Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 58 references

A conditional no-go for resource-free magic-axis measurement on a static surface code

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A static surface-code patch with no added structure cannot perform the magic-axis check that magic-state cultivation needs while still accepting runs often; the price must be paid in an added charge-converting resource, a non-dilute accepte

desk verdict A careful conditional no-go that isolates one open conjecture; the numerical proxy is 2D, so the main claim rests on unproven subcriticality. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16968 v1 pith:TDEYAWKZ submitted 2026-07-18 eess.SY cs.SY

Jiachen Shen , Hui Zhong This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY MSC 81P6882B43 PACS 03.67.Lx03.67.Pp
keywords surfacecodemagic-statecultivationmagic-axismeasurementanyonchargestabilizer-effectoctahedronsubcriticalitypolymerexpansionconditionalno-go
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

The paper tests the folklore that a plain surface-code patch cannot measure the magic axis H_XY = (X+Y)/√2 that magic-state cultivation relies on. It proves, under two structural assumptions and one subcriticality assumption, that a static, resource-free, protected patch cannot perform this check sharply while accepting runs with probability at least 1/poly(d). If correct, a useful in-place magic measurement must pay for the magic axis somewhere: by adding a charge-converting resource such as a fold or self-dual patch, by letting the accepted defect ensemble leave the dilute regime, or by accepting only exponentially rarely. The unconditional core is that any single stabilizer-measurement transcript has isotropic anyon charge and therefore cannot host the coherent m–ϵ superposition the check needs, together with an identity showing that the magic of an accepted effect equals its acceptance probability times its distance from the stabilizer-effect octahedron.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three objects. The magic witness Δ_stab is the ℓ¹ distance of the normalized accepted logical effect from the stabilizer-effect octahedron, the convex hull of Pauli-measurement effects; it separates a coherent magic check from a classical mixture of X and Y readouts. The annular charge content Q_b(A) reads the anyon charge of cleaned, code-preserving Pauli representatives, so a commuting stabilizer projector always has isotropic charge while H_XY requires the non-commuting pair (m, ϵ). The coarse-grained bound decomposes the accepted effect into a native part and a charge-converting part expanded over conversion polymers in the bounded-degree spacetime cell graph,

What would settle it

Exhibit a concrete distance-d surface-code protocol on a fixed patch with no fold, self-duality, or anyon-permuting structure, all cells charge-non-converting, spacetime volume polynomial, fault distance Ω(d), acceptance ≥ 1/poly(d), and normalized logical effect at constant octahedron distance; or evaluate the operative spacetime connective constant μ_G and accepted activity z_A numerically and show μ_G z_A ≥ 1 for a genuinely resource-free family.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that five individually natural conditions are jointly incompatible on a fixed distance-d surface-code patch: sharp magic (constant distance from the stabilizer octahedron), resource-freeness (no fold, self-duality, anyon-permuting wall, magic ancilla, or local charge-converting cell), linear protection, inverse-polynomial acceptance, and subcriticality of the accepted charge-conversion sector. The paper proves that a resource-free, protected, sharp check with good acceptance must fail subcriticality; equivalently, under subcriticality the magic–acceptance product is bounded by C|V(G_d)|e^{-τ L(d)}, which forces acceptance to be exponentially small for protected patches.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Condition 5: after post-selection, the accepted charge-conversion sector remains subcritical (μ_G z < 1), so the sum over exponentially many patch-spanning conversion strings decays; the paper does not prove this, and if the ensemble is critical or supercritical the no-go collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the no-go holds, every known route to a sharp magic-axis check on a surface code must give up resource-freeness; folds, self-dual patches, cross-caps, and code switches are different ways of paying the same charge-conversion price.
  • A resource-free, protected check that measures the magic axis sharply cannot accept runs with inverse-polynomial probability; the acceptance must decay exponentially in the code distance.
  • For a single stabilizer-measurement transcript, the obstruction is unconditional: no such transcript can implement the (I ± H_XY)/2 projector, regardless of acceptance.
  • The magic–acceptance trade-off means cultivation's in-place measurement step is not an artifact that can be optimized away within the resource-free class; effort is better spent making the charge-converting structure cheaper rather than trying to eliminate it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Conjecture 1 is proved — that resource-freeness and protection force the accepted charge-conversion gas to be subcritical — the no-go becomes unconditional under the two structural assumptions, completing the resource-necessity statement for measurements.
  • The same method, reading an accepted effect against the free stabilizer polytope and asking which defect sectors the accepted history can support, could plausibly be carried to other non-Clifford measurements and other codes, though the paper does not prove such extensions.
  • A concrete falsifier of the conditional theorem would be a resource-free, protected protocol with p_acc ≥ 1/poly(d) and Δ_stab ≥ c > 0 on a fixed patch; alternatively, computing the operative spacetime connective constant μ_G and accepted activity z_A and finding μ_G z_A ≥ 1 would place the ensemble in the escape route rather than refute the no-go.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies a fixed planar rotated surface-code patch and asks whether a 'resource-free' adaptive/post-selected protocol can perform a sharp Lüders measurement of the magic axis H_XY=(X+Y)/√2 with non-negligible acceptance. It defines a magic witness as the ℓ1 distance of the normalized accepted effect from the stabilizer-effect octahedron. It proves two unconditional statements: (i) a single fine transcript built from resource-free Pauli/stabilizer measurements has isotropic annular charge and cannot implement the H_XY check (Theorem 1), and (ii) the coefficient-norm distance of the accepted effect from the native cone equals p_acc Δ_stab (Lemma 4). It then states a conditional no-go for decoded families: under Assumptions 1–2 (cone-compatible charged-polymer decomposition and minimum-length cleaning) and Condition 5 (subcriticality μ_G z<1), Theorem 2 bounds Δ_stab p_acc ≤ C |V(G_d)| e^{-τ L(d)}; hence sharp magic and p_acc≥1/poly(d) are incompatible for bounded polynomial-volume spacetime graphs (Theorem 3). The remaining input is Conjecture 1 (subcriticality follows from resource-freeness/protection/acceptance), supported only by a two-dimensional strip numerical proxy.

Significance. If Conjecture 1 and the structural assumptions were established, the result would be a valuable resource-necessity theorem for magic-state cultivation and a useful template for measurement no-goes in topological codes. The paper's strengths are the clean effect-level witness, the explicit separation of proved and assumed statements, the honest isolation of the open statistical-mechanics conjecture, and the released deterministic enumeration code. However, the advertised practical claim is conditional on an open conjecture, and the numerical evidence does not address the operative spacetime constant; moreover the structural assumptions are not derived for the full resource-free class defined in Section 2.4. The paper is best read as a rigorous reduction of the no-go to a specific conjecture, not as a settled no-go.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5, Conjecture 1; §D, Numerical estimate 1; Theorem 2, eq. (6)] The exponential suppression in Theorem 2 requires Condition 5, μ_G z < 1. The paper does not prove this and states Conjecture 1 as open. The numerical support in Numerical estimate 1 is a two-dimensional strip connective constant μ_⊥(d), not the spacetime μ_G that appears in the theorem; §D itself notes that μ_G is larger. Hence the estimates do not constrain the sign of log(μ_G z). If μ_G z ≥ 1, the geometric sum in eq. (21) does not decay and the advertised trade-off disappears. Section C leaves open whether a critical/supercritical sector can establish coherent alignment. The paper's practical conclusion—that a useful check must pay for the magic axis—is therefore not established; it is a reduction to Conjecture 1. The abstract and Section 6 should state this even more prominently, or the conjecture should be proved at least for the local-noise family of §F.
  2. [§2.4 vs §6/F; Assumptions 1–2] Definition 2 defines resource-free protocols to include arbitrary charge-preserving CP maps. Assumptions 1 and 2 (cone-compatible charged decomposition and effect-cleaning/minimum-length) are assumed for the accepted effect, and §F derives them only under local stochastic Pauli noise with stabilizer operations. Theorems 2–3 therefore cover a strictly narrower class than the term 'resource-free' in Condition 2 and Corollary 1 suggests. The paper acknowledges this in §6, but the abstract and corollary state the result for 'resource-free' without this qualifier. This is load-bearing because a protocol outside the derived class could evade the no-go without violating any of the five stated conditions. Please either restrict the theorem statements to the polymer-expandable local-stabilizer class or supply the missing derivation (or a counterexample) for the full class.
  3. [Theorem 1 / Appendix A] The fine-grained isotropy theorem is proved only for transcripts built from signed Pauli projectors (Lemma 1). Definition 2(iii), however, allows arbitrary charge-preserving non-Clifford CP maps in each cell. Thus the 'unconditional core' does not cover all resource-free single transcripts under the paper's own definition. Section 5 uses the fine-grained theorem to argue that a counterexample must be a coherent alignment of exponentially many stabilizer transcripts; that constraint is weaker than stated for protocols containing non-Clifford charge-preserving filters. Please state Theorem 1 as a stabilizer-transcript result, as the abstract does, and either extend it or explicitly limit its use in the conjecture discussion.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§E, eq. (31)] The cancellation P_{X,+} Y P_{X,+} = 0 is correct but may look like a typo; a one-line derivation using {X,Y}=0 would improve readability.
  2. [§D, Numerical estimate 1] The table would benefit from explicit error bars or a statement that the residual finite-size bias is an estimate, not a rigorous bound. The current caption already warns that the proxy is not μ_G, but the table itself invites overreading.
  3. [Table 2] The percolation-family row uses mixed symbols (?, ✗, ✓, ✓, ✗) without an explicit legend. The '?' is explained in the caption, but a clearer notation would help distinguish 'not established' from 'does not attempt'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the no-go is an explicit conditional incompatibility with its open assumption isolated, not an input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is non-circular. The target no-go (Theorem 3) is stated as an incompatibility among five named conditions; Condition 5 (subcriticality) is an input, and the paper repeatedly identifies it as unproved ('Conjecture 1 is exactly the remaining gap'; Section 5: 'We are not able to prove it, and we are also not able to refute it'). Theorem 2's exponential bound is derived from Assumptions 1-2 plus Condition 5 and the proved normalisation identity (Lemma 4); it does not assume the conclusion that sharp magic forces low acceptance. The magic witness is defined independently as the ell-1 distance from the stabilizer-effect octahedron, and Lemma 4 proving magic_c(F)=p_acc Delta_stab is a mathematical identity, not a fitted relation. The only numerical input, Numerical estimate 1, is explicitly a 2D spatial-strip proxy and the paper states 'the operative spacetime connective constant μ_G is not itself computed', so it is not a fitted parameter presented as a prediction. The self-citations in the introduction ([3]-[8]) are background on distributed/private quantum computing and carry no load in the proof; no uniqueness or no-go theorem by the same authors is invoked to force the conclusion. The paper even rejects the would-be circular arguments for subcriticality (duality and Dobrushin routes, Appendix C.3: 'asserting the high-temperature side is asserting μ_G z_A <1'). The open subcriticality assumption is a limitation on the theorem's strength, not a circular step; the paper explicitly states that if μ_G z >=1 the bound fails, which is the opposite of hiding the conclusion in the hypotheses.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theorem is not derived from first principles alone: it imports two structural assumptions about the accepted-effect expansion plus subcriticality. No target result is hidden in fitted parameters; the numerical connective constants are illustrative only. The proof relies on standard surface-code/anyon facts and standard polymer/percolation estimates.

free parameters (2)
  • Renormalized per-cell conversion activity z = unassigned; assumed μ_G z < 1 in Condition 5
    Effective activity of the accepted charge-conversion polymer gas, fixed by a prescribed cluster-expansion scheme per Assumption 1. It is not fitted to data in the paper; subcriticality assumes a value below 1/μ_G.
  • Spatial-strip proxy connective constant μ_⊥(d) and threshold z_c⊥(d)=1/μ_⊥(d) = μ_⊥ ≈ 1.918 (d=3) to 2.477 (d=9); z_c⊥ ≈ 0.52 to 0.40
    Finite-size deterministic SAW enumeration (Numerical estimate 1). Used only to calibrate the entropy scale; not used in the proof, and not the operative spacetime μ_G.
assumptions (7)
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 1: the accepted effect admits a cone-compatible charged decomposition F = F_native + Σ B_γ with absolute convergence.
    Needed to identify the charge-converting part; not proven for arbitrary post-selected effects; for local stabilizer circuits it would follow from cluster expansion (sec. B.2, F).
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 2: every conversion term has a connected spine crossing the protected patch, |Γ_γ| ≥ L(d).
    Minimum-length/cleaning property asserted for all accepted effects; enters the polymer sum.
  • domain assumption Condition 5: subcriticality μ_G z < 1 for the accepted conversion sector.
    The open assumption; Conjecture 1. Without it the polymer sum does not decay; paper's numerical proxy is spatial, not μ_G.
  • domain assumption Bounded-degree, polynomial-spacetime-volume model |V(G_d)| ≤ poly(d).
    Restricts protocol depth; needed for subexponential prefactor.
  • domain assumption Resource-free class (Definition 2): no anyon-permuting structure, free stabilizer ancillas, charge-non-converting cells.
    Defines scope; excludes folds, cross-caps, code switches, Floquet excursions, magic ancillas.
  • domain assumption Protection L(d)=Ω(d) (Condition 3).
    Used to force conversion strings to span the patch; not derived.
  • standard math Standard surface-code, toric-code anyon, cluster-expansion, percolation, and self-avoiding-walk facts.
    Background results cited but not proved (refs. 29–57).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A conditional no-go for resource-free magic-axis measurement on a static surface code." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TDEYAWKZ

@misc{pith2026260716968,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A conditional no-go for resource-free magic-axis measurement on a static surface code},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TDEYAWKZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16968}
}
read the original abstract

Under stated assumptions, a static surface-code patch that adds no fold or \mbox{self-dual} structure cannot perform the magic-axis check that magic-state cultivation relies on while still accepting often. This is a conditional no-go. Fault-tolerant machines spend much of their cost making magic states, and cultivation makes them in place by measuring the magic axis, which every known construction does through a fold or \mbox{self-dual} patch that it is folklore to call necessary. We test the folklore. The no-go says that a useful check must pay for the magic axis somewhere. It can add a charge-converting resource, it can leave the dilute regime of its accepted history, or it can accept only exponentially rarely. For a single stabilizer-measurement transcript this is proved outright, from a topological reading of the accepted outcome. For adaptive, post-selected protocols in a bounded-depth (polynomial spacetime-volume) model, it holds under two structural assumptions plus a subcriticality assumption. We isolate the one open assumption, show that protection alone does not force it, and give the threshold any resolution must address. What remains is a single conjecture.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16968 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The distance-d surface-code patch. The red and blue lines are the native logical strings X (charge m) and Z (charge e). The teal line marks the missing ingredient. A magic-axis check must turn an m string into an ϵ string across the patch, and the resource-free patch has no local way to do that. must clear, so that it is a concrete target and not a hope, while noting that the operative spacetime connective constant … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The vz = 0 slice of the stabilizer-effect octahedron. The sharp HXY projector (red) lies outside it at distance ∆stab = √ 2 − 1; the classical mixture 1 2 PX,+ + 1 2 PY ,+ sits on the boundary edge, with ∆stab = 0. from the set of effects that native Pauli measurements can build. For one logical qubit, write EbA = 1 2 (I + v · σ) with Bloch vector v = (vx, vy, vz). The native operations are the six Pauli￾Wilson-meas… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The self-dual wall of the fold. It exchanges the two boundary types, so an m-string crossing it [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 45 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas

    Sergei Bravyi and Alexei Kitaev. “Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas”. Physical Review A71, 022316 (2005). arXiv:quant-ph/0403025

    arXiv 2005

  2. [2]

    Sur- face codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation

    Austin G. Fowler, Matteo Mariantoni, John M. Martinis, and Andrew N. Cleland. “Sur- face codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation”. Physical Review A86, 032324 (2012). arXiv:1208.0928

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    UNIQ: Communication-efficient distributed quantum computing via unified nonlinear integer programming

    Hui Zhong, Jiachen Shen, Lei Fan, Xinyue Zhang, Hao Wang, Miao Pan, and Zhu Han. “UNIQ: Communication-efficient distributed quantum computing via unified nonlinear integer programming” (2025). arXiv:2512.00401

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Differential privacy preserving distributed quantum computing

    Hui Zhong, Keyi Ju, Jiachen Shen, Xinyue Zhang, Xiaoqi Qin, Tomoaki Ohtsuki, Miao Pan, and Zhu Han. “Differential privacy preserving distributed quantum computing” (2024). arXiv:2412.12387

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Tun- ing quantum computing privacy through quantum error correction

    Hui Zhong, Keyi Ju, Manojna Sistla, Xinyue Zhang, Xiaoqi Qin, Xin Fu, and Miao Pan. “Tun- ing quantum computing privacy through quantum error correction” (2023). arXiv:2312.14521

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Differ- ential privacy preserving quantum computing via projection operator measurements

    Yuqing Li, Yusheng Zhao, Xinyue Zhang, Hui Zhong, Miao Pan, and Chi Zhang. “Differ- ential privacy preserving quantum computing via projection operator measurements” (2023). arXiv:2312.08210

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Bridg- ing quantum computing and differential privacy: Insights into quantum computing pri- vacy

    Yusheng Zhao, Hui Zhong, Xinyue Zhang, Yuqing Li, Chi Zhang, and Miao Pan. “Bridg- ing quantum computing and differential privacy: Insights into quantum computing pri- vacy” (2024). arXiv:2403.09173

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Harnessing in- herent noises for privacy preservation in quantum machine learning

    Keyi Ju, Xiaoqi Qin, Hui Zhong, Xinyue Zhang, Miao Pan, and Baoling Liu. “Harnessing in- herent noises for privacy preservation in quantum machine learning” (2023). arXiv:2312.11126

    arXiv 2023

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Magic-state distillation with low overhead

    Sergey Bravyi and Jeongwan Haah. “Magic-state distillation with low overhead”. Physical Review A86, 052329 (2012). arXiv:1209.2426

    2012 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Magic-state distillation with the four- qubit code

    Adam M. Meier, Bryan Eastin, and Emanuel Knill. “Magic-state distillation with the four- qubit code”. Quantum Information and Computation13, 195–209 (2013). arXiv:1204.4221

    2013 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Multilevel distillation of magic states for quantum computing

    Cody Jones. “Multilevel distillation of magic states for quantum computing”. Physical Review A87, 042305 (2013). arXiv:1210.3388

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Roads towards fault-tolerant universal quantum computation

    Earl T. Campbell, Barbara M. Terhal, and Christophe Vuillot. “Roads towards fault-tolerant universal quantum computation”. Nature549, 172–179 (2017). arXiv:1612.07330

    2017 arXiv

  5. [13]

    The re- source theory of stabilizer quantum computation

    Victor Veitch, Seyed Ali Hamed Mousavian, Daniel Gottesman, and Joseph Emerson. “The re- source theory of stabilizer quantum computation”. New Journal of Physics16, 013009 (2014). arXiv:1307.7171

    2014 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Contextuality supplies the “magic

    Mark Howard, Joel J. Wallman, Victor Veitch, and Joseph Emerson. “Contextuality supplies the “magic” for quantum computation”. Nature510, 351–355 (2014). arXiv:1401.4174. 17

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Application of a resource theory for magic states to fault-tolerant quantum computing

    Mark Howard and Earl T. Campbell. “Application of a resource theory for magic states to fault-tolerant quantum computing”. Physical Review Letters118, 090501 (2017). arXiv:1609.07488

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Quantifying magic for multi-qubit operations

    James R. Seddon and Earl T. Campbell. “Quantifying magic for multi-qubit operations”. Proceedings of the Royal Society A475, 20190251 (2019). arXiv:1901.03322

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Improved classical simulation of quantum circuits domi- nated by clifford gates

    Sergey Bravyi and David Gosset. “Improved classical simulation of quantum circuits domi- nated by clifford gates”. Physical Review Letters116, 250501 (2016). arXiv:1601.07601

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Robustness of magic and symmetries of the stabiliser polytope

    Markus Heinrich and David Gross. “Robustness of magic and symmetries of the stabiliser polytope”. Quantum3, 132 (2019). arXiv:1807.10296

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Magic state cultivation: growing T states as cheap as CNOT gates

    Craig Gidney, Noah Shutty, and Cody Jones. “Magic state cultivation: growing T states as cheap as CNOT gates” (2024). arXiv:2409.17595

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Efficient magic state culti- vation for √ Tgates

    I-Chi Chen, Matheus da Silva Fonseca, and Andrew Sornborger. “Efficient magic state culti- vation for √ Tgates” (2026). arXiv:2606.10430

    2026 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Cultivating T states on the surface code with only two-qubit gates

    Jahan Claes. “Cultivating T states on the surface code with only two-qubit gates” (2025). arXiv:2509.05232

    2025

  14. [22]

    Fold-transversal surface code cultivation

    Kaavya Sahay, Pei-Kai Tsai, Kathleen Chang, Qile Su, Thomas B. Smith, Shraddha Singh, and Shruti Puri. “Fold-transversal surface code cultivation”. PRX Quantum7, 033006 (2026). arXiv:2509.05212

    2026

  15. [23]

    High rate magic state cultivation on the surface code

    Yotam Vaknin, Shoham Jacoby, Arne Grimsmo, and Alex Retzker. “High rate magic state cultivation on the surface code”. PRX Quantum7, 010353 (2026). arXiv:2502.01743

    2026

  16. [24]

    Classification of topologically protected gates for local stabilizer codes

    Sergey Bravyi and Robert Koenig. “Classification of topologically protected gates for local stabilizer codes”. Physical Review Letters110, 170503 (2013). arXiv:1206.1609

    2013 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Measurement quantum cellular automata and anomalies in floquet codes

    David Aasen, Jeongwan Haah, Zhi Li, and Roger S. K. Mong. “Measurement quantum cellular automata and anomalies in floquet codes” (2023). arXiv:2304.01277

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Locality-preserving logical operators in topological stabiliser codes

    Paul Webster and Stephen D. Bartlett. “Locality-preserving logical operators in topological stabiliser codes”. Physical Review A97, 012330 (2018). arXiv:1709.00020

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Adaptive constant-depth circuits for manipulating non-abelian anyons

    Sergey Bravyi, Isaac Kim, Alexander Kliesch, and Robert Koenig. “Adaptive constant-depth circuits for manipulating non-abelian anyons” (2022). arXiv:2205.01933

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    A no-go theorem on the nature of the gravitational field beyond quantum theory

    Thomas D. Galley, Flaminia Giacomini, and John H. Selby. “A no-go theorem on the nature of the gravitational field beyond quantum theory”. Quantum6, 779 (2022). arXiv:2012.01441

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction

    Daniel Gottesman. “Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction”. PhD thesis. California Institute of Technology. (1997). arXiv:quant-ph/9705052

    1997 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits

    Scott Aaronson and Daniel Gottesman. “Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits”. Physical Review A70, 052328 (2004). arXiv:quant-ph/0406196

    2004 arXiv

  23. [31]

    The clifford group, stabilizer states, and linear and quadratic operations over GF(2)

    Jeroen Dehaene and Bart De Moor. “The clifford group, stabilizer states, and linear and quadratic operations over GF(2)”. Physical Review A68, 042318 (2003). arXiv:quant- ph/0304125

    2003

  24. [32]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons

    A. Yu. Kitaev. “Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons”. Annals of Physics303, 2–30 (2003). arXiv:quant-ph/9707021

    2003 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Models for gapped boundaries and domain walls

    Alexei Kitaev and Liang Kong. “Models for gapped boundaries and domain walls”. Commu- nications in Mathematical Physics313, 351–373 (2012). arXiv:1104.5047

    2012 arXiv

  26. [34]

    The quantum double model with bound- ary: Condensations and symmetries

    Salman Beigi, Peter W. Shor, and Daniel Whalen. “The quantum double model with bound- ary: Condensations and symmetries”. Communications in Mathematical Physics306, 663– 694 (2011). arXiv:1006.5479

    2011 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Symmetry fractionalization, defects, and gauging of topological phases

    Maissam Barkeshli, Parsa Bonderson, Meng Cheng, and Zhenghan Wang. “Symmetry fractionalization, defects, and gauging of topological phases”. Physical Review B100, 115147 (2019). arXiv:1410.4540

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Topological quantum mem- ory

    Eric Dennis, Alexei Kitaev, Andrew Landahl, and John Preskill. “Topological quantum mem- ory”. Journal of Mathematical Physics43, 4452–4505 (2002). arXiv:quant-ph/0110143. 18

    2002 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Fast decoders for topological quantum codes

    Guillaume Duclos-Cianci and David Poulin. “Fast decoders for topological quantum codes”. Physical Review Letters104, 050504 (2010). arXiv:0911.0581

    2010 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Almost-linear time decoding algorithm for topo- logical codes

    Nicolas Delfosse and Naomi H. Nickerson. “Almost-linear time decoding algorithm for topo- logical codes”. Quantum5, 595 (2021). arXiv:1709.06218

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Surface code quantum computing by lattice surgery

    Dominic Horsman, Austin G. Fowler, Simon Devitt, and Rodney Van Meter. “Surface code quantum computing by lattice surgery”. New Journal of Physics14, 123011 (2012). arXiv:1111.4022

    2012 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Topological fault-tolerance in cluster state quantum computation

    Robert Raussendorf, Jim Harrington, and Kovid Goyal. “Topological fault-tolerance in cluster state quantum computation”. New Journal of Physics9, 199 (2007). arXiv:quant-ph/0703143

    2007 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Lattice surgery with a twist: Simplifying clifford gates of surface codes

    Daniel Litinski and Felix von Oppen. “Lattice surgery with a twist: Simplifying clifford gates of surface codes”. Quantum2, 62 (2018). arXiv:1709.02318

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    A game of surface codes: Large-scale quantum computing with lattice surgery

    Daniel Litinski. “A game of surface codes: Large-scale quantum computing with lattice surgery”. Quantum3, 128 (2019). arXiv:1808.02892

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Dynamically generated logical qubits

    Matthew B. Hastings and Jeongwan Haah. “Dynamically generated logical qubits”. Quantum 5, 564 (2021). arXiv:2107.02194

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Planar floquet codes

    Christophe Vuillot. “Planar floquet codes” (2021). arXiv:2110.05348

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Quantum computation from dynamic automorphism codes

    Margarita Davydova, Nathanan Tantivasadakarn, Shankar Balasubramanian, and David Aasen. “Quantum computation from dynamic automorphism codes”. Quantum8, 1448 (2024). arXiv:2307.10353

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Yu. Kitaev. “Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary” (1998). arXiv:quant-ph/9811052

    1998 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Optimal resources for topological 2D stabilizer codes: Comparative study

    H. Bombin and M. A. Martin-Delgado. “Optimal resources for topological 2D stabilizer codes: Comparative study”. Physical Review A76, 012305 (2007). arXiv:quant-ph/0703272

    2007 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Cross-cap defects and fault-tolerant logical gates in the surface code and the honeycomb floquet code

    Ryohei Kobayashi and Guanyu Zhu. “Cross-cap defects and fault-tolerant logical gates in the surface code and the honeycomb floquet code”. PRX Quantum5, 020360 (2024). arXiv:2310.06917

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Hybrid lattice surgery: Non-clifford gates via non-abelian surface codes

    Sheng-Jie Huang, Alison Warman, Sakura Schafer-Nameki, and Yanzhu Chen. “Hybrid lattice surgery: Non-clifford gates via non-abelian surface codes” (2025). arXiv:2510.20890

    2025

  42. [50]

    Clifford hierarchy stabilizer codes: Transversal non-clifford gates and magic states

    Ryohei Kobayashi, Guanyu Zhu, and Po-Shen Hsin. “Clifford hierarchy stabilizer codes: Transversal non-clifford gates and magic states”. Physical Review Letters136, 250802 (2026). arXiv:2511.02900

    2026 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Cluster expansion for abstract polymer models

    R. Koteck´ y and D. Preiss. “Cluster expansion for abstract polymer models”. Communications in Mathematical Physics103, 491–498 (1986)

    1986

  44. [52]

    Cluster expansion for abstract polymer models. new bounds from an old approach

    Roberto Fern´ andez and Aldo Procacci. “Cluster expansion for abstract polymer models. new bounds from an old approach”. Communications in Mathematical Physics274, 123– 140 (2007). arXiv:math-ph/0605041

    2007 arXiv

  45. [53]

    The description of a random field by means of conditional probabilities and conditions of its regularity

    R. L. Dobrushin. “The description of a random field by means of conditional probabilities and conditions of its regularity”. Theory of Probability and Its Applications13, 197–224 (1968)

    1968

  46. [54]

    Phase diagrams of classical lattice systems

    S. A. Pirogov and Ya. G. Sinai. “Phase diagrams of classical lattice systems”. Theoretical and Mathematical Physics25, 1185–1192 (1975)

    1975

  47. [55]

    Sharpness of the phase transition in percolation models

    Michael Aizenman and David J. Barsky. “Sharpness of the phase transition in percolation models”. Communications in Mathematical Physics108, 489–526 (1987)

    1987

  48. [56]

    Percolation

    Geoffrey R. Grimmett. “Percolation”. Volume 321 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wis- senschaften. Springer. Berlin, Heidelberg (1999). 2 edition

    1999

  49. [57]

    The self-avoiding walk

    Neal Madras and Gordon Slade. “The self-avoiding walk”. Probability and Its Applications. Birkh¨ auser Boston. Boston, MA (1996). 19 A Proof of Theorem 1 (fine-grained isotropy) The proof has three steps. First, the accepted effect of a fixed stabilizer transcript is propor- t...

    1996

  50. [58]

    Applying the comparison to the Hermitian differencesF−GwithG∈Nand taking the infimum gives 2 1+ √ 3magicc(F)≤magic 1(F)≤ 2 magicc(F); lemma 4 then yields the claim

    at|a|=r, x= r√ 3(±1,±1,±1), wheres= √ 3rand∥A∥ 1 = 2r. Applying the comparison to the Hermitian differencesF−GwithG∈Nand taking the infimum gives 2 1+ √ 3magicc(F)≤magic 1(F)≤ 2 magicc(F); lemma 4 then yields the claim. Lemma 4 is what makes theorem 2 a genuine∆ stab·p acc tra...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.