Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 60 references

Kinetics of sliding-window quantum error correction

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Sliding-window quantum error correction is governed by a parity-conserving reaction-diffusion process.

desk verdict A strong theory paper that finally gives sliding-window decoding a real effective description; the memory-time crossover is convincing, while the DPRM-based diffusion scaling is the part I'd push on. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10081 v1 pith:U7PH4KHV submitted 2026-08-10 quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mech

Adithya Sriram , Charles Stahl , Aleksander Kubica , Yaodong Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mech
keywords sliding-windowdecodingreal-timequantumerrorcorrectionreaction-diffusionprocessparity-conservingdynamicsmemorytimedirectedpolymersinrandommediatopologicalcodesZ2charges
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Sliding-window decoding (SWD) is a practical real-time error-correction scheme in which a decoder repeatedly sees only a finite temporal window $W$ of syndrome data and irreversibly commits to corrections. This paper argues that despite the decoder's global, nonlocal matching, the long-time dynamics of the code is captured by a simple stochastic process: $\mathbb{Z}_2$-charged point particles that diffuse, annihilate, and nucleate in pairs. The memory time of the code—how long logical information survives—then obeys $\ln t_{\mathrm{mem}} \propto L\,\Phi(W/L)$, interpolating between exponential growth in $W$ for small windows and the static limit $L$ for huge windows. If correct, this gives a theoretical benchmark for real-time decoders and identifies the decoding rate $1/W$ as a relevant perturbation that prevents true memory at any finite window size.

What carries the argument

The central object is the worldline of a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ charge in the combined error-and-correction chain $E\oplus E'$; the window $W$ screens decoder corrections to length $O(W)$, making charge motion quasi-local. The key scaling input is the treatment of each window's worldline as a directed polymer in a random medium: a segment of temporal extent $W$ wanders spatially by $|\delta r| \propto W^{\zeta}$, so a charge takes steps of that size every $W$ time units, giving $D(W) \propto W^{z\zeta-1}$ with $z=2$ and $\zeta=2/3$ in (1+1) dimensions. A standard energy-counting argument for a pair to separate a distance $O(W)$ inside one window yields $\tau \propto e^{-\kappa\sigma W}$. These two relations feed the reaction-diffusion process, whose relaxation time sets the memory time and the crossover function $\Phi$.

What would settle it

Initialize a single domain wall in the 1D repetition code, run SWD with open boundaries at fixed $p<p_c$ and $W \ll L^{2/3}$, and measure how the domain wall spreads. The paper predicts effective diffusion $D(W) \propto W^{1/3}$, so a log-log plot of $D$ versus $W$ should have slope $1/3$; any other slope falsifies the directed-polymer assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that SWD, at time and length scales larger than the window size $W$, admits an effective description as a parity-conserving reaction-diffusion process $A+A \rightleftharpoons \varnothing$ with diffusion. The effective parameters inherit nontrivial $W$-dependence: pair nucleation is exponentially suppressed, $\tau(W) \propto e^{-\kappa\sigma W}$; the effective diffusion constant grows as $D(W) \propto W^{z\zeta-1}$; and annihilation is essentially immediate upon contact. The relaxation time of this process is identified with the memory time, giving $\ln t_{\mathrm{mem}} \propto L\,\Phi(W/L)$ with $\Phi$ linear for $W\ll L$ and saturating for $W\gg L$. The authors support this with numerical data collapse for the 1D repetition code and the 2D toric code, and with tests using alternative decoders.

Load-bearing premise

The whole scaling picture rests on the assumption that the way a charge wanders across one decoding window has the same statistics as a directed polymer in a random medium, with a wandering exponent $\zeta=2/3$ in one spatial dimension; if the decoder-generated disorder does not belong to that universality class, the predicted diffusion constant $D \propto W^{1/3}$ and the $W/L$ data collapse would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any finite window $W$, the memory time no longer diverges with system size: it grows as $e^{\alpha\kappa\sigma W}$ in the $W\ll L$ regime and saturates to the static $e^{\sigma L}$ form as $W\gg L$, so finite-rate decoding always caps logical memory.
  • The single-variable scaling form $\ln t_{\mathrm{mem}} \propto L\,\Phi(W/L)$ makes $W/L$ the natural figure of merit for the speed-accuracy tradeoff, usable for error budgeting under throughput constraints.
  • The effective description is unchanged across microscopic details: the same scaling collapse holds for modular sliding-window decoding, union-find and clustering decoders, and for the 2D toric code with point-like anyons.
  • Because $1/W$ is a relevant perturbation to the decodable phase, SWD is not a single-shot decoder for codes with point-like excitations: no matter how large $W$, the logical failure rate per round remains nonzero.
  • In one spatial dimension the relaxation exponent $\alpha=1$ makes the memory time grow as $e^{\alpha\kappa\sigma W}$, so each additional unit of window size exponentially suppresses logical failure.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension: if different decoders bias the disorder seen by worldlines differently, the wandering exponent $\zeta$ would change; measuring the $W$-exponent of the effective diffusion constant across decoders would test whether the directed-polymer universality assumption is truly universal.
  • The relevant-perturbation picture suggests a design rule: persistent logical memory in real-time decoding requires making the decoding rate irrelevant, which is exactly what single-shot decoders aim to do; SWD shows the generic cost of not doing so.
  • The same machinery should apply to more general excitations: non-abelian or kinetically constrained charges would likely fall in different non-equilibrium universality classes, and the scaling-collapse method used here could detect them.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops an effective kinetic description of sliding-window decoding (SWD) for topological codes with deconfined Z2 point-like defects. The authors argue that, at length and time scales large compared to the window size W, SWD is equivalent to a parity-conserving reaction-diffusion process of coarse-grained charges, Eq. (1). They derive scaling relations for the pair-nucleation rate, tau(W) proportional to exp(-kappa sigma W), for the diffusion constant, D(W) proportional to W^{z zeta - 1}, and for the memory time, ln t_mem proportional to L Phi(W/L), with Phi linear for W << L and saturating for W >> L. These predictions are tested numerically for the 1D repetition code, the 2D toric code, modular SWD, and union-find/clustering decoders. The End Matter and Supplemental Material also provide tests using quasi-local decoder variants and a SWAP-noise model exhibiting an absorbing-state transition. The central claim is that the decoding rate 1/W is a relevant perturbation to the decodable phase, so that logical failure is exponentially suppressed in W, but not in L for any finite W.

Significance. If correct, this is a significant step: it provides the first concrete theoretical framework for real-time quantum error correction beyond the static equilibrium mapping, and it identifies W/L as the natural figure of merit for the speed-accuracy tradeoff. The paper's strengths are its extensive numerical evidence, its falsifiable scaling predictions, and the deliberate exploration of many microscopic variants (modular SWD, UF/clustering decoders, SWAP noise) that are all consistent with the same effective description. The authors are also commendably explicit about the limitations of their evidence, for example in footnote [39] and in the End Matter statement that the 2D toric-code diffusion scaling has not been directly tested. I see no internal inconsistency in the central derivation; the main risk is a physics assumption that is plausible but only indirectly tested.

major comments (2)
  1. [Effective model for SWD, Eq. (3) and footnote [39]] The scaling D(W) proportional to W^{z zeta - 1} rests on the assumption that, in each commit window, a slow charge's endpoint displacement is an independent DPRM step with |delta r| proportional to W^zeta and zeta = 2/3, and that successive steps are independent. This assumption is plausible, but it is not derived from the MWPM matching dynamics, and footnote [39] explicitly states that slow charges are 'not easily distinguishable' from the fast background, so Fig. 2(a) is only an indirect long-time diffusion collapse. If the decoder-generated disorder were annealed or correlated from round to round, or if zeta were 1/2 instead of 2/3, Eq. (3) and the Fig. 2(a) interpretation would fail. I ask the authors to provide a direct measurement of the single-window displacement distribution for an isolated slow charge, or to clearly label Eq. (3) as a conjecture and soften the claims that depend on it. The memory-time crossover Eq. (5) is not affected by this concern because it depends on tau rather than on D.
  2. [End Matter, 'Crossover scaling for the 2D toric code'] The abstract claims broad applicability of the effective description, but for the 2D toric code the paper only tests the memory-time crossover in Fig. 5(b), and the End Matter explicitly states that the diffusion scaling has not been tested because no local observable tracks a coarse-grained anyon in a way analogous to the 1D spin-density Delta-rho. Since the diffusion exponent enters the claimed universal D(W) scaling in 2D, and the DPRM exponent is dimension-dependent (zeta for (2+1)-dimensional directed polymers), the 2D universality of Eq. (3) is currently unsupported. I recommend either supplying a targeted numerical test that isolates slow anyon motion (for example through a suitable two-point correlation function or a nonlocal filter), or explicitly labeling the 2D diffusion scaling as an open prediction rather than a tested consequence of the theory.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title page affiliations] The affiliation line for the University of Washington reads 'W A' and should be 'WA'.
  2. [Numerical results, Eq. (6)] The quantity Gamma_0 appears in Eq. (6) before it is introduced; consider defining it in the text immediately before the equation.
  3. [Fig. 2] The caption of Fig. 2 could state explicitly that <Delta-rho> is the ensemble-averaged absolute spin-density difference, since the notation is otherwise only defined in the main text.
  4. [Data availability] The manuscript does not include a data or code availability statement; given the extensive Monte Carlo results, a note on availability of simulation code would be helpful for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the effective-kinetics claims are supported by external scaling exponents and independent microscopic simulations; only fitted quantity is an overall normalization.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The reaction-diffusion model (Eq. 1) is introduced as an effective description motivated by the O(W) screening cutoff in MWPM (Supplemental Material S1.B), not as a consequence of a prior self-citation. The pair-nucleation rate tau proportional to e^{-kappa sigma W} follows from a Peierls-type estimate with line tension sigma(p) taken from the static statistical-mechanics picture. The diffusion constant D proportional to W^{z zeta - 1} (Eq. 3) uses the DPRM wandering exponent zeta = 2/3 from the external literature (Huse-Henley and Kardar-Parisi-Zhang) and the relation between step size, step time, and diffusion constant is a standard definition rather than an assumption of the target result. The memory-time scaling t_mem proportional to tau^{-alpha} uses the known reaction-diffusion exponent alpha from Racz. The only fitted parameter in the data collapse is the overall normalization Gamma_0 fixed from the static limit (W to infinity); it does not determine the exponents or the shape of Phi(W/L). Numerical experiments in Figs. 1-3 and the End Matter test these predicted functional forms against microscopic SWD simulations. Footnote 39 and the End Matter explicitly concede that the single-window DPRM displacement distribution is not directly measured and that the 2D toric-code D(W) is untested; these are evidence-strength limitations, not circular reductions. The self-citations ([18], [50], [52]) appear only in contextual overviews and are not load-bearing. No equation is equivalent to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The effective description rests on three parametric inputs (the line tension σ, the DPRM exponent ζ, and the reaction-diffusion exponent α) all taken from prior literature, plus two fitted normalizations in the data collapse. No new physical entities are introduced. The DPRM and t_mem=t_relax identifications are the least externally anchored.

free parameters (3)
  • Γ0 = determined from static limit (W→∞) data
    Overall multiplicative factor of the logical failure rate Γ_{W,L} in Eq. (6); fixed independently using static-limit data and used for all p in Fig. 1(c). It is a normalization, not an exponent.
  • Per-p vertical rescaling A_p = chosen per p to collapse data onto Φ
    In Fig. 1(c), data at different p is collapsed onto the same universal function Φ after an overall rescaling of the vertical axis, as stated in the numerical results and footnote [45]. This is a fitting parameter for each p.
  • κ = not extracted
    Nonuniversal geometrical factor fixed by the decoder in Eq. (2), τ(W)∝exp(-κσW). Its value is not computed or fitted; the paper uses its existence to predict exponential scaling.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Charges separated by more than O(W) are effectively screened by the temporal boundary, so the decoder's correction chains have connected components of length at most O(W).
    Central to the quasi-local effective description; argued via Peierls estimate in Supplemental Material S1.B, not proven.
  • domain assumption The worldlines of slow Z2 charges are domain walls in a 2D random-bond Ising model and have DPRM wandering exponent ζ=2/3 in (1+1)D.
    Used to derive D(W)∝W^{zζ-1} (Eq. 3); footnotes [31-35]. The medium is effectively quenched because the error chain is a fixed random realization.
  • domain assumption The memory time t_mem of the code equals the relaxation time t_relax of the reaction-diffusion process.
    Invoked in the effective model section and footnote [37], which notes the identification may fail for single-shot or self-correcting codes.
  • domain assumption The crossover scaling form ln t_mem ∝ L Φ(W/L) holds with a universal function Φ whose limits are fixed by the two regimes.
    Eq. (5); a scaling ansatz motivated by the two limits, not derived from the microscopic model.
  • domain assumption The reaction-diffusion process reaches a steady state with nonzero charge density for any finite W, so logical failure occurs at a nonzero rate.
    Follows from τ>0; used to identify t_mem with t_relax. If τ=0 (absorbing), the identification would change.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kinetics of sliding-window quantum error correction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U7PH4KHV

@misc{pith2026260810081,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kinetics of sliding-window quantum error correction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U7PH4KHV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10081}
}
abstract

Practical implementations of quantum error correction (QEC) require rapid measurement and continuous processing of the syndrome information in order to prevent a backlog of unprocessed data. While ``static'' QEC is theoretically well understood via mappings to equilibrium statistical mechanics models, such an understanding of ``real-time'' QEC is currently lacking. Here, we study the kinetics of sliding window decoding (SWD), an implementation of real-time decoding that acts on temporally local windows of noisy syndrome information and commits to corrections irreversibly at a nonzero rate. We propose an effective description of SWD in terms of a stochastic kinetic process, where $\mathbb{Z}_2$-charged point particles undergo parity-conserving reaction and diffusion. This model describes dynamics at length and time scales large compared to the window size $W$, whereas physics at scales smaller than $W$ leads to nontrivial $W$-dependent scaling of the effective parameters. We identify the rate of decoding $1/W$ as a relevant perturbation to the decodable phase. We also show broad applicability of our results by changing many microscopic details of SWD without affecting the effective description.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10081 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Illustration of the sliding-window decoder, for the first few rounds. The error and the correction together form [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Diffusive motion of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a, b) Layout of modular SWD. (c) Results for dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Crossover scaling of the 2D toric code (compare with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [39]

    In our numerical experiments, slow charges are always clouded by a background of fast charges, and are not easily distinguishable

    work page

  2. [1]

    Ryan-Andersonet al., Science385, 1327–1331 (2024)

    C. Ryan-Andersonet al., Science385, 1327–1331 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [2]

    Acharyaet al., Nature638, 920–926 (2025)

    R. Acharyaet al., Nature638, 920–926 (2025)

    work page 2025

  4. [3]

    Pogorelov, F

    I. Pogorelov, F. Butt, L. Postler, C. D. Marciniak, P. Schindler, M. Müller, and T. Monz, Nature Physics 21, 298–303 (2025)

    work page 2025

  5. [4]

    Puttermanet al., Nature638, 927–934 (2025)

    H. Puttermanet al., Nature638, 927–934 (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [5]

    Lacroixet al., Nature645, 614–619 (2025)

    N. Lacroixet al., Nature645, 614–619 (2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [6]

    Sales Rodriguezet al., Nature645, 620–625 (2025)

    P. Sales Rodriguezet al., Nature645, 620–625 (2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [7]

    B. L. Brock, S. Singh, A. Eickbusch, V. V. Sivak, A. Z. Ding, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and M. H. Devoret, Na- ture641, 612–618 (2025)

    work page 2025

Show all 60 references
  1. [8]

    Daguerre, R

    L. Daguerre, R. Blume-Kohout, N. C. Brown, D. Hayes, and I. H. Kim, Physical Review X15, 041008 (2025)

    2025

  2. [9]

    Eickbuschet al., Nature Physics21, 1994–2001 (2025)

    A. Eickbuschet al., Nature Physics21, 1994–2001 (2025)

    2025

  3. [10]

    Bluvsteinet al., Nature649, 39–46 (2025)

    D. Bluvsteinet al., Nature649, 39–46 (2025). 6

    2025

  4. [11]

    Zhang, G

    B. Zhang, G. Liu, G. Bornet, S. P. Horvath, P. Peng, S. Ma, S. Huang, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, Nature Physics22, 910–916 (2026)

    2026

  5. [12]

    Dennis, A

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

    2002

  6. [13]

    H. G. Katzgraber, H. Bombin, and M. A. Martin- Delgado, Physical Review Letters103, 090501 (2009)

    2009

  7. [14]

    Bombin, R

    H. Bombin, R. S. Andrist, M. Ohzeki, H. G. Katzgraber, and M. A. Martin-Delgado, Physical Review X2, 021004 (2012)

    2012

  8. [15]

    Dumer, A

    I. Dumer, A. A. Kovalev, and L. P. Pryadko, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 050502 (2015)

    2015

  9. [16]

    Kubica, M

    A. Kubica, M. E. Beverland, F. Brandão, J. Preskill, and K. M. Svore, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 180501 (2018)

    2018

  10. [17]

    C. T. Chubb and S. T. Flammia, Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré D, Combinatorics, Physics and their In- teractions8, 269–321 (2021)

    2021

  11. [18]

    Y. Li, N. O’Dea, and V. Khemani, Perturbative stability and error correction thresholds of quantum codes (2024), arXiv:2406.15757 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    B. M. Terhal, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 307 (2015)

    2015

  13. [20]

    Skoric, D

    L. Skoric, D. E. Browne, K. M. Barnes, N. I. Gillespie, and E. T. Campbell, Nature Communications14, 7040 (2023)

    2023

  14. [21]

    X. Tan, F. Zhang, R. Chao, Y. Shi, and J. Chen, PRX Quantum4, 040344 (2023)

    2023

  15. [22]

    Battistel, C

    F. Battistel, C. Chamberland, K. Johar, R. W. J. Over- water, F. Sebastiano, L. Skoric, Y. Ueno, and M. Usman, Nano Futures7, 032003 (2023)

    2023

  16. [23]

    Bombín, C

    H. Bombín, C. Dawson, Y.-H. Liu, N. Nickerson, F. Pastawski, and S. Roberts, Modular decoding: par- allelizable real-time decoding for quantum computers (2023), arXiv:2303.04846 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Oberoi, J

    T. Oberoi, J. Viszlai, and F. T. Chong, Adapt: Adaptive- window decoding for practical fault-tolerance (2026), arXiv:2605.01149 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Huang and S

    S. Huang and S. Puri, Phys. Rev. A110, 012453 (2024)

    2024

  19. [26]

    In principle, the relative size of the buffer window and commit window may be tuned, but for simplicity, we make them equal

  20. [27]

    See Supplemental Material for further discussions of (i) formal definition and effective description of the slid- ing window decoder (SWD), and (ii) an absorbing state phase transition of the SWD under SWAP noises

  21. [28]

    J. L. Cardy and U. C. Täuber, Journal of Statistical Physics90, 1 (1998), arXiv:cond-mat/9704160 [cond- mat.stat-mech]

    1998 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Henkel, H

    M. Henkel, H. Hinrichsen, and S. Lübeck,Non- equilibrium Phase Transitions: Volume I: Absorbing Phase Transitions(Springer, 2008)

    2008

  23. [30]

    P. L. Krapivsky, S. Redner, and E. Ben-Naim,A Kinetic View of Statistical Physics(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  24. [31]

    In (1+1)D and for a large enoughW, the worldlines here are domain walls within a 2D random-bond Ising model, and they have DPRM exponents [32–35]

  25. [32]

    D. A. Huse and C. L. Henley, Phys. Rev. Lett.54, 2708 (1985)

    1985

  26. [33]

    Kardar, Phys

    M. Kardar, Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 2923 (1985)

    1985

  27. [34]

    D. A. Huse, C. L. Henley, and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 2924 (1985)

    1985

  28. [35]

    Kardar, G

    M. Kardar, G. Parisi, and Y.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 889 (1986)

    1986

  29. [36]

    Here,p c is the threshold defined in the static limit (W→ ∞), as our arguments really only depend on the assumption of a nonzero domain wall line tension

  30. [37]

    However, in single-shot codes, self-correcting codes, or other code families this identification may not hold

  31. [38]

    Rácz, Phys

    Z. Rácz, Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 1707 (1985)

    1985

  32. [40]

    Bombín, Phys

    H. Bombín, Phys. Rev. X5, 031043 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    Kubica and M

    A. Kubica and M. Vasmer, Nature Communications13, 6272 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    B. J. Brown, N. H. Nickerson, and D. E. Browne, Nature Communications7, 12302 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    S. Gu, E. Tang, L. Caha, S. H. Choe, Z. He, and A. Ku- bica, Communications in Mathematical Physics405, 85 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    The steady state value ofP fail(t;W, L)is simply1− 2−(#logicals), which for the repetition code equals1/2

  37. [45]

    1, as long as the decoder is fixed

    We note that a rescaling of the horizontal axis is not required to collapse data at differentpin Fig. 1, as long as the decoder is fixed. Comparing the asymptotics of the scaling functionΦ(x)[see discussions below Eq. (5)], namelyΦ(x→ ∞) =σ(p)andΦ ′(x= 0) =ακσ(p), we see that ...

  38. [46]

    Gidney, Quantum6, 786 (2022)

    C. Gidney, Quantum6, 786 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Chamberland and E

    C. Chamberland and E. T. Campbell, PRX Quantum3, 010331 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Cardy,Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics, Cambridge Lecture Notes in Physics (Cam- bridge University Press, 1996)

    J. Cardy,Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics, Cambridge Lecture Notes in Physics (Cam- bridge University Press, 1996)

    1996

  41. [49]

    S. J. S. Tan, C. A. Pattison, M. McEwen, and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. A113, 022450 (2026)

    2026

  42. [50]

    Sriram, N

    A. Sriram, N. O’Dea, Y. Li, T. Rakovszky, and V. Khe- mani, Phys. Rev. B111, 224208 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    Y. Li, C. W. von Keyserlingk, G. Zhu, and T. Jochym- O’Connor, Phys. Rev. Research6, 043007 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Stahl, Phys

    C. Stahl, Phys. Rev. B110, 075143 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    M. E. J. Newman and C. Moore, Phys. Rev. E60, 5068 (1999)

    1999

  46. [54]

    Haah, Phys

    J. Haah, Phys. Rev. A83, 042330 (2011)

    2011

  47. [55]

    Delfosse and N

    N. Delfosse and N. H. Nickerson, Quantum5, 595 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Duclos-Cianci and D

    G. Duclos-Cianci and D. Poulin, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 050504 (2010), arXiv:0911.0581 [quant-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Bravyi and J

    S. Bravyi and J. Haah, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 200501 (2013)

    2013

  50. [58]

    C. Wang, J. Harrington, and J. Preskill, Annals of Physics303, 31 (2003)

    2003

  51. [59]

    Hinrichsen, Advances in Physics49, 815 (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/0001070

    H. Hinrichsen, Advances in Physics49, 815 (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/0001070

    2000 arXiv

  52. [60]

    range of interaction

    D. Zhong and D. ben Avraham, Physics Letters A209, 333 (1995). 7 END MATTER Here, we explore a number of different scenarios for SWD beyond the repetition code and MWPM, with the aim of extending the validity of our effective description to a greater range of codes and decoder...

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.