pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.04329 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 🪐 quant-ph

Energy-error tradeoff in encoding quantum error correction

Josey Stevens , Sebastian Deffner This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 16:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum error correctionenergy resourcesencoding precisionrepetition codeSteane codefault tolerancelogical qubit
0
0 comments X

The pith

Encoding quantum error correction demands energy resources that scale exponentially with the targeted precision of the logical states.

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

The paper calculates the energy needed to prepare encoded logical qubit states in repetition, perfect, and Steane quantum error correction codes. It establishes a trade-off in which higher encoding precision always requires substantially more energy, with the cost growing exponentially in the precision parameter. This matters because fault-tolerant quantum computation depends on reliable error correction, and the physical resources required could limit whether such systems can be built. The energy cost is shown to vary with the concrete physical implementation chosen for each code.

Core claim

Analysis of the energy required to encode the logical qubit states for repetition, perfect, and Steane codes reveals a universal trade-off between target precision and energetic resources, where the required resources scale exponentially with the targeted precision of the encoding and depend intimately on the specific physical realization of the code.

What carries the argument

The energy cost of preparing the encoded logical states, evaluated through well-defined energy calculations in specific physical realizations of each code.

If this is right

  • Achieving greater encoding precision always increases the required energy exponentially.
  • The concrete physical hardware used to realize a code determines the precise energy expenditure.
  • The exponential scaling holds across the repetition, perfect, and Steane codes examined.
  • Feasibility assessments of fault-tolerant quantum computers must account for this energetic overhead.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The exponential energy cost may set practical limits on the scale of quantum processors even when error rates are controlled.
  • Alternative physical platforms or encoding schemes could be tested to see whether the scaling can be softened while preserving the universal trade-off.
  • Energy budgeting for quantum algorithms should include the one-time cost of initializing protected logical qubits.

Load-bearing premise

Energy calculations remain well-defined and accurate for the chosen physical realizations of the codes.

What would settle it

An experimental preparation of higher-precision encoded states in a physical system whose measured energy cost increases only polynomially or stays bounded.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04329 by Josey Stevens, Sebastian Deffner.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The gate error (one minus the average gate fidelity) as view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Generic depiction of the QEC process utilized in view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Computation error as a function of algorithm control view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Error rates for the view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Error rates of computation a computation subject view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Computation error rate as a function of the circuit view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Computation error rates for distance three codes view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Computation error rate of a the bare qubit (blue) view at source ↗
read the original abstract

While it has been widely recognized that genuine quantum advantage for practical problems might only be achieved with fault-tolerant quantum computers, it is still not entirely clear whether the required quantum error correction will be physically feasible. In the present work, we carefully analyze the required energy resources to encode the logical qubit states for repetition, perfect, and Steane codes. We find that there is a universal trade-off between the target precision and the required energetic resources. Importantly, we find that the energetic resources intimately depend on the specific physical realization of a quantum error correction code, and that the required resources scale exponentially with the targeted precision of the encoding.

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

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes the energy resources required to encode logical qubit states in the repetition, perfect, and Steane quantum error correction codes. It reports a universal tradeoff in which the energetic costs scale exponentially with the target encoding precision, while emphasizing that the precise costs depend on the choice of physical Hamiltonian realizing each code.

Significance. If the reported exponential scaling is robust, the result would highlight a fundamental physical constraint on fault-tolerant quantum computing, indicating that high-precision error correction may demand exponentially growing energy resources. The explicit dependence on physical realization could help prioritize hardware platforms that minimize these costs.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sections deriving the energy costs for each code (repetition, perfect, Steane)] The central claim of a 'universal' tradeoff rests on explicit computations for three specific codes using particular Hamiltonians (e.g., spectrum or expectation-value definitions of energy). No general argument or scan over alternative energy metrics (total excitation number, control-field energy, or different coupling graphs) is supplied to demonstrate that the exponential form persists independently of these modeling choices; this directly affects the universality assertion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive comments. The main concern is the robustness of the universality claim for the energy-error tradeoff given our use of specific codes and Hamiltonians. We address this point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Sections deriving the energy costs for each code (repetition, perfect, Steane)] The central claim of a 'universal' tradeoff rests on explicit computations for three specific codes using particular Hamiltonians (e.g., spectrum or expectation-value definitions of energy). No general argument or scan over alternative energy metrics (total excitation number, control-field energy, or different coupling graphs) is supplied to demonstrate that the exponential form persists independently of these modeling choices; this directly affects the universality assertion.

    Authors: We selected the repetition, perfect, and Steane codes precisely because they represent a range of error-correction capabilities and structures, from simple bit-flip protection to full distance-3 correction. The Hamiltonians employed are standard physical realizations (e.g., nearest-neighbor Ising couplings for the repetition code and appropriate two-qubit interactions for the others), with energy defined via both spectral gaps and expectation values to capture different operational regimes. The exponential scaling with target precision appears consistently across all three cases. We interpret 'universal' as indicating that the exponential energy cost is not an artifact of any single code or Hamiltonian choice, but rather a recurring feature when encoding logical states with high fidelity. We do not supply a general proof for arbitrary codes or an exhaustive scan over every conceivable metric (such as total excitation number or arbitrary coupling graphs), as that lies outside the scope of the present work; our focus is on concrete, physically motivated examples that already demonstrate dependence on the realization. This dependence is explicitly highlighted in the abstract and conclusions as a central result. We are happy to add a clarifying paragraph in the discussion section to better delineate the scope of the universality claim. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivations are explicit case-by-case calculations

full rationale

The paper performs explicit energy calculations for repetition, perfect, and Steane codes under chosen physical Hamiltonians. The exponential scaling with precision is obtained directly from the spectra or expectation values of those Hamiltonians for each code. The text explicitly states that resources depend on the specific realization, so the result is presented as model-dependent rather than a model-independent universal law derived from first principles. No equations reduce to their own inputs by construction, no parameters are fitted to a subset and then relabeled as predictions, and no load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems are invoked to force the scaling. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained as a set of concrete computations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; full manuscript required to audit the ledger.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5388 in / 995 out tokens · 36882 ms · 2026-05-08T16:58:41.703056+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. Unveiling Energetic Advantage in Superconducting Cat-Qubits Quantum Computation

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Energy modeling and parameter optimization for cat-qubit superconducting quantum computers performing semiclassical QFT with error correction indicates an energetic advantage over classical systems for more than 26 qu...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Logical equivalency of encoding circuits In almost all cases, a given unitary can be implemented with any number of logically equivalent circuits. Choos- ing between these different representations is often de- pendent on properties of the computing device (native gates or connectivity topology) or either spatial or time complexity considerations [34, 35]...

  2. [2]

    This is explored in Fig

    Repetition code scaling Having established how the gate counts and energetics scale as the size of the repetition code and having estab- lished how the gate fidelities scale as a function of energy, we can turn to our primary exercise: assessing how the energetic requirements of theN−qubit repetition codes scale as a function of their size. This is explor...

  3. [3]

    The three encoding circuits demonstrate simi- lar error rates as a function of circuit control-energy

    (purple). The three encoding circuits demonstrate simi- lar error rates as a function of circuit control-energy. 𝑍 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 FIG. 7. Computation error rates for distance three codes demonstrated by the three qubit repetition, five qubit perfect, and (seven qubit) Steane code (ordered left to right) as both a function of the circuit control-energy and the chan...

  4. [4]

    Roffe, Quantum error correction: an introductory guide, Contemp

    J. Roffe, Quantum error correction: an introductory guide, Contemp. Phys.60, 226 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    W. H. Zurek, Decoherence, einselection, and the quan- tum origins of the classical, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 715 (2003)

    2003

  6. [6]

    Schlosshauer, Quantum decoherence, Phys

    M. Schlosshauer, Quantum decoherence, Phys. Rep.831, 1 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    Loepp and W

    S. Loepp and W. K. Wootters,Protecting information: from classical error correction to quantum cryptography (Cambridge University Press, 2006)

    2006

  8. [8]

    B.C.Sanders,How to Build a Quantum Computer,2399- 2891 (IOP Publishing, 2017)

    2017

  9. [9]

    V. V. Albert and P. Faist, eds.,The Error Correction Zoo(2026)

    2026

  10. [10]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A86, 032324 (2012)

    2012

  11. [11]

    Katabarwa, K

    A. Katabarwa, K. Gratsea, A. Caesura, and P. D. Johnson, Early fault-tolerant quantum computing, PRX Quantum5, 020101 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    Auffèves, Quantum technologies need a quantum en- ergy initiative, PRX Quantum3, 020101 (2022)

    A. Auffèves, Quantum technologies need a quantum en- ergy initiative, PRX Quantum3, 020101 (2022)

    2022

  13. [13]

    Landauer, Information is physical, Physics Today44, 23 (1991)

    R. Landauer, Information is physical, Physics Today44, 23 (1991)

    1991

  14. [14]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, Resilient quan- tum computation: error models and thresholds, Proc. R. 8 Soc. A454, 365 (1998)

    1998

  15. [15]

    Aharonov and M

    D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error, inProceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’97 (Association for Computing Ma- chinery, New York, NY, USA, 1997) p. 176–188

    1997

  16. [16]

    Perlner and Y.-K

    R. Perlner and Y.-K. Liu, Thermodynamic analysis of classical and quantum search algorithms, arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.10510 (2017)

    work page arXiv 2017

  17. [17]

    Buffoni and M

    L. Buffoni and M. Campisi, Thermodynamics of a quan- tum annealer, Quantum Sci. Technol.5, 035013 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    Doucet, Z

    E. Doucet, Z. Mzaouali, R. Robertson, B. Gardas, S. Deffner, and K. Domino, Thermodynamic significance of qubo encoding on quantum annealers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.04402 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Stevens and S

    J. Stevens and S. Deffner, Hamiltonian quantum gates- energetic advantage from entangleability, Quantum Sci. Technol.10, 04LT03 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    Pogorelov, T

    I. Pogorelov, T. Feldker, C. D. Marciniak, L. Postler, G. Jacob, O. Krieglsteiner, V. Podlesnic, M. Meth, V. Negnevitsky, M. Stadler, B. Höfer, C. Wächter, K. Lakhmanskiy, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, and T. Monz, Compact ion-trap quantum computing demonstrator, PRX Quantum2, 020343 (2021)

    2021

  21. [21]

    Debnath, N

    S. Debnath, N. M. Linke, C. Figgatt, K. A. Landsman, K. Wright, and C. Monroe, Demonstration of a small programmable quantum computer with atomic qubits, Nature536, 63 (2016)

    2016

  22. [22]

    F. H. Koppens, C. Buizert, K.-J. Tielrooij, I. T. Vink, K. C. Nowack, T. Meunier, L. Kouwenhoven, and L. Van- dersypen, Driven coherent oscillations of a single electron spin in a quantum dot, Nature442, 766 (2006)

    2006

  23. [23]

    Veldhorst, C

    M. Veldhorst, C. Yang, J. Hwang, W. Huang, J. Dehol- lain, J. Muhonen, S. Simmons, A. Laucht, F. Hudson, K. M. Itoh,et al., A two-qubit logic gate in silicon, Na- ture526, 410 (2015)

    2015

  24. [24]

    J. J. Pla, K. Y. Tan, J. P. Dehollain, W. H. Lim, J. J. Morton, D. N. Jamieson, A. S. Dzurak, and A. Morello, A single-atom electron spin qubit in silicon, Nature489, 541 (2012)

    2012

  25. [25]

    D.-Y. Li, J. Chu, W. Zheng, D. Lan, J. Zhao, S.-X. Li, X.-S. Tan, and Y. Yu, Universal quantum control based on parametric modulation in superconducting circuits*, Chin. Phys. B30, 070308 (2021)

    2021

  26. [26]

    Li, H.-F

    Z.-Y. Li, H.-F. Yu, X.-S. Tan, S.-P. Zhao, and Y. Yu, Manipulation of superconducting qubit with direct digi- tal synthesis, Chin. Phys. B28, 098505 (2019)

    2019

  27. [27]

    Raftery, A

    J. Raftery, A. Vrajitoarea, G. Zhang, Z. Leng, S. Srini- vasan, and A. Houck, Direct digital synthesis of mi- crowave waveforms for quantum computing, arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.00942 (2017)

    work page arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    J. C. Bardin, D. H. Slichter, and D. J. Reilly, Microwaves in quantum computing, IEEE journal of microwaves1, 403 (2021)

    2021

  29. [29]

    Aifer and S

    M. Aifer and S. Deffner, From quantum speed limits to energy-efficient quantum gates, New J. Phys.24, 055002 (2022)

    2022

  30. [30]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, General teleportation channel, singlet fraction, and quasidistilla- tion, Phys. Rev. A60, 1888 (1999)

    1999

  31. [31]

    M. A. Nielsen, A simple formula for the average gate fidelity of a quantum dynamical operation, Phys. Lett. A 303, 249 (2002)

    2002

  32. [32]

    L. H. Pedersen, N. M. Møller, and K. Mølmer, Fidelity of quantum operations, Phys. Lett. A367, 47 (2007)

    2007

  33. [33]

    Quantum and Collaborators, Quantum error correc- tion below the surface code threshold, Nature638, 920 (2025)

    G. Quantum and Collaborators, Quantum error correc- tion below the surface code threshold, Nature638, 920 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information(Cambridge university press, 2010)

    2010

  35. [35]

    J. R. Wootton and D. Loss, Repetition code of 15 qubits, Phys. Rev. A97, 052313 (2018)

    2018

  36. [36]

    D. L. Dulog and M. B. Plenio, Towards quantum er- ror correction with two-body gates for quantum regis- ters based on nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond, Phys. Rev. B113, 054446 (2026)

    2026

  37. [37]

    Holmes, S

    A. Holmes, S. Johri, G. G. Guerreschi, J. S. Clarke, and A. Y. Matsuura, Impact of qubit connectivity on quan- tum algorithm performance, Quantum Sci. Technol.5, 025009 (2020)

    2020

  38. [38]

    D. Cruz, R. Fournier, F. Gremion, A. Jeannerot, K. Komagata, T. Tosic, J. Thiesbrummel, C. L. Chan, N. Macris, M.-A. Dupertuis,et al., Efficient quantum al- gorithms for ghz and w states, and implementation on the ibm quantum computer, Adv. Quantum Technol.2, 1900015 (2019)

    2019

  39. [39]

    Murali, J

    P. Murali, J. M. Baker, A. Javadi-Abhari, F. T. Chong, and M. Martonosi, Noise-adaptive compiler mappings for noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers, inPro- ceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, ASPLOS ’19 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,...

    2019

  40. [40]

    T. J. Maldonado, J. Flick, S. Krastanov, and A. Galda, Error rate reduction of single-qubit gates via noise-aware decomposition into native gates, Sci. Rep.12, 6379 (2022)

    2022

  41. [41]

    Wootters, Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction, Phys

    C.H.Bennett, D.P.DiVincenzo, J.A.Smolin,andW.K. Wootters, Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. A54, 3824 (1996)

    1996

  42. [42]

    Laflamme, C

    R. Laflamme, C. Miquel, J. P. Paz, and W. H. Zurek, Perfect quantum error correcting code, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 198 (1996)

    1996

  43. [43]

    Hsieh, C.-M

    J.-Y. Hsieh, C.-M. Li, and D.-S. Chuu, Analytical tech- nique for simplification of the encoder–decoder circuit for a perfect five-qubit error correction, New J. Phys.8, 80 (2006)

    2006

  44. [44]

    Mondal and K

    A. Mondal and K. K. Parhi, Quantum circuits for sta- bilizer error correcting codes: A tutorial, IEEE Circuits and Systems Magazine24, 33 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    De and L

    A. De and L. P. Pryadko, Universal set of dynamically protected gates for bipartite qubit networks: Soft pulse implementation of the [[5,1,3]] quantum error-correcting code, Phys. Rev. A93, 042333 (2016)

    2016

  46. [46]

    A. M. Steane, Error correcting codes in quantum theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 793 (1996)

    1996

  47. [47]

    Gottesman, Surviving as a quantum computer in a classical world, Textbook manuscript preprint8, 8 (2024)

    D. Gottesman, Surviving as a quantum computer in a classical world, Textbook manuscript preprint8, 8 (2024)

    2024