pith. sign in

arxiv: 2412.03808 · v3 · submitted 2024-12-05 · 🪐 quant-ph

Clifford-Deformed Compass Codes

Julie A. Campos , Kenneth R. Brown This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 08:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum error correctioncompass codesClifford deformationsbiased noisesurface codesdephasingerror thresholdslogical error rates
0
0 comments X

The pith

Clifford deformations of elongated compass codes produce quantum error-correcting codes whose thresholds rise with dephasing bias and exceed those of the XZZX surface code at moderate biases under code-capacity noise.

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

The paper demonstrates that specific Clifford deformations can be applied to elongated compass codes to tailor quantum error-correcting codes to noise dominated by dephasing errors. These deformations add symmetries that improve decoder performance while the underlying compass structure lets stabilizers extract more data on the most common errors. The resulting codes show thresholds that increase as bias grows and achieve lower logical error rates than the XZZX surface code at moderate bias levels in code-capacity simulations. This tailoring matters because many quantum hardware platforms exhibit precisely this form of biased noise, so codes matched to it could reduce the resources needed for reliable logical qubits.

Core claim

Clifford deformations applied to elongated compass codes yield QEC codes with improved performance under biased dephasing noise; the deformations enhance decoder performance through added symmetries while stabilizer selection provides more information on high-rate errors, producing thresholds that increase with bias and, for one deformation, better thresholds and logical error rates than the XZZX surface code at moderate biases under code-capacity noise.

What carries the argument

Clifford deformations applied to the stabilizers of elongated compass codes, which introduce symmetries that aid decoding while preserving the ability to select stabilizers for high-rate error information.

If this is right

  • The code thresholds increase as the noise bias toward dephasing grows.
  • Logical error rates remain lower than those of the XZZX surface code at moderate biases under code-capacity noise.
  • The same constructions maintain improved performance under phenomenological noise models.
  • Stabilizer selection within the compass framework yields additional information about frequent errors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • These constructions could be combined with existing gauge-fixing techniques to further reduce qubit overhead in biased-noise regimes.
  • Hardware experiments on platforms with measured dephasing bias could directly measure whether the simulated threshold gains appear in practice.
  • The symmetry-introducing deformations may generalize to other code families beyond compass codes when the noise bias direction is known.

Load-bearing premise

The Clifford deformations preserve the error-correcting properties of the compass codes while only enhancing performance under the biased noise model without introducing unaccounted-for error mechanisms or decoder incompatibilities.

What would settle it

Numerical threshold extraction for the deformed codes under code-capacity noise at bias ratios between 10 and 100 that shows no increase relative to the XZZX surface code or no reduction in logical error rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03808 by Julie A. Campos, Kenneth R. Brown.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Starting with weight-2 gauge operators ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: XZZX surface code Decoder graphs for a) Z stabilizers (in red) and b) X stabilizers (in blue) of the surface code (elongated compass code with ℓ = 2). Qubits lie on the vertices of the lattice and those with yellow dots undergo a Hadamard transformation according to the XZZX deformation. Black dots are vertices of the decoder graph and correspond to stabilizers. Edges of the decoder graphs travel across th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: XZZX□ and ZXXZ□ deformations Graphs of low/high-weight edges of ℓ = 6 elongated compass code with XZZX□ deformation (a/b) and ZXXZ□ deformation (c/d). Black dots represent stabilizers and yellow dots indicate the qubits that undergo a Hadamard transformation according to the deformation on the code. a) The low-weight edges divide the lattice into disjoint regions. This restricts the spread of syndromes due… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Thresholds for compass codes without deformation (CSS), XZZX [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Logical error rates of distance 19 CSS, XZZX□-deformed and ZXXZ□-deformed compass codes with ℓ = 4 at a) p = 0.05 and at b) p = 0.10 normalized by the corresponding logical error rate of the XZZX surface code. We see that the ZXXZ□ and XZZX□-deformed codes suppress the logical error rate more than the CSS code for η > 10. The ZXXZ□-deformed code has the lowest logical error rates at moderate biases and ach… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: We list the low/high-weight graphs for the CSS ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: We list the low/high-weight graphs for the CSS ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: a) Threshold plot for XZZX□-deformed code with elongation parameter ℓ = 3 and bias η = 10. b) Finite-size scaling plot corresponding to fit shown in the inset of a. c) Plot of logical error rates versus distances for physical error rates below (p = 0.13), at (p = 0.18), and above (p = 0.23) threshold. We observe that the logical error rate remains constant at the threshold while it decreases (increases) fo… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: a) Threshold plot for ZXXZ□-deformed code with elongation parameter ℓ = 3 and bias η = 10. b) Finite-size scaling plot corresponding to fit shown in the inset of a. The fit is applied on curves with distances 27-43. We include curves of lower distances in a to show that all curves intersect near the threshold value reported. c) Plot of logical error rates versus distances for physical error rates below thr… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: a) Threshold plot for XZZX□-deformed code with elongation parameter ℓ = 5 and bias η = 10. b) Finite-size scaling plot corresponding to fit shown in the inset of a. c) Plot of logical error rates versus distances for physical error rates below (p = 0.12), at (p = 0.17), and above (p = 0.22) threshold. We observe that the logical error rate remains constant at the threshold while it decreases (increases) f… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: a) Threshold plot for ZXXZ□-deformed code with elongation parameter ℓ = 5 and bias η = 10. b) Finite-size scaling plot corresponding to fit shown in the inset of a. c) Plot of logical error rates versus distances for physical error rates below (p = 0.116), at (p = 0.166), and above (p = 0.216) threshold. In a, we see two different physical error rates at which groups of the curves cross. The set of curves… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We can design efficient quantum error-correcting (QEC) codes by tailoring them to our choice of quantum architecture. Useful tools for constructing such codes include Clifford deformations and appropriate gauge fixings of compass codes. In this work, we find Clifford deformations that can be applied to elongated compass codes resulting in QEC codes with improved performance under noise models with errors biased towards dephasing commonly seen in quantum computing architectures. These Clifford deformations enhance decoder performance by introducing symmetries, while the stabilizers of compass codes can be selected to obtain more information on high-rate errors. As a result, the codes exhibit thresholds that increase with bias and lower logical error rates under both code capacity and phenomenological noise models. One of the Clifford deformations we explore yields QEC codes with better thresholds and logical error rates than those of the XZZX surface code at moderate biases under code capacity noise.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes Clifford deformations of elongated compass codes, combined with gauge fixings, to produce QEC codes tailored to biased (dephasing-dominated) noise. The deformations are claimed to introduce symmetries that improve decoder performance while stabilizer selection yields more information on high-rate errors; numerical results under code-capacity and phenomenological noise are said to show thresholds that increase with bias and, for one deformation, superior thresholds and logical error rates relative to the XZZX surface code at moderate biases.

Significance. If the central numerical comparisons hold under matched conditions, the work supplies a concrete construction route for bias-tailored compass codes that could be useful for superconducting or other dephasing-dominated hardware. The explicit use of Clifford deformations to engineer decoder symmetries is a methodological strength that could be reusable beyond the specific codes studied.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results section (threshold plots and comparison tables)] Results section (threshold plots and comparison tables): the headline claim that one Clifford-deformed code outperforms XZZX at moderate bias rests on a direct numerical comparison, yet the text does not state that identical decoder families (e.g., MWPM versus symmetry-exploiting) and identical code-size/distance pairs were used for both families. Because the abstract attributes the improvement to “enhance decoder performance by introducing symmetries,” any decoder mismatch renders the code-intrinsic advantage under-determined.
  2. [Section describing the Clifford deformations and stabilizer selection] Section describing the Clifford deformations and stabilizer selection: the claim that the deformations “preserve the error-correcting properties of the compass codes while only enhancing performance” requires an explicit check that the effective distance and any new error mechanisms introduced by the deformation have been verified to be no worse than the undeformed case; without this, the bias-dependent threshold gain cannot be cleanly attributed to the deformation alone.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the elongated compass codes and their gauge-fixed stabilizers should be unified across figures and text to avoid ambiguity when comparing to the XZZX baseline.
  2. The phenomenological-noise simulations are mentioned but lack a clear statement of the measurement-error rate relative to the data-qubit error rate; this parameter should be tabulated for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comments point by point below. We will make revisions to clarify the comparisons and add explicit verifications as suggested.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Results section (threshold plots and comparison tables): the headline claim that one Clifford-deformed code outperforms XZZX at moderate bias rests on a direct numerical comparison, yet the text does not state that identical decoder families (e.g., MWPM versus symmetry-exploiting) and identical code-size/distance pairs were used for both families. Because the abstract attributes the improvement to “enhance decoder performance by introducing symmetries,” any decoder mismatch renders the code-intrinsic advantage under-determined.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this important point regarding the fairness of our comparisons. In our simulations, we used identical decoder implementations (specifically, the symmetry-exploiting minimum-weight perfect matching decoder tailored to the code symmetries) and matched code sizes and distances for the Clifford-deformed elongated compass codes and the XZZX surface code. The improvement is indeed due to the symmetries introduced by the deformations, which allow the decoder to perform better. We will revise the Results section to explicitly state the matched conditions used in the comparisons to make this clear. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Section describing the Clifford deformations and stabilizer selection: the claim that the deformations “preserve the error-correcting properties of the compass codes while only enhancing performance” requires an explicit check that the effective distance and any new error mechanisms introduced by the deformation have been verified to be no worse than the undeformed case; without this, the bias-dependent threshold gain cannot be cleanly attributed to the deformation alone.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit verification strengthens the manuscript. The Clifford deformations are unitary Clifford operations applied to the stabilizers, which map the code space to an equivalent code with the same distance, as they preserve the commutation relations and the logical operators up to local Clifford transformations. No new error mechanisms are introduced because the error model is also transformed accordingly under the Clifford map. We will add an explicit statement and brief analysis in the section describing the Clifford deformations to confirm that the effective distance is preserved and the threshold gains are attributable to the enhanced decoder performance and stabilizer selection. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; claims rest on explicit numerical simulations

full rationale

The paper reports thresholds and logical error rates obtained from numerical simulations of Clifford-deformed compass codes under biased noise models, with direct comparisons to the XZZX surface code. No derivation step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or self-citation chain; the performance claims are externally falsifiable via independent decoder runs on the same code instances. The abstract and described methodology contain no load-bearing self-referential steps of the enumerated kinds.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's claims rest on standard quantum error correction theory and numerical evaluation under phenomenological and code capacity noise models; specific free parameters like code dimensions or exact bias values are not detailed in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • noise bias
    Bias towards dephasing is a tunable input parameter in the noise model.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Quantum noise can be modeled as independent Pauli X and Z errors with a tunable bias towards Z errors.
    This is a standard assumption in studies of biased noise in quantum computing.
  • domain assumption The decoder can exploit the introduced symmetries from Clifford deformations to improve performance.
    Assumed in the abstract's description of enhanced decoder performance.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5664 in / 1287 out tokens · 55415 ms · 2026-05-23T08:18:40.525785+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Low-valency scalable quantum error correction with a dynamic compass code

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A new measurement schedule turns the heavy-hex subsystem code into the dynamic compass code, which demonstrates a threshold for stability and supports fault-tolerant lattice surgery.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A. R. Calderbank and P. W. Shor, Phys. Rev. A54, 1098 (1996)

    work page 1996

  2. [2]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, Science279, 342 (1998). 8

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    Aharonov and M

    D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, in Proceedings of the twenty-ninth annual ACM symposium on Theory of com- puting (1997) pp. 176–188

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    Bombin, G

    H. Bombin, G. Duclos-Cianci, and D. Poulin, New J. of Physics. 14, 073048 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Tomita and K

    Y. Tomita and K. M. Svore, Phys. Rev. A90, 062320 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Bravyi, M

    S. Bravyi, M. Suchara, and A. Vargo, Phys. Rev. A90, 032326 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Sahay and B

    K. Sahay and B. J. Brown, PRX Quantum3, 010310 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Grimm, N

    A. Grimm, N. E. Frattini, S. Puri, S. O. Mundhada, S. Touzard, M. Mirrahimi, S. M. Girvin, S. Shankar, and M. H. Devoret, Nature (London)584, 205 (2020)

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    Lescanne, M

    R. Lescanne, M. Villiers, T. Peronnin, A. Sarlette, M. Delbecq, B. Huard, T. Kontos, M. Mirrahimi, and Z. Leghtas, Nature (London)16, 509 (2020)

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    Berdou, A

    C. Berdou, A. Murani, U. Reglade, W. C. Smith, M. Vil- liers, J. Palomo, M. Rosticher, A. Denis, P. Morfin, M. Delbecq, et al., PRX Quantum4, 020350 (2023)

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Bocquet, Z

    A. Bocquet, Z. Leghtas, U. Reglade, R. Gautier, J. Co- hen, A. Marquet, E. Albertinale, N. Pankratova, M. Hal- lén, F. Rautschke,et al., Bulletin of the American Phys- ical Society (2024)

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    K. S. Chou, T. Shemma, H. McCarrick, T.-C. Chien, J. D. Teoh, P. Winkel, A. Anderson, J. Chen, J. C. Cur- tis, S. J. de Graaf,et al., Nature Physics , 1 (2024)

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Kubica, A

    A. Kubica, A. Haim, Y. Vaknin, H. Levine, F. Brandão, and A. Retzker, Physical Review X13, 041022 (2023)

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    J. D. Teoh, P. Winkel, H. K. Babla, B. J. Chapman, J. Claes, S. J. de Graaf, J. W. Garmon, W. D. Kalfus, Y. Lu, A. Maiti,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.12077 (2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    I. Cong, H. Levine, A. Keesling, D. Bluvstein, S.-T. Wang,andM.D.Lukin,Phys.Rev.X 12,021049(2022)

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    Y. Wu, S. Kolkowitz, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, Na- ture (London)13, 4657 (2022)

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    M. Kang, W. C. Campbell, and K. R. Brown, PRX Quantum 4, 020358 (2023)

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    D. Nigg, M. Mueller, E. A. Martinez, P. Schindler, M. Hennrich, T. Monz, M. A. Martin-Delgado, and R. Blatt, Science345, 302 (2014)

    work page 2014

  19. [19]

    C.Ballance, T.Harty, N.Linke, M.Sepiol,andD.Lucas, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 060504 (2016)

    work page 2016

  20. [20]

    Taylor, H.-A

    J. Taylor, H.-A. Engel, W. Dür, A. Yacoby, C. Marcus, P. Zoller, and M. Lukin, Nature (London)1, 177 (2005)

    work page 2005

  21. [21]

    Aliferis, F

    P. Aliferis, F. Brito, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. Preskill, M. Steffen, and B. M. Terhal, New J. of Physics.11, 013061 (2009)

    work page 2009

  22. [22]

    Rosenblum, P

    S. Rosenblum, P. Reinhold, M. Mirrahimi, L. Jiang, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Science 361, 266 (2018)

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    D. K. Tuckett, S. D. Bartlett, and S. T. Flammia, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 050505 (2018)

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    D. K. Tuckett, A. S. Darmawan, C. T. Chubb, S. Bravyi, S. D. Bartlett, and S. T. Flammia, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041031 (2019)

    work page 2019

  25. [25]

    A. M. Stephens, W. J. Munro, and K. Nemoto, Phys. Rev. A88, 060301 (2013)

    work page 2013

  26. [26]

    M. Li, D. Miller, M. Newman, Y. Wu, and K. R. Brown, Phys. Rev. X9, 021041 (2019)

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    J. P. Bonilla Ataides, D. K. Tuckett, S. D. Bartlett, S. T. Flammia, and B. J. Brown, Nature Commun.12, 2172 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Sahay, J

    K. Sahay, J. Jin, J. Claes, J. D. Thompson, and S. Puri, Phys. Rev. X13, 041013 (2023)

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    A. Dua, A. Kubica, L. Jiang, S. T. Flammia, and M. J. Gullans, PRX Quantum5, 010347 (2024)

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Tiurev, P.-J

    K. Tiurev, P.-J. H. Derks, J. Roffe, J. Eisert, and J.-M. Reiner, Quantum7, 1123 (2023)

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Huang and K

    S. Huang and K. R. Brown, Phys. Rev. A101, 042312 (2020)

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    Paetznick and B

    A. Paetznick and B. W. Reichardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 090505 (2013)

    work page 2013

  33. [33]

    Bombín, New J

    H. Bombín, New J. of Physics.17, 083002 (2015)

    work page 2015

  34. [34]

    B. Pato, J. W. Staples Jr, and K. R. Brown, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.09287 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Annals of physics303, 2 (2003)

    work page 2003

  36. [36]

    Dennis, A

    E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Jour- nal of Mathematical Physics43, 4452 (2002)

    work page 2002

  37. [37]

    A. G. Fowler, A. C. Whiteside, and L. C. Hollenberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 180501 (2012)

    work page 2012

  38. [38]

    J. F. San Miguel, D. J. Williamson, and B. J. Brown, Quantum 7, 940 (2023)

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Tiurev, A

    K. Tiurev, A. Pesah, P.-J. H. Derks, J. Roffe, J. Eis- ert, M. S. Kesselring, and J.-M. Reiner, arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.00054 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    D. M. Debroy, L. Egan, C. Noel, A. Risinger, D. Zhu, D. Biswas, M. Cetina, C. Monroe, and K. R. Brown, Physical Review Letters127, 240501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  41. [41]

    Nature614, 676 (2023)

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    D. W. Kribs, R. Laflamme, D. Poulin, and M. Lesosky, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0504189 (2005)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  43. [43]

    Poulin, Phys

    D. Poulin, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 230504 (2005)

    work page 2005

  44. [44]

    Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection (California Institute of Technology, 1997)

    D. Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection (California Institute of Technology, 1997)

    work page 1997

  45. [45]

    Kugel and D

    K. Kugel and D. Khomskii, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz64, 1429 (1973)

    work page 1973

  46. [46]

    Dorier, F

    J. Dorier, F. Becca, and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. B 72, 024448 (2005)

    work page 2005

  47. [47]

    Douçot, M

    B. Douçot, M. Feigel’Man, L. Ioffe, and A. Ioselevich, Phys. Rev. B71, 024505 (2005)

    work page 2005

  48. [48]

    P. W. Shor, Phys. Rev. A52, R2493 (1995)

    work page 1995

  49. [49]

    Bacon, Phys

    D. Bacon, Phys. Rev. A73, 012340 (2006)

    work page 2006

  50. [50]

    Steane, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    A. Steane, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sci- ences 452, 2551 (1996)

    work page 1996

  51. [51]

    Edmonds, Canadian Journal of mathematics17, 449 (1965)

    J. Edmonds, Canadian Journal of mathematics17, 449 (1965)

    work page 1965

  52. [52]

    Higgott, ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing 3, 1 (2022)

    O. Higgott, ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing 3, 1 (2022)

    work page 2022

  53. [53]

    C. Wang, J. Harrington, and J. Preskill, Annals of Physics 303, 31 (2003)

    work page 2003

  54. [54]

    Y. Xiao, B. Srivastava, and M. Granath, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04008 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    J. A. Campos and K. R. Brown, Data and code from: Clifford-deformed compass codes (2024)

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    Claes, J

    J. Claes, J. E. Bourassa, and S. Puri, npj Quantum In- formation 9, 9 (2023)

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    Sahay, J

    K. Sahay, J. Claes, and S. Puri, Physical Review Letters 131, 120604 (2023)

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    Measurement based fault tolerance beyond foliation

    N. Nickerson and H. Bombín, arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.09621 (2018). 9

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  59. [59]

    Newman, L

    M. Newman, L. A. de Castro, and K. R. Brown, Quan- tum 4, 295 (2020). APPENDIX

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    When η = 0.5, the thresholds of codes are the same sincepx = pz and thus the deformations don’t change the weights

    Table of Thresholds Thresholds (CSS | XZZX□ | ZXXZ□) η ℓ 2 3 4 5 6 0.5 14.8 11.7 8.3 6.8 5.7 η∗ ℓ - 17.5 | 12.6 | 13.5 19.5 | 13.0 | 12.4 21.0 | 13.3 | 12.2 22.6 | 14.0 | 12.3 10 10.3 | 27.0 | - 14.6 | 18.0 | 27.3 17.5 | 17.5 | 18.9 19.6 | 17.0 | 16.6 21.8 | 16.4 | 15.7 25 10.1 | 32.0 | - 14.1 | 21.5 | 33.6 17.0 | 21.2 | 34.5 19.0 | 20.9 | 35.0 21.1 | 20....

    work page

  61. [61]

    An demonstration of how we obtain low and high-weight graphs is shown in Figure 2

    Additional Decoder Graphs We include examples of graphs containing the low and high weight edges of the decoder graphs to motivate our choices for the locations of the Hadamard transformations. An demonstration of how we obtain low and high-weight graphs is shown in Figure 2. The low(high)-weight decoder graphs (Figures 6a-6d and 7a-7d)for the CSS compass...

    work page

  62. [62]

    The numerical fit was a quadratic function of (p − pth)L1/ν where p is the physical error rate, pth is the threshold, L is the distance and ν is a critical parameter

    Threshold Plots The thresholds were found using finite-size scaling analysis near threshold. The numerical fit was a quadratic function of (p − pth)L1/ν where p is the physical error rate, pth is the threshold, L is the distance and ν is a critical parameter. Numerical fits yield threshold value and uncertainties are no greater than 0.8% for all threshold...

    work page