arxiv: 2605.04049 · v2 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

FTPrimitiveBench: A Benchmark Suite For Logical Computation Under Hardware-Motivated and Biased Noise Models

Shuwen Kan , Adrian Harkness , Zefan Du , Rod Rofougaran , Sean Garner , Chenxu Liu , Ying Mao , Samuel Stein

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 18:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords fault-tolerant quantum computinglogical primitivesstructured noise modelssurface codelattice surgeryquantum error correctionbenchmarkingdecoder choice

0 comments

The pith

Structured noise causes logical quantum primitives to show distinct performance depending on the noise type, primitive, and decoder.

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

The paper introduces FTPrimitiveBench to evaluate core logical operations under noise models that include Pauli bias, measurement bias, and spatial or temporal non-uniformity instead of assuming uniform depolarizing noise. It provides generators for surface-code primitives such as logical memory, lattice surgery, transversal Hadamard, and phase gates, then simulates how these operations perform when the noise has realistic structure. A sympathetic reader would care because real hardware devices exhibit these heterogeneities, and uniform models may give misleading estimates of the resources needed for fault tolerance. The central finding is that the effects on logical error rates vary qualitatively with the specific combination of noise structure, primitive implementation, and choice of decoder.

Core claim

FTPrimitiveBench links custom or representative structured noise specifications to generators for surface-code Clifford primitives and shows through simulation that these noise families produce qualitatively different outcomes for logical memory, lattice surgery, transversal Hadamard, and phase gates. The outcomes are shaped by the interplay between the noise model, the primitive, and the decoder, extending conventional memory-only benchmarks to active logical computation and enabling hardware-aware co-design of fault-tolerant protocols.

What carries the argument

FTPrimitiveBench, a standardized suite that connects noise-model specifications to circuit generators for logical primitives so their interaction under biased or non-uniform noise can be simulated reproducibly.

If this is right

Memory-only benchmarks miss noise interactions that appear once active logical operations such as lattice surgery are included.
Decoder performance depends on the noise structure, so the same decoder can be optimal or suboptimal depending on the bias or non-uniformity present.
Hardware-aware co-design becomes feasible once noise models and primitive constructions are linked in a standardized way.
Comparative studies of different QEC protocols and decoders can be performed reproducibly by using the same noise-primitive interface.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Decoders could be selected or trained on the basis of the dominant noise bias measured for a given device or region.
Different logical primitives might be preferred in different parts of a chip to match local error distributions.
The same benchmarking approach could be applied to other error-correcting codes to identify which primitives benefit most from hardware-specific noise features.
Extending the generators to include more complex temporal correlations would allow tests of whether current findings hold for longer computations.

Load-bearing premise

The selected families of structured noise are representative enough of the main heterogeneities and correlations present in real quantum hardware for evaluating logical primitives.

What would settle it

Calibrate the benchmark's noise parameters from measurements on a physical device, run the simulated primitives, then compare the predicted logical error rates against the error rates measured when the same primitives are executed on that device.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04049 by Adrian Harkness, Chenxu Liu, Rod Rofougaran, Samuel Stein, Sean Garner, Shuwen Kan, Ying Mao, Zefan Du.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Illustration of a surface-code logical qubit. Left: a distance-3 patch showing data qubits (white) and interleaved view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: (a, b): Spacetime structure of the logical memory primitive in the rotated surface code. A distance-(𝑑𝑋 , 𝑑𝑍 ) patch is transversally initialized in a logical eigenstate, undergoes 𝑡 rounds of stabilizer extraction (vertical axis), and is transversally measured in the same basis. Panel (a) shows a 𝑍¯-basis experiment with 𝑑𝑋 = 𝑑𝑍 = 3; panel (b) shows its 𝑋¯-basis counterpart. Blue and red data-qubit nodes … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: (a) and (b): Spacetime structure of the lattice-surgery primitive. Two logical patches (pre-surgery columns) are temporarily merged for 𝑇merge rounds along an ancilla bridge of length 𝐿 to extract the joint logical parity (𝑀𝑋𝑋 or 𝑀𝑍𝑍 ), then split apart for 𝑇post post-surgery rounds. The merge–split bridge yields the characteristic “H-shaped” spacetime topology. (c) Logical phase-gate: one logical data pat… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Logical memory under uniform depolarizing ( view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Relative Logical Error Rate (LER) for memory experiments comparing correlated PyMatching [ view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Logical memory under measurement-biased noise, normalized to the uniform-depolarizing baseline. In each subfigure the view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Logical memory under non-uniform noise, normalized to the uniform-depolarizing baseline on square patches in the view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Logical Hadamard under uniform depolarizing and view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Logical Hadamard under measurement-biased noise, normalized to the uniform-depolarizing baseline on square patches. The view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Logical Hadamard under non-uniform noise, normalized to the uniform-depolarizing baseline on square patches in the view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Effect of ancilla bridge length on lattice surgery under uniform depolarizing noise. Each panel shows the relative logical error view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Logical lattice surgery (𝑀𝑍𝑍 ) under uniform depolarizing and 𝑍-biased noise for the single-ancilla construction. LER per round versus physical error rate; columns sweep 𝜂 ∈ {1, 10, 100} and rows increase patch asymmetry by enlarging 𝑑𝑍 . Under 𝑍 bias, rectangular patches with 𝑑𝑍 > 𝑑𝑋 reduce the logical error rate by up to an order of magnitude at 𝜂 = 100, and the geometry advantage appears at lower physi… view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Absolute logical-lattice-surgery LER per round versus round count on square patches with merge distance equal to the round view at source ↗

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Logical lattice surgery under measurement-biased noise, normalized to the uniform-depolarizing baseline on square patches. view at source ↗

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Logical lattice surgery under non-uniform noise, normalized to the uniform-depolarizing baseline on square patches in the view at source ↗

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Logical phase gate under measurement-biased noise: relative LER versus boundary-round count view at source ↗

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Logical phase gate under measurement-biased noise: relative LER versus physical error rate at view at source ↗

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: Logical phase gate under non-uniform noise, normalized to the uniform-depolarizing baseline. Rows compare spatial-only view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Fault-tolerant quantum computing requires understanding how error-correcting codes perform on diverse physical hardware. This is typically assessed via noisy stabilizer simulation of logical circuits at HPC scale, combined with a noise model that yields a logical error rate for the relevant code distances and depths. The uniform depolarizing model is the standard baseline, but its homogeneous assumptions fail to capture the heterogeneity, asymmetries, and correlations of real devices, where Pauli, measurement, and spatio-temporal errors are not weakly coupled. Yet these same structured features create opportunities for joint code-hardware co-design, motivating noise models that more faithfully reflect target hardware while remaining tractable to simulate. We introduce FTPrimitiveBench, a systematic benchmarking approach for studying how logical primitives interact with hardware-motivated noise. It supports both custom specifications and representative structured noise families: Pauli bias, measurement bias, and spatial or spatio-temporal non-uniformity -- together with generators for core surface-code Clifford primitives: logical memory, lattice surgery, transversal logical Hadamard, and the logical phase gate via lattice surgery. We find that structured noise affects these primitives in qualitatively distinct ways, with outcomes shaped by the interplay between noise model, primitive, and decoder choice. These results extend memory benchmarks to active logical computation, where the interaction between noise structure and primitive implementation matters. By standardizing the link between noise-model specification and primitive construction, FTPrimitiveBench enables reproducible comparative studies of QEC protocols and decoders, supporting hardware-aware co-design of fault-tolerant architectures. Code: https://github.com/ShuwenKan/FTPrimitiveBench.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper introduces a practical open benchmark for surface-code primitives under structured noise, showing qualitative differences that uniform models miss, though the evidence stays preliminary.

read the letter

The main thing here is FTPrimitiveBench, which gives generators for active logical primitives like lattice surgery and transversal gates alongside noise families that include Pauli bias, measurement bias, and spatial or temporal non-uniformity. The simulations indicate these structured noises produce distinct effects depending on the primitive and the decoder, which moves the discussion past simple memory benchmarks toward hardware-aware co-design. Releasing the code on GitHub is a clear positive because it makes the reported distinctions directly checkable by others. The paper does a solid job of standardizing how noise specs link to primitive construction, which should make comparative work on QEC protocols easier. The soft spots are modest. The findings are described only in qualitative terms without the quantitative numbers, error rates, or full simulation details that would let a reader judge the size of those differences. The assumption that the chosen noise families capture the important heterogeneities of real hardware is reasonable for a starting point but remains untested against device data in what is shown. No internal contradictions or circular arguments appear in the approach. This is aimed at researchers in fault-tolerant quantum computing who already work with surface codes and want better noise models than the uniform depolarizing case. A reader focused on decoder development or code-hardware co-design would get concrete value from the framework and the open tools. I would bring it to a reading group as maybe, since the setup is useful even if the current results need more depth. I would cite it if I ended up running similar simulations. It deserves peer review because the core idea is grounded and the implementation is open, so referees can ask for the quantitative backing and hardware validation that would make the claims sharper.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces FTPrimitiveBench, a benchmark suite for studying logical primitives (logical memory, lattice surgery, transversal logical Hadamard, and logical phase gate via lattice surgery) under hardware-motivated structured noise models, specifically Pauli bias, measurement bias, and spatial or spatio-temporal non-uniformity. It supplies generators for both the primitives and the noise families, performs noisy stabilizer simulations, and reports qualitative findings that structured noise affects the primitives in distinct ways shaped by the interplay of noise model, primitive implementation, and decoder choice. The work positions this as an extension of memory-only benchmarks to active logical computation and emphasizes standardization and reproducibility via open code.

Significance. If the reported qualitative distinctions hold under the supplied noise families, the benchmark offers a practical, standardized tool for evaluating how realistic noise heterogeneities interact with fault-tolerant primitives, supporting hardware-aware co-design of QEC protocols and decoders. A clear strength is the provision of open code for primitive generators and noise models, which makes the central empirical observations directly reproducible without hidden parameters or circular self-references.

minor comments (3)

Abstract: the phrase 'qualitative findings from simulations' would benefit from a single sentence specifying the code distances, depths, and number of shots used, to give readers an immediate sense of the simulation scale.
Section on noise models (likely §3 or §4): the description of how spatial and spatio-temporal non-uniformity is implemented could include a brief pseudocode snippet or explicit probability map example for one primitive, to aid immediate reproducibility.
Results section: while the qualitative distinctions are the main claim, adding a small table summarizing the relative ordering of logical error rates across the four primitives for each noise family would make the interplay easier to compare at a glance.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of FTPrimitiveBench, including recognition of its utility as a standardized, reproducible tool for evaluating logical primitives under hardware-motivated noise models, and for the recommendation to accept the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical benchmark results are independent

full rationale

The paper introduces FTPrimitiveBench as a new simulation framework for logical primitives under structured noise models and reports qualitative distinctions observed when running those simulations. All central claims are direct outputs of the new benchmark executions rather than reductions of fitted parameters, self-defined quantities, or load-bearing self-citations. The provided open code allows independent reproduction of the reported interplay between noise families, primitives, and decoders. No derivation chain collapses by construction to the paper's own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces a benchmarking framework rather than new physical derivations; it relies on standard quantum simulation assumptions without introducing fitted parameters or new entities.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Noisy stabilizer simulation provides a faithful model for evaluating logical error rates of surface-code primitives under the specified noise families.
The benchmark is built around this simulation approach to assess performance of memory, lattice surgery, and gates.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5606 in / 1310 out tokens · 41175 ms · 2026-05-08T18:36:37.906999+00:00 · methodology

Review history (3 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

[1]

Scott Aaronson and Daniel Gottesman. 2004. Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 70, 5 (2004), 052328

2004
[2]

Laleh Aghababaie Beni, Oscar Higgott, and Noah Shutty. 2025. Tesseract: A Search-Based Decoder for Quantum Error Correction. doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2503.10988 arXiv:2503.10988 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[3]

Google Quantum AI. 2023. Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit.Nature614, 7949 (2023), 676 – 681

2023
[4]

Google Quantum AI. 2025. Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold.Nature638, 8052 (2025), 920–926. doi:10.1038/s41586-024- 08449-y

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024- 2025
[5]

Yutaro Akahoshi, Riki Toshio, Jun Fujisaki, Hirotaka Oshima, Shintaro Sato, and Keisuke Fujii. 2025. Runtime reduction in lattice surgery utilizing time-like soft information.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.21149(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[6]

Panos Aliferis, Frederico Brito, David P DiVincenzo, John Preskill, Matthias Steffen, and Barbara M Terhal. 2009. Fault-tolerant computing with biased-noise superconducting qubits: a case study.New Journal of Physics11, 1 (2009), 013061

2009
[7]

James M Auger, Hussain Anwar, Mercedes Gimeno-Segovia, Thomas M Stace, and Dan E Browne. 2017. Fault-tolerance thresholds for the surface code with fabrication errors.Physical Review A96, 4 (2017), 042316

2017
[8]

Ryan Babbush, Jarrod R McClean, Michael Newman, Craig Gidney, Sergio Boixo, and Hartmut Neven. 2021. Focus beyond quadratic speedups for error-corrected quantum advantage.PRX quantum2, 1 (2021), 010103

2021
[9]

Beale et al

Stefanie J. Beale et al. 2025. Logical error rates for the surface code under a mixed coherent and stochastic circuit-level noise model inspired by trapped ions.Physical Review Research(2025)

2025
[10]

N Berthusen, J Dreiling, C Foltz, JP Gaebler, TM Gatterman, D Gresh, N Hewitt, M Mills, SA Moses, B Neyenhuis, et al. [n. d.]. Experiments with the 4d surface code on a qccd quantum computer (2024).arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08865([n. d.])

work page arXiv 2024
[11]

Michael E Beverland, Prakash Murali, Matthias Troyer, Krysta M Svore, Torsten Hoefler, Vadym Kliuchnikov, Guang Hao Low, Mathias Soeken, Aarthi Sundaram, and Alexander Vaschillo. 2022. Assessing requirements to scale to practical quantum advantage.arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.07629 (2022)

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022
[12]

Dolev Bluvstein, Simon J Evered, Alexandra A Geim, Sophie H Li, Hengyun Zhou, Tom Manovitz, Sepehr Ebadi, Madelyn Cain, Marcin Kalinowski, Dominik Hangleiter, et al. 2024. Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays.Nature626, 7997 (2024), 58–65

2024
[13]

Dolev Bluvstein, Alexandra A Geim, Sophie H Li, Simon J Evered, J Ataides, Gefen Baranes, Andi Gu, Tom Manovitz, Muqing Xu, Marcin Kalinowski, et al. 2025. Architectural mechanisms of a universal fault-tolerant quantum computer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.20661(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[14]

Hector Bombin, Chris Dawson, Ryan V Mishmash, Naomi Nickerson, Fernando Pastawski, and Sam Roberts. 2023. Logical blocks for fault-tolerant topological quantum computation.PRX Quantum4, 2 (2023), 020303

2023
[15]

J Pablo Bonilla Ataides, David K Tuckett, Stephen D Bartlett, Steven T Flammia, and Benjamin J Brown. 2021. The XZZX surface code.Nature communications12, 1 (2021), 2172

2021
[16]

Christopher Chamberland and Earl T Campbell. 2022. Circuit-level protocol and analysis for twist-based lattice surgery.Physical Review Research4, 2 (2022), 023090

2022
[17]

Zi-Han Chen, Ming-Cheng Chen, Chao-Yang Lu, and Jian-Wei Pan. 2026. Efficient Magic State Cultivation on RP 2.PRX Quantum7, 1 (2026), 010315. 31

2026
[18]

Zi-Han Chen, Ming-Cheng Chen, Chao-Yang Lu, and Jian-Wei Pan. 2026. Transversal logical Clifford gates on the rotated surface code with reconfigurable neutral atom arrays.Physical Review Letters136, 13 (2026), 130601

2026
[19]

Iris Cong, Harry Levine, Alexander Keesling, Dolev Bluvstein, Sheng-Tao Wang, and Mikhail D Lukin. 2022. Hardware-efficient, fault-tolerant quantum computation with Rydberg atoms.Physical Review X12, 2 (2022), 021049

2022
[20]

Niel de Beaudrap and Dominic Horsman. 2020. The ZX calculus is a language for surface code lattice surgery.Quantum4 (2020), 218

2020
[21]

Eric Dennis, Alexei Kitaev, Andrew Landahl, and John Preskill. 2002. Topological quantum memory.J. Math. Phys.43, 9 (2002), 4452–4505

2002
[22]

Alexander Erhard, Hendrik Poulsen Nautrup, Michael Meth, Lukas Postler, Roman Stricker, Martin Stadler, Vlad Negnevitsky, Martin Ringbauer, Philipp Schindler, Hans J Briegel, et al. 2021. Entangling logical qubits with lattice surgery.Nature589, 7841 (2021), 220–224

2021
[23]

Simon J Evered, Dolev Bluvstein, Marcin Kalinowski, Sepehr Ebadi, Tom Manovitz, Hengyun Zhou, Sophie H Li, Alexandra A Geim, Tout T Wang, Nishad Maskara, et al. 2023. High-fidelity parallel entangling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer.Nature622, 7982 (2023), 268–272

2023
[24]

Austin G Fowler. 2012. Proof of finite surface code threshold for matching.Physical review letters109, 18 (2012), 180502

2012
[25]

Austin G Fowler. 2013. Optimal complexity correction of correlated errors in the surface code.arXiv preprint arXiv:1310.0863(2013)

work page arXiv 2013
[26]

Austin G Fowler and Craig Gidney. 2018. Low overhead quantum computation using lattice surgery.arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.06709(2018)

work page arXiv 2018
[27]

Austin G Fowler, Matteo Mariantoni, John M Martinis, and Andrew N Cleland. 2012. Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics86, 3 (2012), 032324

2012
[28]

Austin G Fowler, Ashley M Stephens, and Peter Groszkowski. 2009. High-threshold universal quantum computation on the surface code.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics80, 5 (2009), 052312

2009
[29]

Kohei Fujiu, Shota Nagayama, Shin Nishio, Hideaki Kawaguchi, and Takahiko Satoh. 2025. Dense packing of the surface code: code deformation procedures and hook-error-avoiding gate scheduling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.06758(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[30]

Sean Garner, Chenxu Liu, Meng Wang, Samuel Stein, and Ang Li. 2025. STABSim: A Parallelized Clifford Simulator with Features Beyond Direct Simulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.03092(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[31]

Michael R Geller and Zhongyuan Zhou. 2013. Efficient error models for fault-tolerant architectures and the Pauli twirling approximation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1305.2021(2013)

work page Pith review arXiv 2013
[32]

Lukas Gerster, Fernando Martínez-García, Pavel Hrmo, Martin W van Mourik, Benjamin Wilhelm, Davide Vodola, Markus Müller, Rainer Blatt, Philipp Schindler, and Thomas Monz. 2022. Experimental Bayesian calibration of trapped-ion entangling operations.PRX quantum3, 2 (2022), 020350

2022
[33]

Spiro Gicev, Lloyd C. L. Hollenberg, and Muhammad Usman. 2024. Quantum computer error structure probed by quantum error correction syndrome measurements.Phys. Rev. Res.6 (Dec 2024), 043249. Issue 4. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.043249

work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.6.043249 2024
[34]

Craig Gidney. [n. d.]. Crumble. https://algassert.com/crumble. Accessed: 2026-04-30

2026
[35]

Craig Gidney. 2021. Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator.Quantum5 (2021), 497

2021
[36]

Craig Gidney. 2024. Inplace Access to the Surface Code Y Basis.Quantum8 (April 2024), 1310. doi:10.22331/q-2024-04-08-1310

work page doi:10.22331/q-2024-04-08-1310 2024
[37]

Craig Gidney. 2025. How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers with less than a million noisy qubits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.15917(2025)

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[38]

Craig Gidney, Michael Newman, Austin Fowler, and Michael Broughton. 2021. A fault-tolerant honeycomb memory.Quantum5 (2021), 605

2021
[39]

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

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024
[40]

1997.Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction

Daniel Gottesman. 1997.Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction. California Institute of Technology

1997
[41]

Rafael Haenel, Xiuzhe Luo, and Chen Zhao. 2026. Tsim: Fast Universal Simulator for Quantum Error Correction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.01059 (2026)

work page arXiv 2026
[42]

Adrian Harkness, Shuwen Kan, Chenxu Liu, Meng Wang, John M Martyn, Shifan Xu, Diana Chamaki, Ethan Decker, Ying Mao, Luis F Zuluaga, et al
[43]

FTCircuitBench: A Benchmark Suite for Fault-Tolerant Quantum Compilation and Architecture.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03185(2026)

work page arXiv 2026
[44]

Oscar Higgott. 2022. Pymatching: A python package for decoding quantum codes with minimum-weight perfect matching.ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing3, 3 (2022), 1–16

2022
[45]

Oscar Higgott and Craig Gidney. 2025. Sparse blossom: correcting a million errors per core second with minimum-weight matching.Quantum9 (2025), 1600

2025
[46]

Oscar Higgott and Craig Gidney. 2025. Sparse Blossom: correcting a million errors per core second with minimum-weight matching.Quantum9 (Jan. 2025), 1600. doi:10.22331/q-2025-01-20-1600

work page doi:10.22331/q-2025-01-20-1600 2025
[47]

Yuga Hirai, Shota Ikari, Yosuke Ueno, and Yasunari Suzuki. 2026. No More Hooks in the Surface Code: Distance-Preserving Syndrome Extraction for Arbitrary Layouts at Minimum Depth.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.01628(2026)

work page arXiv 2026
[48]

Dominic Horsman, Austin G Fowler, Simon Devitt, and Rodney Van Meter. 2012. Surface code quantum computing by lattice surgery.New Journal of Physics14, 12 (2012), 123011

2012
[49]

William J Huggins, Tanuj Khattar, Amanda Xu, Matthew Harrigan, Christopher Kang, Guang Hao Low, Austin Fowler, Nicholas C Rubin, and Ryan Babbush. 2025. The FLuid Allocation of Surface code Qubits (FLASQ) cost model for early fault-tolerant quantum algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.08508(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[50]

AC Hughes, R Srinivas, CM Löschnauer, HM Knaack, R Matt, CJ Ballance, M Malinowski, TP Harty, and RT Sutherland. 2025. Trapped-ion two-qubit gates with> 99.99% fidelity without ground-state cooling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.17286(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[51]

Amara Katabarwa and Michael R Geller. 2015. Logical error rate in the Pauli twirling approximation.Scientific reports5, 1 (2015), 14670. 32

2015
[52]

Gilad Kishony and Austin Fowler. 2026. Surface code off-the-hook: diagonal syndrome-extraction scheduling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.09099(2026)

work page arXiv 2026
[53]

A Yu Kitaev. 2003. Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons.Annals of physics303, 1 (2003), 2–30

2003
[54]

Paul V Klimov, Julian Kelly, Zijun Chen, Matthew Neeley, Anthony Megrant, Brian Burkett, Rami Barends, Kunal Arya, Ben Chiaro, Yu Chen, et al
[55]

Fluctuations of energy-relaxation times in superconducting qubits.Physical review letters121, 9 (2018), 090502

2018
[56]

Sebastian Krinner, Nathan Lacroix, Ants Remm, Agustin Di Paolo, Elie Genois, Catherine Leroux, Christoph Hellings, Stefania Lazar, Francois Swiadek, Johannes Herrmann, et al. 2022. Realizing repeated quantum error correction in a distance-three surface code.Nature605, 7911 (2022), 669–674

2022
[57]

Andrew J Landahl, Jonas T Anderson, and Patrick R Rice. 2011. Fault-tolerant quantum computing with color codes.arXiv preprint arXiv:1108.5738 (2011)

work page arXiv 2011
[58]

Raphaël Lescanne, Marius Villiers, Théau Peronnin, Alain Sarlette, Matthieu Delbecq, Benjamin Huard, Takis Kontos, Mazyar Mirrahimi, and Zaki Leghtas. 2020. Exponential suppression of bit-flips in a qubit encoded in an oscillator.Nature Physics16, 5 (2020), 509–513

2020
[59]

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

2019
[60]

Daniel Litinski. 2019. Magic state distillation: Not as costly as you think.Quantum3 (2019), 205

2019
[61]

Áron Márton and János K Asbóth. 2025. Optimal number of stabilizer measurement rounds in an idling surface code patch.Quantum9 (2025), 1767

2025
[62]

Áron Márton, Luis Colmenarez, Lukas Bödeker, and Markus Müller. 2025. Lattice surgery-based logical state teleportation via noisy links.Physical Review Research7, 3 (2025), 033238

2025
[63]

Satvik Maurya, Joshua Viszlai, Nithin Raveendran, Poulami Das, and Swamit Tannu. 2025. decoder-bench: Benchmarking Decoders for Quantum Error Correction. In2025 IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization (IISWC). IEEE, 286–295

2025
[64]

Matt McEwen, Lara Faoro, Kunal Arya, Andrew Dunsworth, Trent Huang, Seon Kim, Brian Burkett, Austin Fowler, Frank Arute, Joseph C Bardin, et al. 2022. Resolving catastrophic error bursts from cosmic rays in large arrays of superconducting qubits.Nature Physics18, 1 (2022), 107–111

2022
[65]

Steven A Moses, Charles H Baldwin, Michael S Allman, R Ancona, L Ascarrunz, C Barnes, J Bartolotta, B Bjork, P Blanchard, M Bohn, et al. 2023. A race-track trapped-ion quantum processor.Physical Review X13, 4 (2023), 041052

2023
[66]

Jacob S Palmer and Kaitlin N Smith. 2025. Boundaries of Acceptable Defectiveness: Redefining Surface Code Robustness under Heterogeneous Noise.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.22001(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[67]

Christophe Piveteau, Christopher T Chubb, and Joseph M Renes. 2024. Tensor-network decoding beyond 2d.PRX Quantum5, 4 (2024), 040303

2024
[68]

Harald Putterman, Kyungjoo Noh, Connor T Hann, Gregory S MacCabe, Shahriar Aghaeimeibodi, Rishi N Patel, Menyoung Lee, William M Jones, Hesam Moradinejad, Roberto Rodriguez, et al. 2025. Hardware-efficient quantum error correction via concatenated bosonic qubits.Nature638, 8052 (2025), 927–934

2025
[69]

Quantum Computing Stack Exchange. [n. d.]. When calculating code thresholds, why do we need to take a number of rounds that scales with distance? https://quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/24048. Accessed: 2026-05-05

2026
[70]

2022.LDPC: Python tools for low density parity check codes

Joschka Roffe. 2022.LDPC: Python tools for low density parity check codes. https://pypi.org/project/ldpc/

2022
[71]

Roffe, D

Joschka Roffe, David R. White, Simon Burton, and Earl Campbell. 2020. Decoding across the quantum low-density parity-check code landscape. Physical Review Research2, 4 (Dec 2020). doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.043423

work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.043423 2020
[72]

Neil J Ross and Peter Selinger. 2014. Optimal ancilla-free Clifford+ T approximation of z-rotations.arXiv preprint arXiv:1403.2975(2014)

work page Pith review arXiv 2014
[73]

Mohamed A Shalby, Renyu Wang, Denis Sedov, and Leonid P Pryadko. 2025. Optimized noise-resilient surface code teleportation interfaces.Physical Review A112, 2 (2025), L020403

2025
[74]

Peter W Shor. 1996. Fault-tolerant quantum computation. InProceedings of 37th conference on foundations of computer science. IEEE, 56–65

1996
[75]

Volodymyr Sivak, Alexis Morvan, Michael Broughton, Matthew Neeley, Alec Eickbusch, Dmitry Abanin, Amira Abbas, Rajeev Acharya, Laleh Aghababaie Beni, Georg Aigeldinger, et al. 2025. Reinforcement learning control of quantum error correction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.08493 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[76]

Volodymyr Sivak, Michael Newman, and Paul Klimov. 2024. Optimization of decoder priors for accurate quantum error correction.Physical Review Letters133, 15 (2024), 150603

2024
[77]

Stephen T Spitz, Brian Tarasinski, Carlo WJ Beenakker, and Thomas E O’Brien. 2018. Adaptive Weight Estimator for Quantum Error Correction in a Time-Dependent Environment.Advanced Quantum Technologies1, 1 (2018), 1800012

2018
[78]

Adithya Sriram, Nicholas O’Dea, Yaodong Li, Tibor Rakovszky, and Vedika Khemani. 2024. Non-Uniform Noise Rates and Griffiths Phases in Topological Quantum Error Correction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03325(2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[79]

Andrew M Steane. 1996. Error correcting codes in quantum theory.Physical Review Letters77, 5 (1996), 793

1996
[80]

Ashley M Stephens. 2014. Fault-tolerant thresholds for quantum error correction with the surface code.Physical Review A89, 2 (2014), 022321

2014

Showing first 80 references.