pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.03616 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Reducing Postselection Overhead in Magic-State Cultivation by In-Patch Multiplexing

Dongmin Kim , Jeonggeun Seo , Aniket Patra , Youngsun Han
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 17:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords magic-state cultivationpostselection overheadin-patch multiplexinglogical magic statesfault-tolerant quantum computingdepolarizing noise
0
0 comments X

The pith

In-patch multiplexing reduces expected attempts in magic-state cultivation by creating multiple early opportunities inside one logical patch.

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

The paper introduces an in-patch multiplexing scheme for magic-state cultivation that reuses idle resources within a single logical patch to run several early-stage cultivation trials in parallel. Only candidates that pass these early checks advance to the unchanged escape stage and decoder acceptance, while the rest are discarded locally. Under a uniform depolarizing noise model with idle noise, the approach lowers the injection-and-cultivation discard rate. At physical error rate p=2×10^{-3}, the expected attempts drop by 45.46% for distance-3 and 72.91% for distance-5 relative to the single-site baseline. Full-cycle evaluations including escape show even larger gains of 49.04% and 78.69% respectively, while the final logical-error rate remains set by the escape-stage gap threshold.

Core claim

The central claim is that in-patch multiplexing creates multiple local cultivation opportunities from early-stage idle resources inside one logical patch, forwards passing candidates to the standard escape pathway, and thereby reduces the injection-and-cultivation discard rate and expected attempts without altering the escape stage or decoder-based acceptance procedure.

What carries the argument

In-patch multiplexing scheme that repurposes idle resources inside a single logical patch to generate parallel early-stage cultivation trials before forwarding successes to the escape stage.

If this is right

  • Injection-and-cultivation expected attempts fall by 45.46% for d1=3 and 72.91% for d1=5 at p=2×10^{-3}.
  • Full-cycle expected attempts per kept logical output fall by 49.04% for d1=3 and 78.69% for d1=5 at the same rate.
  • Full-cycle cost curves shift toward smaller expected attempts.
  • Final logical-error rates stay governed solely by the escape-stage gap threshold.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same idle-resource reuse could be applied to other postselection-heavy stages in surface-code protocols.
  • Hardware tests with realistic idle noise could check whether the depolarizing model over- or under-estimates the multiplexing gain.
  • Combining in-patch multiplexing with distance-adaptive cultivation might further compress the overall cost curve.

Load-bearing premise

The escape stage and decoder acceptance can stay identical to the single-site baseline without adding new error sources, and the uniform depolarizing noise model with idle noise accurately represents hardware behavior during multiplexing.

What would settle it

A measurement showing that the logical error rate after multiplexing differs from the single-site baseline at the same escape gap threshold, or that the predicted reduction in attempts fails to appear under the assumed noise model, would falsify the preservation of baseline behavior.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03616 by Aniket Patra, Dongmin Kim, Jeonggeun Seo, Youngsun Han.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of idle space and time in single-site view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Conceptual comparison between magic-state view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Conceptual illustration of the proposed in-patch multiplexed magic-state cultivation protocol. During view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Multiplexed injection-and-cultivation layout view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: End-to-end flow of the proposed multiplexed MSC protocol. Four local sites ( view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Injection-and-cultivation-stage discard behavior before escape. The left panel compares the discard rate, and view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: End-to-end cost comparison of the standard single-site MSC and the proposed multiplexed MSC protocol. view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Overview of the standard magic-state cultivation (MSC) pipeline. (a) A staged spacetime view of MSC, view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Structural comparison between distance-3 view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Explicit two-dimensional lattice embedding of the multiplexed injection-and-cultivation layout within a view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Cumulative fractions of correct and erroneous shots remaining after applying the gap threshold view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Fault-tolerant quantum computing requires high-fidelity logical magic states for implementing non-Clifford operations. Magic-state cultivation provides a lower-overhead route to logical magic-state preparation, but its efficiency is limited by postselection loss during the early injection-and-cultivation stages. In this work, we propose an in-patch multiplexing scheme that uses early-stage idle resources within a single logical patch to create multiple local cultivation opportunities. A candidate that passes the early stages is forwarded to the standard escape pathway, while the escape stage and the decoder-based acceptance procedure are kept identical to those of the single-site baseline. Under a uniform depolarizing noise model with idle noise, the proposed protocol substantially reduces the injection-and-cultivation discard rate and the expected number of attempts required to obtain an accepted early-stage candidate. At a physical error rate of \(p=2\times10^{-3}\), the injection-and-cultivation expected attempts are reduced by \(45.46\%\) for \(d_1=3\) and by \(72.91\%\) for \(d_1=5\), relative to the single-site MSC baseline. In the direct full-cycle evaluation including escape, the expected attempts per kept logical output are further reduced by \(49.04\%\) for \(d_1=3\) and by \(78.69\%\) for \(d_1=5\) at the same physical error rate. The full-cycle cost curves are shifted toward smaller expected attempts, while the final logical-error behavior remains governed by the escape-stage gap threshold. These results show that in-patch multiplexing can reduce postselection overhead while preserving the standard magic-state cultivation framework.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces an in-patch multiplexing scheme for magic-state cultivation (MSC) that exploits idle resources inside a single logical patch to generate multiple early-stage cultivation candidates. Successful candidates are forwarded to an otherwise unchanged escape stage whose decoder-based acceptance criterion is identical to the single-site baseline. Under a uniform depolarizing noise model that includes idle noise, the authors report concrete reductions in expected attempts: 45.46% (d1=3) and 72.91% (d1=5) for the injection-and-cultivation stage, and 49.04% / 78.69% in the full-cycle metric that includes escape, all at physical error rate p=2×10^{-3}. The final logical-error rate remains governed by the escape-stage gap threshold.

Significance. If the multiplexing operations do not alter the error distribution reaching the escape stage, the scheme offers a practical route to lowering post-selection overhead in an already low-overhead MSC framework. The work supplies explicit numerical improvements obtained from circuit-level simulations under a stated noise model; this concrete, reproducible-style evidence is a positive feature. The approach preserves the existing MSC pipeline, which facilitates direct comparison with prior single-site results.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (Numerical Results): The reported percentage reductions (45.46%, 72.91%, 49.04%, 78.69%) are given as point values with no accompanying error bars, confidence intervals, or description of Monte Carlo sample sizes and convergence criteria. Because the central claim is quantitative improvement under a specific noise model, the absence of statistical characterization makes it impossible to judge whether the observed gains exceed sampling fluctuations.
  2. [§3 and §4.1] §3 (Protocol Description) and §4.1 (Simulation Setup): The manuscript asserts that the escape stage and decoder remain identical, yet provides no direct comparison of the logical-error rate or the distribution of error weights entering the escape decoder between the multiplexed and single-site cases. Under circuit-level depolarizing noise, the additional idles and operations required for in-patch multiplexing can introduce spatial or temporal correlations that change the effective input to the gap-threshold test, even if the syntactic acceptance procedure is unchanged.
  3. [§4.2] §4.2 (Full-Cycle Evaluation): The claim that “the final logical-error behavior remains governed by the escape-stage gap threshold” is stated without a supporting plot or table that overlays the logical-error rate versus gap threshold for both the multiplexed and baseline protocols. Such a comparison is required to confirm that the multiplexing does not shift the operating point of the escape stage.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§4.1] The noise model is described as “uniform depolarizing with idle noise,” but the precise idle-error rate relative to the gate error rate p is not stated in the main text; it should be given explicitly (perhaps as a multiple of p) so that the simulations can be reproduced.
  2. [Figures 3–5] Figure captions for the cost curves should include the exact values of d1, d2, and the gap threshold used, rather than referring only to “the parameters of the main text.”

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments. We address each of the major comments below, indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (Numerical Results): The reported percentage reductions (45.46%, 72.91%, 49.04%, 78.69%) are given as point values with no accompanying error bars, confidence intervals, or description of Monte Carlo sample sizes and convergence criteria. Because the central claim is quantitative improvement under a specific noise model, the absence of statistical characterization makes it impossible to judge whether the observed gains exceed sampling fluctuations.

    Authors: We agree that including statistical details is important for assessing the reliability of the quantitative claims. In the revised manuscript, we will specify the Monte Carlo sample sizes employed in the simulations and provide error bars or confidence intervals for the reported percentage reductions in expected attempts. This will enable readers to evaluate whether the improvements are statistically significant. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3 and §4.1] §3 (Protocol Description) and §4.1 (Simulation Setup): The manuscript asserts that the escape stage and decoder remain identical, yet provides no direct comparison of the logical-error rate or the distribution of error weights entering the escape decoder between the multiplexed and single-site cases. Under circuit-level depolarizing noise, the additional idles and operations required for in-patch multiplexing can introduce spatial or temporal correlations that change the effective input to the gap-threshold test, even if the syntactic acceptance procedure is unchanged.

    Authors: While the escape stage circuit and decoder are unchanged by design, we acknowledge the possibility that additional operations in the early stage could affect error correlations. To rigorously address this concern, we will include in the revised manuscript a comparison of the logical error rates and error weight distributions entering the escape stage for both the multiplexed and baseline protocols. This will confirm that the input to the gap-threshold test remains effectively the same. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 (Full-Cycle Evaluation): The claim that “the final logical-error behavior remains governed by the escape-stage gap threshold” is stated without a supporting plot or table that overlays the logical-error rate versus gap threshold for both the multiplexed and baseline protocols. Such a comparison is required to confirm that the multiplexing does not shift the operating point of the escape stage.

    Authors: We concur that an explicit visual or tabular comparison would better substantiate the claim. Accordingly, we will add to the revised manuscript a plot or table that overlays the logical error rate versus gap threshold for the in-patch multiplexed protocol and the single-site baseline, demonstrating that the final logical-error behavior is indeed governed by the escape-stage gap threshold in both cases. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; results are direct simulation outputs

full rationale

The paper reports numerical reductions in expected attempts (45.46% for d1=3, 72.91% for d1=5 at p=2e-3) obtained from Monte Carlo simulations of the in-patch multiplexing protocol versus the single-site baseline under an explicitly stated uniform depolarizing noise model with idle noise. The escape stage and decoder acceptance are described as syntactically identical to the baseline, with logical error behavior governed by the gap threshold; these are simulation setup choices, not fitted parameters or self-referential definitions that would render the reported percentages tautological by construction. No equations, ansatzes, or self-citations are invoked in the provided text to force the outcomes. The derivation chain consists of independent circuit-level simulations and is therefore self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The performance claims rest on the choice of noise model and the assumption that multiplexing does not change error propagation in the escape stage; no new physical entities are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Uniform depolarizing noise model with idle noise governs the physical errors during cultivation and multiplexing
    Explicitly stated as the model used for all reported numerical results.
  • domain assumption Escape stage and decoder acceptance criteria remain valid and unchanged when early-stage multiplexing is added
    Required to claim that logical-error behavior is preserved.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5603 in / 1608 out tokens · 101714 ms · 2026-05-07T17:07:34.146653+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

68 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Within this broader landscape, magic-state cultivation has been proposed as a lower-cost alternative for preparing logical|T⟩states in the interme- diate logical-error regime

    Magic state cultivation Magic-state preparation is a standard route to fault- tolerant non-Clifford computation, with magic-state dis- tillation serving as the dominant framework for produc- ing high-fidelity logical resource states from noisier en- coded inputs [15, 51–53]. Within this broader landscape, magic-state cultivation has been proposed as a low...

  2. [2]

    These code regions are not structurally identi- cal

    Patch structures and the need for grafting The standard MSC protocol combines local growth on color-code regions with final escape into a larger logical patch. These code regions are not structurally identi- cal. Surface-code patches and color-code patches differ in stabilizer geometry and in the corresponding syndrome- extraction circuits [57–61]. Figure...

  3. [2]

    These code regions are not structurally identi- cal

    Patch structures and the need for grafting The standard MSC protocol combines local growth on color-code regions with final escape into a larger logical patch. These code regions are not structurally identi- cal. Surface-code patches and color-code patches differ in stabilizer geometry and in the corresponding syndrome- extraction circuits [57–61]. Figure...

  4. [3]

    For each sitei, define two binary survival indicators: χ(inj) i , χ (cult) i ∈ {0,1}

    Detector-based success criterion and candidate formation Let the four local cultivation sites be indexed byi∈ {1,2,3,4}. For each sitei, define two binary survival indicators: χ(inj) i , χ (cult) i ∈ {0,1}. Here,χ (inj) i = 1 means that siteisurvives injection with- out triggering an error-detection event, andχ (cult) i = 1 means that siteisurvives cultiv...

  5. [4]

    If C=∅, then no local trajectory has survived the early stages, and the shot is discarded

    Selection rule and idle treatment Once the candidate setChas been formed, the protocol distinguishes two cases. If C=∅, then no local trajectory has survived the early stages, and the shot is discarded. A new shot must then be started from the beginning. If instead |C| ≥1, then one candidate is selected for continuation into the escape stage. We denote th...

  6. [5]

    The selected local trajectory is forwarded to the same grafted transition and subsequent escape path described for the single-site protocol in the main text

    Connection to the standard MSC escape framework Once the selected sitec ⋆ has been determined, the pro- tocol returns to the standard MSC escape framework. The selected local trajectory is forwarded to the same grafted transition and subsequent escape path described for the single-site protocol in the main text. Thus, multi- plexing is confined to the ear...

  7. [6]

    A. R. Calderbank and P. W. Shor, Good quantum error- correcting codes exist, Phys. Rev. A54, 1098 (1996)

    1996

  8. [7]

    P. W. Shor, Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory, Phys. Rev. A52, R2493 (1995)

    1995

  9. [8]

    Gottesman, Theory of fault-tolerant quantum compu- tation, Physical Review A57, 127 (1998)

    D. Gottesman, Theory of fault-tolerant quantum compu- tation, Physical Review A57, 127 (1998)

    1998

  10. [9]

    J. Preskill, Reliable quantum computers, Proceed- ings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Phys- ical and Engineering Sciences454, 385 (1998), eprint: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspa/article- pdf/454/1969/385/633961/rspa.1998.0167.pdf

    work page arXiv 1998

  11. [10]

    B. M. Terhal, Quantum error correction for quantum memories, Reviews of Modern Physics87, 307 (2015)

    2015

  12. [11]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, Resilient Quan- tum Computation, Science279, 342 (1998)

    1998

  13. [12]

    Aharonov and M

    D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, Fault-Tolerant Quan- tum Computation with Constant Error Rate, SIAM Journal on Computing38, 1207 (2008), eprint: https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539799359385

    work page doi:10.1137/s0097539799359385 2008

  14. [13]

    Aliferis, D

    P. Aliferis, D. Gottesman, and J. Preskill, Quantum accu- racy threshold for concatenated distance-3 codes, Quan- tum Info. Comput.6, 97–165 (2006)

    2006

  15. [14]

    Raussendorf and J

    R. Raussendorf and J. Harrington, Fault-tolerant quan- tum computation with high threshold in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 190504 (2007)

    2007

  16. [15]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computa- tion with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Physical Review A71, 022316 (2005)

    2005

  17. [16]

    Eastin and E

    B. Eastin and E. Knill, Restrictions on Transversal En- coded Quantum Gate Sets, Physical Review Letters102, 110502 (2009)

    2009

  18. [17]

    B. Zeng, A. Cross, and I. L. Chuang, Transversality Versus Universality for Additive Quantum Codes, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory57, 6272 (2011)

    2011

  19. [18]

    Gottesman and I

    D. Gottesman and I. L. Chuang, Demonstrating the via- bility of universal quantum computation using teleporta- tion and single-qubit operations, Nature402, 390 (1999)

    1999

  20. [19]

    Knill, Quantum computing with realistically noisy de- vices, Nature434, 39 (2005)

    E. Knill, Quantum computing with realistically noisy de- vices, Nature434, 39 (2005)

    2005

  21. [20]

    B. W. Reichardt, Quantum universality by state distilla- tion, Quantum Info. Comput.9, 1030–1052 (2009)

    2009

  22. [21]

    B. W. Reichardt, Quantum universality from magic states distillation applied to css codes, Quantum Infor- mation Processing4, 251–264 (2005)

    2005

  23. [22]

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

    2000

  24. [23]

    O’Gorman and E

    J. O’Gorman and E. T. Campbell, Quantum computa- tion with realistic magic-state factories, Physical Review A95, 032338 (2017)

    2017

  25. [24]

    E. T. Campbell, B. M. Terhal, and C. Vuillot, Roads towards fault-tolerant universal quantum computation, Nature549, 172 (2017)

    2017

  26. [25]

    Bravyi and J

    S. Bravyi and J. Haah, Magic-state distillation with low overhead, Physical Review A86, 052329 (2012)

    2012

  27. [26]

    Chamberland and K

    C. Chamberland and K. Noh, Very low overhead fault- tolerant magic state preparation using redundant ancilla encoding and flag qubits, npj Quantum Information6, 91 (2020)

    2020

  28. [27]

    E. T. Campbell and D. E. Browne, Bound States for Magic State Distillation in Fault-Tolerant Quan- tum Computation, Physical Review Letters104, 030503 (2010)

    2010

  29. [28]

    E. T. Campbell, H. Anwar, and D. E. Browne, Magic- State Distillation in All Prime Dimensions Using Quan- tum Reed-Muller Codes, Physical Review X2, 041021 (2012)

    2012

  30. [29]

    Jones, Multilevel distillation of magic states for quan- tum computing, Physical Review A87, 042305 (2013)

    C. Jones, Multilevel distillation of magic states for quan- tum computing, Physical Review A87, 042305 (2013)

    2013

  31. [30]

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

    C. Gidney, N. Shutty, and C. Jones, Magic state cultiva- tion: growing T states as cheap as CNOT gates (2024), arXiv:2409.17595 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  32. [31]

    Rosenfeld, C

    E. Rosenfeld, C. Gidney, G. Roberts, A. Morvan, N. Lacroix, D. Kafri, J. Marshall, M. Li, V. Sivak, D. Abanin, A. Abbas, R. Acharya, L. A. Beni, G. Aigeldinger, R. Alcaraz, S. Alcaraz, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, W. Askew, N. As- trakhantsev, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, B. Ballard, J. C. Bardin, H. Bates, A. Bengtsson, M. B. Karimi, A. Bilm...

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [32]

    Chen, M.-C

    Z.-H. Chen, M.-C. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Ef- ficient magic state cultivation on∖p 2, PRX Quantum7, 010315 (2026)

    2026

  34. [33]

    Vaknin, S

    Y. Vaknin, S. Jacoby, A. Grimsmo, and A. Retzker, High rate magic state cultivation on the surface code, PRX Quantum7, 010353 (2026)

    2026

  35. [34]

    Hirano, R

    Y. Hirano, R. Toshio, T. Itogawa, and K. Fujii, Effi- cient magic state cultivation with lattice surgery (2025), arXiv:2510.24615 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [35]

    Gidney, C

    C. Gidney, C. Jones, and N. Shutty, Data for ”Magic state cultivation: growing T states as cheap as CNOT gates” (2024)

    2024

  37. [36]

    D. S. Wang, A. G. Fowler, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Sur- face code quantum computing with error rates over 1%, Phys. Rev. A83, 020302(R) (2011)

    2011

  38. [37]

    Tomita and K

    Y. Tomita and K. M. Svore, Low-distance surface codes under realistic quantum noise, Phys. Rev. A90, 062320 (2014)

    2014

  39. [38]

    T. Hao, J. Sullivan, S. Omanakuttan, M. A. Perlin, and R. Shaydulin, Compilation Pipeline for Predicting Algo- rithmic Break-Even in an Early-Fault-Tolerant Surface Code Architecture (2025)

    2025

  40. [39]

    B. A. Chase and F. Labib, Clifft: Fast Exact Sim- ulation of Near-Clifford Quantum Circuits (2026), arXiv:2604.27058 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  41. [40]

    Higgott, T

    O. Higgott, T. C. Bohdanowicz, A. Kubica, S. T. Flam- mia, and E. T. Campbell, Improved decoding of circuit noise and fragile boundaries of tailored surface codes, Phys. Rev. X13, 031007 (2023)

    2023

  42. [41]

    Bombin, R

    H. Bombin, R. S. Andrist, M. Ohzeki, H. G. Katzgraber, and M. A. Martin-Delgado, Strong resilience of topo- logical codes to depolarization, Phys. Rev. X2, 021004 (2012)

    2012

  43. [42]

    D. S. Wang, A. G. Fowler, A. M. Stephens, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Threshold error rates for the toric and planar codes, Quantum Info. Comput.10, 456–469 (2010)

    2010

  44. [43]

    Jones, Low-overhead constructions for the fault- tolerant Toffoli gate, Physical Review A87, 022328 (2013)

    C. Jones, Low-overhead constructions for the fault- tolerant Toffoli gate, Physical Review A87, 022328 (2013)

    2013

  45. [44]

    Tiurev, P.-J

    K. Tiurev, P.-J. H. S. Derks, J. Roffe, J. Eisert, and J.-M. Reiner, Correcting non-independent and non-identically distributed errors with surface codes, Quantum7, 1123 (2023)

    2023

  46. [45]

    D. Cruz, F. A. Monteiro, and B. C. Coutinho, Quantum Error Correction Via Noise Guessing Decoding, IEEE Ac- cess11, 119446 (2023)

    2023

  47. [46]

    Harper, S

    R. Harper, S. T. Flammia, and J. J. Wallman, Effi- cient learning of quantum noise, Nature Physics16, 1184 (2020)

    2020

  48. [47]

    Sarovar, T

    M. Sarovar, T. Proctor, K. Rudinger, K. Young, E. Nielsen, and R. Blume-Kohout, Detecting crosstalk errors in quantum information processors, Quantum4, 321 (2020)

    2020

  49. [48]

    Rudinger, C

    K. Rudinger, C. W. Hogle, R. K. Naik, A. Hashim, D. Lobser, D. I. Santiago, M. D. Grace, E. Nielsen, T. Proctor, S. Seritan, S. M. Clark, R. Blume-Kohout, I. Siddiqi, and K. C. Young, Experimental Characteri- zation of Crosstalk Errors with Simultaneous Gate Set Tomography, PRX Quantum2, 040338 (2021)

    2021

  50. [49]

    J. M. Gambetta, A. D. C´ orcoles, S. T. Merkel, B. R. Johnson, J. A. Smolin, J. M. Chow, C. A. Ryan, C. Rigetti, S. Poletto, T. A. Ohki, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, Characterization of Addressability by Si- multaneous Randomized Benchmarking, Physical Review Letters109, 240504 (2012)

    2012

  51. [50]

    Krinner, S

    S. Krinner, S. Lazar, A. Remm, C. Andersen, N. Lacroix, G. Norris, C. Hellings, M. Gabureac, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Benchmarking coherent errors in controlled- phase gates due to spectator qubits, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 024042 (2020)

    2020

  52. [51]

    Duan, Z.-F

    P. Duan, Z.-F. Chen, Q. Zhou, W.-C. Kong, H.-F. Zhang, and G.-P. Guo, Mitigating crosstalk-induced qubit read- out error with shallow-neural-network discrimination, Phys. Rev. Appl.16, 024063 (2021)

    2021

  53. [52]

    X. Dai, D. Tennant, R. Trappen, A. Martinez, D. Melan- son, M. Yurtalan, Y. Tang, S. Novikov, J. Grover, S. Disseler, J. Basham, R. Das, D. Kim, A. Melville, B. Niedzielski, S. Weber, J. Yoder, D. Lidar, and A. Lu- pascu, Calibration of flux crosstalk in large-scale flux- tunable superconducting quantum circuits, PRX Quan- tum2, 040313 (2021)

    2021

  54. [53]

    Acharya, I

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

    2023

  55. [54]

    Acharya, D

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

    2025

  56. [55]

    Litinski, A Game of Surface Codes: Large-Scale Quan- tum Computing with Lattice Surgery, Quantum3, 128 (2019)

    D. Litinski, A Game of Surface Codes: Large-Scale Quan- tum Computing with Lattice Surgery, Quantum3, 128 (2019)

    2019

  57. [56]

    Haah and M

    J. Haah and M. B. Hastings, Codes and Protocols for Dis- tilling$T$, controlled-$S$, and Toffoli Gates, Quantum 2, 71 (2018)

    2018

  58. [57]

    Litinski, Magic State Distillation: Not as Costly as You Think, Quantum3, 205 (2019)

    D. Litinski, Magic State Distillation: Not as Costly as You Think, Quantum3, 205 (2019)

    2019

  59. [58]

    Surti, L

    S. Surti, L. Daguerre, and I. H. Kim, Efficient simula- tion of logical magic state preparation protocols (2025), arXiv:2512.23799 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  60. [59]

    Sahay, P.-K

    K. Sahay, P.-K. Tsai, K. K. Chang, Q. Su, T. B. Smith, S. Singh, and S. Puri, Fold-transversal surface code cul- tivation, PRX Quantum (2026)

    2026

  61. [60]

    Constant depth magic state cultivation with Clifford measurements by gauging

    B. Het´ enyi, B. J. Brown, and D. J. Williamson, Constant depth magic state cultivation with Clifford measurements by gauging (2026), arXiv:2603.05429 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2026

  62. [61]

    K. H. Wan, Z. Zhong, and A. Zapirain, Simulating magic state cultivation with few Clifford terms (2026), arXiv:2509.08658 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  63. [62]

    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

  64. [63]

    Y. Zhao, Y. Ye, H.-L. Huang, Y. Zhang, D. Wu, H. Guan, Q. Zhu, Z. Wei, T. He, S. Cao, F. Chen, T.-H. Chung, H. Deng, D. Fan, M. Gong, C. Guo, S. Guo, L. Han, N. Li, S. Li, Y. Li, F. Liang, J. Lin, H. Qian, H. Rong, H. Su, L. Sun, S. Wang, Y. Wu, Y. Xu, C. Ying, J. Yu, C. Zha, K. Zhang, Y.-H. Huo, C.-Y. Lu, C.-Z. Peng, X. Zhu, and J.-W. Pan, Realization of...

    2022

  65. [64]

    Krinner, N

    S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, A. Remm, A. Di Paolo, E. Genois, C. Leroux, C. Hellings, S. Lazar, F. Swiadek, J. Her- rmann, G. J. Norris, C. K. Andersen, M. M¨ uller, A. Blais, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Realizing repeated quantum error correction in a distance-three surface code, Nature 605, 669 (2022)

    2022

  66. [65]

    Lacroix, A

    N. Lacroix, A. Bourassa, F. J. H. Heras, L. M. Zhang, J. Bausch, A. W. Senior, T. Edlich, N. Shutty, V. Sivak, A. Bengtsson, M. McEwen, O. Higgott, D. Kafri, J. Claes, A. Morvan, Z. Chen, A. Zalcman, S. Madhuk, R. Acharya, L. Aghababaie Beni, G. Aigeldinger, R. Al- caraz, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, B. ...

    2025

  67. [66]

    Takada and K

    Y. Takada and K. Fujii, Improving threshold for fault-tolerant color-code quantum computing by flagged weight optimization, PRX Quantum5, 030352 (2024)

    2024

  68. [67]

    Jones, P

    C. Jones, P. Brooks, and J. Harrington, Gauge color codes in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. A93, 052332 (2016)

    2016