Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Transversal non-Clifford gates force high-weight stabilizer checks, and constant signal-aligned noise pushes all quantum sensing back to the standard quantum limit.

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

2026-08-01 09:07 UTC pith:W4PKMVXS

load-bearing objection New no-go for beyond-SQL metrology under signal-aligned noise, with solid proofs; minor abstract overstatement in Theorem 2. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27342 v1 pith:W4PKMVXS submitted 2026-07-29 quant-ph

Restrictions on non-Clifford fault tolerance and ruling out beyond-SQL quantum metrology

Constantin Cedillo Vayson de Pradenne , Ishaan Kannan , Harald Putterman , Jordan Cotler This is my paper
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Pp03.65.Ta
keywords quantum metrologystandard quantum limitHeisenberg limittransversal gatesClifford hierarchystabilizer codessignal-aligned noisefault tolerance
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.

This paper tries to close the last known route to noise-robust quantum advantage in metrology: encoding sensors in quantum error-correcting codes so that the signal acts as a transversal logical gate. It proves two families of results. First, codes that transversally implement genuinely non-Clifford logical gates—required for small-angle rotations—must have stabilizer checks whose weight grows with the Clifford-hierarchy level and with the inverse square of the rotation angle, so fault-tolerant syndrome extraction becomes increasingly nonlocal. Second, a model-independent no-go theorem shows that under constant-strength dephasing aligned with the signal generator (plus an interface erasure floor), any multi-round sensing protocol—including biased estimators, nonstabilizer or approximate encodings, memory, adaptivity, and intermediate measurements—has output distinguishability bounded by epsilon times a SQL-scale quantity, forcing interrogation time to scale at least as the standard quantum limit. If correct, these results rule out asymptotic Heisenberg scaling in canonical DC and AC single-parameter sensing under realistic noise, while leaving finite-size and bosonic or multi-parameter settings open.

Core claim

For a stabilizer code of distance d >= 3, the authors show that a transversal product of single-qubit unitaries that induces a genuinely level-D logical gate forces every generating set of the stabilizer to include a check of weight at least 2^D; concatenation cannot evade this, since any r-level concatenated realization must have r <= floor(log_2 n / D). They further show that a transversal rotation by angle theta inducing a nontrivial logical action requires irreducible stabilizers of weight Omega(1/(n theta^2)), and that the syndromes of many single-qubit errors can only be reconstructed by measuring such high-weight checks. Finally, in a noise model with constant-strength dephasing align

What carries the argument

The central devices are the minimax stabilizer weight lambda_S (the smallest possible largest weight of a stabilizer generator) and the codespace signal susceptibility Xi_G = inf_c ||(G - cI)Pi||^2_op, which measures how much a signal generator G can act nonclassically on the codespace. The proof of the code restrictions uses a dyadic normal form (reducing any transversal unitary to local Cliffords and a diagonal gate with dyadic phases) and a descent argument showing that if all checks have weight < 2^D, the logical gate drops to level D-1 in the Clifford hierarchy. The metrological no-go uses a quantum-Fisher-information bound for adaptive channel-extension protocols (Lemma 9) applied to t

Load-bearing premise

The no-go theorem rests on the assumption of a constant-strength noise floor aligned with the signal: independent single-qubit dephasing of fixed strength gamma during every interrogation, plus an independent flagged erasure of fixed probability p_e at every processing interface. If either rate decays with n or epsilon, or the noise is not aligned with the signal generator, the bound shrinks and the Heisenberg-limited window can reopen; the concatenation result in Theorem 2 a

What would settle it

A concrete falsifier would be a family of [[n,k,3]] stabilizer codes supporting a transversal T gate (level 3) whose stabilizer generating set has maximum check weight < 8; Theorem 1 says no such family exists. Alternatively, a DC sensing experiment with n qubits under constant signal-aligned dephasing gamma and interface erasure probability p_e that distinguishes two frequencies separated by epsilon in time T = o(1/(epsilon sqrt(n))) with constant success probability would falsify Theorem 5.

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

If this is right

  • No family of stabilizer codes with bounded-weight checks can support transversal sensing beyond the SQL: for interrogation time O(1/(epsilon n^alpha)) with alpha > 1/2, the required minimax stabilizer weight grows as n^{2alpha-1} and diverges with n.
  • Concatenation cannot restore beyond-SQL transversal sensing: for alpha > 1/2, any r-level concatenated code family has r <= 1 for sufficiently large n.
  • Under constant-strength signal-aligned dephasing plus interface erasure, arbitrary multi-round protocols (with QEC, nonstabilizer codes, approximate encodings, adaptivity, intermediate measurements, biased estimators) require T = Omega(max{1/(epsilon n), sqrt(p_e/(1-p_e))/(epsilon sqrt(n)), gamma/(epsilon^2 n)}), so no asymptotic advantage over the SQL survives.
  • Transversal sensing codes cannot correct signal-aligned noise with vanishing logical error: in the high-precision regime, the optimal recovery error remains bounded away from zero as n grows.
  • The same no-go applies to AC amplitude sensing with known envelope, via the toggling-frame argument, so the result covers both canonical DC and AC phase estimation.
  • The bounds quantify a tradeoff between noise strength and sensing efficiency, so they also serve as design constraints for finite-size quantum sensors: any preasymptotic advantage must come from tuning code size, noise rates, and target precision within the derived crossover regimes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the noise parameters gamma or p_e are allowed to decay with n or epsilon, the no-go bound weakens; this suggests a possible crossover regime where sufficiently fast-decaying noise might allow Heisenberg-like scaling at finite size, and the paper's bounds quantify the threshold.
  • The syndrome-irreducibility result has implications beyond sensing: any fault-tolerant scheme that uses small-angle transversal rotations (for instance, certain approaches to non-Clifford gate synthesis) will need high-weight stabilizer measurements, so low-weight syndrome-extraction tricks cannot work regardless of the logical gate.
  • The bounds are tight for Clifford-hierarchy level (codes achieve lambda_S = 2^D), so the obstruction is not code existence but fault-tolerant measurement; this shifts design effort toward weight-reduction or subsystem encodings, which the paper leaves open.
  • A natural next test is to extend the no-go theorem to bosonic or continuous-variable encodings, or to multi-parameter and nonlinear sensing tasks; the paper leaves open whether those settings can sustain noise-robust quantum advantage through mechanisms distinct from Heisenberg scaling.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proves a set of restrictions on transversal non-Clifford gates in stabilizer codes and applies them to quantum metrology. Theorem 1 shows that a stabilizer code of distance d >= 3 supporting a genuinely level-D transversal logical gate must have a stabilizer generating set containing a check of weight at least 2^D. Theorem 2 bounds the depth r of a concatenated realization by floor(log_2 n / D) under the condition that all inner constituent codes encode one logical qubit (k_j = 1 for j >= 2). Theorem 3 shows that small-angle transversal single-qubit rotations inducing a nontrivial logical action force stabilizer and normalizer weights Omega(s^2/(n|theta|^2)); Theorem 4 expresses this as an irreducibility property of syndrome extraction. Theorem 5, proved in Appendix S3, gives a Bures-distance bound for arbitrary multi-round sensing protocols subject to signal-aligned dephasing and flagged erasure, dB(rho_{omega0}, rho_{omega1}) <= epsilon min{nT, T sqrt(n(1-p_e)/p_e), (1/2) sqrt(nT/gamma)}, and derives the interrogation-time lower bound T = Omega(max{1/(epsilon n), sqrt(p_e/(1-p_e)) 1/(epsilon sqrt n), gamma/(epsilon^2 n)}). The authors argue this rules out any asymptotic beyond-SQL advantage under constant-strength signal-aligned noise without invoking the quantum Cramer-Rao bound or unbiased estimators. The proofs are given in three substantive appendices.

Significance. If the results hold, they close an important gap in the quantum metrology no-go literature: previous HNLS-based results apply only to unbiased estimators under the QCRB, whereas Theorem 5 applies to the distinguishability of output states of arbitrary adaptive multi-round protocols, including biased estimators, QEC, nonstabilizer encodings, and approximate codes. Theorems 1 and 3 also provide quantitative design constraints for transversal non-Clifford gates, complementing Eastin-Knill and Bravyi-Konig. The paper is careful to state its noise model explicitly and to separate the dephasing and interface-erasure assumptions; the technical appendices are detailed and the central derivation in Appendix S3 is self-consistent. The main advertised contribution---a no-go for asymptotic advantage under signal-aligned noise---is substantial and would be of significant interest to both the fault-tolerance and quantum metrology communities.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Theorem 2] The abstract states 'any r-level concatenated realization satisfies r <= floor(log_2 n / D)' and that concatenation is ruled out for beyond-SQL metrology. Theorem 2, however, assumes that every constituent code C_j for j >= 2 has k_j = 1 (single logical qubit). The proof in Appendix S1 (Lemmas 4 and 6) uses this single-logical-qubit structure to lift genuine level-D action down the concatenation tree. The abstract's unqualified wording is therefore unsupported. Please qualify both the abstract and the discussion in Section II.B to 'any r-level concatenated realization with single-logical-qubit inner constituents' (or supply a proof for general k_j).
  2. [Abstract / Theorem 1] The abstract says 'supporting a transversal logical action in level D of the Clifford hierarchy', but Theorem 1 requires the induced logical unitary to be genuinely level D, i.e. in C_D \ C_{D-1}. Since the identity and all Clifford gates lie in C_D for D >= 3, the unqualified phrase is false if read as 'in C_D'. The statement should consistently say 'genuinely level D' in the abstract and in the corresponding summary of results.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II.C, Eq. (8)] The sentence 'The first term is the Heisenberg limit and can dominate only in a nonasymptotic regime...' is unclear. In Eq. (8), the first term is a lower-bound contribution from the coherent Bures bound, not an upper bound that 'dominates'. Please rephrase to avoid confusion between the Bures upper bounds and the resulting T lower bound.
  2. [Appendix S3, Lemma 9] The proof of Lemma 9 is brief and cites Ref. [7] for the adaptive channel-extension bound. The explicit gauge choice (S109) is what sets beta = 0; it would improve readability to state explicitly that this is a unitary change of Kraus representation and not an additional physical assumption.
  3. [Figure 1] Figure 1 is referenced in the text but is not present in the supplied manuscript. Please ensure the figure is included in the final version.
  4. [Abstract, Theorem 4] The abstract phrase 'many single-qubit errors commute with every stabilizer or logical Pauli below this weight' could be misread. Theorem 4 shows that for a set J of qubits, the single-qubit errors on J commute with every element of N_{\le L}(S), i.e. with all normalizer elements of weight at most L, not with every stabilizer or logical Pauli individually. Consider clarifying the wording.
  5. [Appendix S3, Eq. (S96)] The master equation (S96) combines the Hamiltonian and the dephasing dissipator. Because the signal generator G and the dephasing operators commute, the solution factors into unitary evolution followed by dephasing; stating this explicitly would help readers understand the Kraus form (S108).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; central no-go and code constraints are derived forward from stated assumptions and external bounds, with only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation for noise-model motivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is forward and self-contained. Theorems 1 and 2 are proved from the stabilizer formalism, the Clifford hierarchy, external results on transversal gates (Refs. [2,3] in the Supplement), and standard Reed-Muller code facts; no target theorem is imported as an input. Theorem 3 follows from a Knill-Laflamme-based graph argument (Lemma 7) plus a Duhamel estimate, and Theorem 4 is a direct corollary. The metrological no-go (Theorem 5 / Theorem 6) is proved by applying the external channel-extension QFI bound of Kubica-Demkowicz (Supplement Ref. [7]) and the Bures-distance integral bound of Taddei et al. (Supplement Ref. [6]); the gauge choice in Eq. (S109) is an explicit calculation that sets beta_r = 0, and the simplified bound (S107) follows from algebraic inequalities. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no 'prediction' is equivalent to an input by construction. The only self-referential element is the motivation for including the interface erasure channel: the main text cites Refs. [32-34] (overlapping authors) and Appendix S3 cites Ref. [5] (also Cotler-Gong-Kannan) for why control-interface noise is physically unavoidable. This is not load-bearing for the no-go: the dephasing-only term in Eq. (S107) already forces T = Omega(gamma/(epsilon^2 n)) for any constant signal-aligned dephasing strength gamma, which is SQL scaling and suffices to exclude asymptotic beyond-SQL advantage; the erasure term only adds a separate SQL-style bound. There is also a presentation overstatement: the abstract's 'any r-level concatenated realization' omits Theorem 2's required condition k_j=1 for j>=2, but this is an explicitness issue rather than circular reasoning. Overall, the core results are conditional on the stated noise model and are not circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a small set of imported mathematical tools (dyadic normal form, Knill–Laflamme, channel-extension QFI bounds) plus the paper's explicit noise model. There are no data-fitted constants; γ and p_e are symbolic noise strengths. The main unacknowledged debt is the k_j=1 inner-code assumption in the concatenation statement and the implicit restriction to single-parameter qubit-array protocols in the metrological no-go.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Noise model: dρ/dt = -iω[G,ρ] + γ Σ_j(σ_j ρ σ_j - ρ) with γ>0 constant, and every sensor independently undergoes flagged erasure with probability p_e∈(0,1) at each interrogation-processing interface.
    Theorem 5 and Eq. (8) depend on these two fixed noise channels; the constants γ and p_e are assumed independent of n and ε.
  • domain assumption Concatenated codes in Theorem 2 have inner constituents C_j with k_j=1 for j≥2.
    The proof of Theorem 2 (Appendix S1, Lemma 6) requires each child code to carry a single logical qubit to propagate the Clifford level; the abstract's 'any r-level concatenated realization' omits this qualifier.
  • standard math Transversal automorphisms of stabilizer codes have a dyadic diagonal normal form (Appendix S1, Lemma 1), imported from Zeng–Cross–Chuang and Anderson–Jochym-O'Connor.
    Theorem 1's descent through Clifford levels relies on this normal form and its cited proof.
  • standard math Knill–Laflamme conditions hold for distance d≥3 codes, so weight-one and weight-two Paulis that are not stabilizers are correctable and cannot be logical operators.
    Theorems 3 and 4 use these conditions via the graph-component argument in Lemma 7.
  • standard math The β=0 specialization of the adaptive channel-extension QFI bound (Lemma 9, from Kubica and Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Eq. 14) and the Bures-distance QFI integral bound (Lemma 8) are correct.
    Theorem 5's proof builds directly on these two imported bounds; the original bounds are not re-proved in the paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 27798 in / 24355 out tokens · 253970 ms · 2026-08-01T09:07:42.930375+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum metrology promises a quadratic speedup over the standard quantum limit (SQL), but signal-aligned noise is expected to preclude this advantage in realistic settings. A potential route around known no-go results is to encode the sensors in a quantum code where the physical signal acts transversally as a logical gate. Understanding restrictions on transversal non-Clifford gates is therefore central to both quantum metrology and fault-tolerant quantum computation. Here, we prove such restrictions and apply them to transversal sensing. For any stabilizer code of distance $d\ge 3$ supporting a transversal logical action in level $D$ of the Clifford hierarchy, every stabilizer generating set must contain a check of weight at least $2^D$. Moreover, any $r$-level concatenated realization satisfies $r\leq \lfloor \log_2 n/D\rfloor$, forcing $r=1$ and ruling out concatenation when applied to beyond-SQL metrology. We then show that transversal single-qubit rotations by a small angle $\theta$ can only induce a nontrivial logical action on an $n$-qubit code if its checks include irreducible stabilizers of weight $\Omega(1/(n|\theta|^2))$. Here, many single-qubit errors commute with every stabilizer or logical Pauli below this weight and are only detected by a high-weight check, so their syndromes cannot be fault-tolerantly reconstructed from low-weight normalizer measurements. Since beyond-SQL transversal sensing requires $|\theta| = o(n^{-1/2})$, the weight of checks required for syndrome extraction diverges with $n$. Finally, we prove a broader metrological no-go theorem that avoids the assumptions of the quantum Cram\'{e}r-Rao bound: constant-strength signal-aligned noise rules out any asymptotic advantage over the SQL in AC or DC sensing, even with biased estimators, nonstabilizer or approximate encodings, quantum memory, intermediate measurements, or adaptive control.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27342 by Constantin Cedillo Vayson de Pradenne, Harald Putterman, Ishaan Kannan, Jordan Cotler.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    [σj, Q] = 0for every j∈J and every Q∈ N≤L(S); 2.{σ j, P}= 0for everyj∈J. When small-angle rotations are used to generate transver- sal logical gates, the resulting code therefore has high- weight stabilizer generators whose measurement is un- avoidable for correcting basic single-qubit errors: in the small-angle regime |θ| = o(n−1/2)relevant to transver- ...

  2. [2]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Science306, 1330–1336 (2004)

    2004

  3. [3]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Physical Review Letters96, 10.1103/physrevlett.96.010401 (2006)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.010401 2006

  4. [4]

    Kessler, I

    E. Kessler, I. Lovchinsky, A. Sushkov, and M. Lukin, Phys- ical Review Letters112, 10.1103/physrevlett.112.150802 (2014)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.150802 2014

  5. [5]

    S. Zhou, M. Zhang, J. Preskill, and L. Jiang, Nature Com- munications9, 10.1038/s41467-017-02510-3 (2018)

    doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02510-3 2018

  6. [6]

    C. W. Helstrom,Quantum Detection and Estimation The- ory, Mathematics in Science and Engineering, Vol. 123 (Academic Press, New York, 1976)

    1976

  7. [7]

    Layden and P

    D. Layden and P. Cappellaro, npj Quantum Information 4, 10.1038/s41534-018-0082-2 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-018-0082-2 2018

  8. [8]

    C. W. Helstrom, Physics Letters A25, 101 (1967)

    1967

  9. [9]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Physical Review Letters 72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  10. [10]

    Gottesman, Physical Review A57, 127–137 (1998)

    D. Gottesman, Physical Review A57, 127–137 (1998)

    1998

  11. [11]

    H. Zhou, C. Zhao, M. Cain, D. Bluvstein, N. Maskara, C. Duckering, H.-Y. Hu, S.-T. Wang, A. Kubica, and M. D. Lukin, Nature646, 303–308 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    Eastin and E

    B. Eastin and E. Knill, Physical Review Letters102, 10.1103/physrevlett.102.110502 (2009)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.102.110502 2009

  13. [13]

    G. Zhu, S. Sikander, E. Portnoy, A. W. Cross, and B. J. Brown, PRX Quantum6, 10.1103/wcxs-w69t (2025)

    doi:10.1103/wcxs-w69t 2025

  14. [14]

    Golowich and T.-C

    L. Golowich and T.-C. Lin, Quantum LDPC Codes with Transversal Non-Clifford Gates via Products of Algebraic Codes (2024), arXiv:2410.14662 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Q. T. Nguyen, Good binary quantum codes with transver- sal ccz gate (2024), arXiv:2408.10140 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Golowich and V

    L. Golowich and V. Guruswami, Asymptotically Good Quantum Codes with Transversal Non-Clifford Gates (2024), arXiv:2408.09254 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Z. He, V. Vaikuntanathan, A. Wills, and R. Y. Zhang, Asymptotically Good Quantum Codes with Ad- dressable and Transversal Non-Clifford Gates (2025), arXiv:2507.05392 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052 [quant-ph]

    D. Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  19. [19]

    Yuan and C.-H

    H. Yuan and C.-H. F. Fung, New Journal of Physics19, 113039 (2017)

    2017

  20. [20]

    Bravyi and R

    S. Bravyi and R. König, Physical Review Letters110, 10.1103/physrevlett.110.170503 (2013)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.170503 2013

  21. [21]

    Pastawski and B

    F. Pastawski and B. Yoshida, Physical Review A91, 10.1103/physreva.91.012305 (2015)

    doi:10.1103/physreva.91.012305 2015

  22. [22]

    Baspin and A

    N. Baspin and A. Krishna, Quantum6, 711 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    A. J. Landahl and C. Cesare, Complex instruction set computing architecture for performing accurate quantum Z rotations with less magic (2013), arXiv:1302.3240 [quant- ph]. 7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  24. [24]

    Bombin, Gauge Color Codes: Optimal Transversal Gates and Gauge Fixing in Topological Stabilizer Codes (2015), arXiv:1311.0879 [quant-ph]

    H. Bombin, Gauge Color Codes: Optimal Transversal Gates and Gauge Fixing in Topological Stabilizer Codes (2015), arXiv:1311.0879 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  25. [25]

    Aharonov and M

    D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, Fault-Tolerant Quan- tum Computation With Constant Error Rate (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9906129 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  26. [26]

    Aliferis and A

    P. Aliferis and A. W. Cross, Physical Review Letters98, 10.1103/physrevlett.98.220502 (2007)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.98.220502 2007

  27. [27]

    Bravyi, Physical Review A83, 10.1103/phys- reva.83.012320 (2011)

    S. Bravyi, Physical Review A83, 10.1103/phys- reva.83.012320 (2011)

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2011

  28. [28]

    P. W. Shor, Fault-tolerant quantum computation (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9605011 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  29. [29]

    Liu and S

    Z.-W. Liu and S. Zhou, npj Quantum Information9, 10.1038/s41534-023-00788-4 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-023-00788-4 2023

  30. [30]

    Elovenkova, H.-Y

    M. Elovenkova, H.-Y. Hu, and S. F. Yelin, Covariant Approximate Quantum Codes for Protected Analog Com- putation (2026), arXiv:2607.07607 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    Bombin and M

    H. Bombin and M. A. Martin-Delgado, Physical Review Letters97, 10.1103/physrevlett.97.180501 (2006)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.97.180501 2006

  32. [32]

    M. B. Hastings, On Quantum Weight Reduction (2023), arXiv:2102.10030 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [34]

    Kannan, H

    I. Kannan, H. Putterman, and J. Cotler, Exponential speedups in fault-tolerant processing of quantum experi- ments (2026), arXiv:2605.02057 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  34. [35]

    Romanov, P

    N. Romanov, P. Ivashkov, W. Gong, I. Kannan, A. Gu, H.-Y. Hu, and S. F. Yelin, Learning Arbitrary Lindbladians with Quantum Error Correction (2026), arXiv:2606.18188 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  35. [36]

    Demkowicz-Dobrzański, J

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, J. Kołodyński, and M. Guţă, Nature Communications3, 10.1038/ncomms2067 (2012)

    doi:10.1038/ncomms2067 2012

  36. [37]

    Lin, Z.-W

    C.-J. Lin, Z.-W. Liu, V. V. Albert, and A. V. Gorshkov, Physical Review Letters135, 10.1103/dttc-ksdn (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/dttc-ksdn 2025

  37. [38]

    Huang, P.-G

    E. Huang, P.-G. Rozon, A. Dua, S. Gopalakrishnan, and M. J. Gullans, A robust phase of continuous transversal gates in quantum stabilizer codes (2026), arXiv:2510.01319 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  38. [39]

    Chakraborty and D

    A. Chakraborty and D. Gottesman, No-Go Theorem on Fault Tolerant Gadgets for Multiple Logical Qubits (2026), arXiv:2602.13395 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [40]

    S. F. Huelga, C. Macchiavello, T. Pellizzari, A. K. Ekert, M. B. Plenio, and J. I. Cirac, Physical Review Letters79, 3865–3868 (1997)

    1997

  40. [41]

    B. M. Escher, R. L. de Matos Filho, and L. Davidovich, Nature Physics7, 406–411 (2011)

    2011

  41. [42]

    Nichols, T

    R. Nichols, T. R. Bromley, L. A. Correa, and G. Adesso, Physical Review A94, 10.1103/physreva.94.042101 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.94.042101 2016

  42. [43]

    Zhou and L

    S. Zhou and L. Jiang, Physical Review Research2, 10.1103/physrevresearch.2.013235 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.013235 2020

  43. [44]

    Kielinski, P

    T. Kielinski, P. O. Schmidt, and K. Hammerer, Science Advances10, 10.1126/sciadv.adr1439 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.adr1439 2024

  44. [45]

    Tsang, H

    M. Tsang, H. M. Wiseman, and C. M. Caves, Physical Re- view Letters106, 10.1103/physrevlett.106.090401 (2011)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.090401 2011

  45. [46]

    Bylander, S

    J. Bylander, S. Gustavsson, F. Yan, F. Yoshihara, K. Harrabi, G. Fitch, D. G. Cory, Y. Nakamura, J.-S. Tsai, and W. D. Oliver, Nature Physics7, 565 (2011)

    2011

  46. [47]

    Macieszczak, M

    K. Macieszczak, M. Fraas, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, New Journal of Physics16, 113002 (2014)

    2014

  47. [48]

    Cotler, D

    J. Cotler, D. L. Danielson, and I. Kannan, Quantum Advantage for Sensing Properties of Classical Fields (2026), arXiv:2602.17591 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  48. [49]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 1155–1208 (2010)

    2010

  49. [50]

    K.M.Backes, D.A.Palken, S.A.Kenany, B.M.Brubaker, S. B. Cahn, A. Droster, G. C. Hilton, S. Ghosh, H. Jack- son, S. K. Lamoreaux, A. F. Leder, K. W. Lehnert, S. M. Lewis, M. Malnou, R. H. Maruyama, N. M. Rapidis, M. Simanovskaia, S. Singh, D. H. Speller, I. Urdinaran, L. R. Vale, E. C. van Assendelft, K. van Bibber, and H. Wang, Nature590, 238–242 (2021)

    2021

  50. [51]

    Eickbusch, V

    A. Eickbusch, V. Sivak, A. Z. Ding, S. S. Elder, S. R. Jha, J. Venkatraman, B. Royer, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, Nature Physics18, 1464 (2022)

    2022

  51. [52]

    C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. D23, 1693 (1981)

    1981

  52. [53]

    Lloyd, Quantum Illumination (2008), arXiv:0803.2022 [quant-ph]

    S. Lloyd, Quantum Illumination (2008), arXiv:0803.2022 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  53. [54]

    S.-H. Tan, B. I. Erkmen, V. Giovannetti, S. Guha, S.Lloyd, L.Maccone, S.Pirandola,andJ.H.Shapiro,Phys- ical Review Letters101, 10.1103/physrevlett.101.253601 (2008)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.101.253601 2008

  54. [55]

    Aharonov, J

    D. Aharonov, J. Cotler, and X.-L. Qi, Nature Communi- cations13, 10.1038/s41467-021-27922-0 (2022). 8 Supplemental Material Contents S1 Proofs of Theorems 1 and 2 8 1 Preliminary results 8 2 Dyadic normal form for transversal automorphisms 9 3 Descent of diagonal transversal gates 11 4 Proof of Theorem 1 16 5 Proof of Theorem 2 16 S2 Proofs of Theorem 3 a...

    doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27922-0 2022

  55. [56]

    IfD = 1and λS = 1, then S is generated by weight-one Paulis

    Preliminary results For D = 1, we interpret a genuinely level-1gate as a nontrivial logical Pauli, up to phase. IfD = 1and λS = 1, then S is generated by weight-one Paulis. Since the code encodes at least one qubit, some physical qubit is unstabilized and supports a weight-one logical Pauli, contradictingd≥ 3. Thus λS ≥ 2. If D = 2and λS < 4, then S is ge...

  56. [57]

    Dyadic normal form for transversal automorphisms Lemma 1(Transversal dyadic normal form).Let C be an n-qubit stabilizer code of distanced≥ 2, with projector Π, and let U = Nn j=1 Uj, for Uj ∈U (2), preserve C. Then there exist tensor products of one-qubit Clifford gates A= Nn j=1 Aj andB= Nn j=1 Bj, an integerE≥2, a vectorq∈(Z/2 EZ)n, and a phaseeiφ such ...

  57. [58]

    Consequently, if m≥D , every nonzero word inRM(D− 1, m)⊥ has weight at least2D

    Descent of diagonal transversal gates For a stabilizer groupS, define CX (S) :={x(P) :P∈S}, C Z(S) :={z∈F n 2 :±Z(z)∈S}.(S26) For a functionFon an affine subspace ofF n 2, define the finite difference ∆αF(x) :=F(x+α)−F(x).(S27) Proposition 5.For integers0≤r < m, RM(r, m)⊥ = RM(m−r−1, m),(S28) and dmin(RM(r, m))= 2m−r. Consequently, if m≥D , every nonzero ...

  58. [59]

    Proof of Theorem 1 Proof of Theorem 1.Suppose, for contradiction, thatS has a generating set whose checks all have weight strictly less than2 D. By Lemma 1, there exist local Clifford gatesA, B, an integerE≥2, andq∈(Z/2 EZ)n such that UΠ =e iφAD(E) q BΠ.(S69) ReplacingEby a larger integer if necessary, we may assumeE≥D, sinceT a E =T 2E′ −E a E′ for every...

  59. [60]

    First we understand the precise setting

    Proof of Theorem 2 Next we prove Theorem 2. First we understand the precise setting. Our result considers standard concatenated codes of the formC = C1 ◦ C2 ◦ · · · ◦ Cr where C1 is any stabilizer code of distanced≥ 3and arbitrary rate whereas all Cj are[[ nj, 1, dj]]codes with dj ≥ 3. The composition Cj ◦ Cj+1 corresponds to mappingnj copies of a logical...

  60. [61]

    L. Wang, A. Z. Liu, R. Li, A. Kubica, and S. Gu, arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.15446 (2026), arXiv:2601.15446 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  61. [62]

    B. Zeng, A. W. Cross, and I. L. Chuang, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory57, 6272 (2011)

    2011

  62. [63]

    J. T. Anderson and T. Jochym-O’Connor, Quantum Information and Computation16, 771 (2016), arXiv:1409.8320

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  63. [64]

    F. J. MacWilliams and N. J. A. Sloane,The Theory of Error-Correcting Codes, North-Holland Mathematical Library, Vol. 16 (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1977)

    1977

  64. [65]

    Cotler, W

    J. Cotler, W. Gong, and I. Kannan, Nature Communications 10.1038/s41467-026-73693-x (2026), published online 29 May 2026

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-026-73693-x 2026

  65. [66]

    M. M. Taddei, B. M. Escher, L. Davidovich, and R. L. de Matos Filho, Physical Review Letters110, 050402 (2013), arXiv:1209.0362 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  66. [67]

    Kubica and R

    A. Kubica and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Physical Review Letters126, 150503 (2021), arXiv:2004.11893 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021