation, Physical Re- view Research 2, 033305 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    A. Bolt, G. Duclos-Cianci, D. Poulin, and T. Stace, Fo- liated quantum error-correcting codes, Physical review letters 117, 070501 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    M. A. Nielsen, A simple formula for the average gate fi- delity of a quantum dynamical operation, Physics Letters A 303, 249 (2002)

    2002

  32. [40]

    X. Zhou, D. W. Leung, and I. L. Chuang, Methodology for quantum logic gate construction, Physical Review A 62, 052316 (2000)

    2000

  33. [41]

    Levine, A

    H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Parallel Implementation of High-Fidelity Multiqubit Gates with Neutral Atoms, Physical Review Letters 123, 170503 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Silva, E

    M. Silva, E. Magesan, D. W. Kribs, and J. Emerson, Scalable protocol for identification of correctable codes, Physical Review A 78, 012347 (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    Dankert, R

    C. Dankert, R. Cleve, J. Emerson, and E. Livine, Ex- act and approximate unitary 2-designs and their applica- tion to fidelity estimation, Physical Review A 80, 012304 (2009)

    2009

  36. [44]

    Emerson, M

    J. Emerson, M. Silva, O. Moussa, C. Ryan, M. Laforest, J. Baugh, D. G. Cory, and R. Laflamme, Symmetrized Characterization of Noisy Quantum Processes, Science 317, 1893 (2007)

    2007

  37. [45]

    DiVincenzo, D

    D. DiVincenzo, D. Leung, and B. Terhal, Quantum data hiding, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 48, 580 (2002)

    2002

  38. [46]

    S. J. Beale and J. J. Wallman, Randomized compiling in fault-tolerant quantum computation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13752 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Raussendorf and H

    R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A One-Way Quantum Computer, Physical Review Letters 86, 5188 (2001)

    2001

  40. [48]

    Claes, J

    J. Claes, J. E. Bourassa, and S. Puri, Tailored cluster states with high threshold under biased noise, npj Quan- tum Information 9, 1 (2023), publisher: Nature Publish- ing Group

    2023

  41. [49]

    T. J. Yoder and I. H. Kim, The surface code with a twist, Quantum 1, 2 (2017). 17

    2017

  42. [50]

    T. M. Graham, Y. Song, J. Scott, C. Poole, L. Phutti- tarn, K. Jooya, P. Eichler, X. Jiang, A. Marra, B. Grinke- meyer, M. Kwon, M. Ebert, J. Cherek, M. T. Licht- man, M. Gillette, J. Gilbert, D. Bowman, T. Ballance, C. Campbell, E. D. Dahl, O. Crawford, N. S. Blunt, B. Rogers...

    2022

  43. [51]

    M. B. Hastings and J. Haah, Dynamically Generated Logical Qubits, Quantum 5, 564 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    Berthusen, D

    N. Berthusen, D. Devulapalli, E. Schoute, A. M. Childs, M. J. Gullans, A. V. Gorshkov, and D. Gottesman, Toward a 2D Local Implementation of Quantum Low- Density Parity-Check Codes, PRX Quantum 6, 010306 (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    S. H. Choe and R. Koenig, How to fault-tolerantly re- alize any quantum circuit with local operations (2024), arXiv:2402.13863 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin,...

    2019

  47. [55]

    Greenbaum, Introduction to quantum gate set tomog- raphy (2015), arXiv:1509.02921 [quant-ph]

    D. Greenbaum, Introduction to quantum gate set tomog- raphy (2015), arXiv:1509.02921 [quant-ph]. 18 Appendix A: Proof of lower and upper bounds Now we provide a proof for theorem 1. The main idea of the proof is to rewrite Nt as some linear map P(t,t−1) composed with Nt−1, and...

    2015 arXiv

  48. [56]

    E H I,t P,P E H X,t P,XP E H Z,t ZP,P E H Y,t ZP,XP # Nt−1 P,P [δNt−1]XP,P , (A12) and for odd t Nt P,P [δNt]XP,P =

    We can enumerate four equally probable combinations for P F1 and P F2. First, we can choose P F1 from two equally probable values, H or HZ [Eq. (6a)]. Then, based on the value chosen for P F1, we can choose P F2 in the two ways allowed by the relation P F2 = HZ m2 P F1 [Eq. (5...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.