Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Distributed fault-tolerant quantum memories over a 2xL array of qubit modules

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 2 × L array of qubit modules connected only by a cyclic shift can run bivariate bicycle codes fault-tolerantly, with a distributed [[144,12,12]] BB code reaching logical error below 2 × 10^-6 at physical error 10^-3.

desk verdict Clean constant-depth syndrome extraction for BB codes on a 2×L module array, but the depth-one cyclic shift assumption is load-bearing and only asserted in the physical implementation. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.01879 v1 pith:O62OZBT3 submitted 2025-08-03 quant-ph cs.ITmath.IT

Edwin Tham , Min Ye , Ilia Khait , John Gamble , Nicolas Delfosse This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.ITmath.IT
keywords quantumerrorcorrectionLDPCcodesbivariatebicyclemodularmemorycyclicshiftflyingqubitstrapped-ionchainssyndromeextraction
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

This paper proposes that a fault-tolerant quantum memory need not keep all qubits in one place: logical data can live in one row of modules while a second row of ancilla modules shuttles past it, and the only connector required is a cyclic shift that moves the whole row at once. The paper's central claim is that this single operation lets quantum LDPC codes, specifically bivariate bicycle (BB) codes, keep their performance in a distributed setting, despite LDPC codes usually being seen as requiring highly nonlocal connectivity. Concretely, it gives two syndrome-extraction layouts: the cyclic layout, which works for any stabilizer code, and the sparse cyclic layout for BB codes, whose depth for one round of X syndrome extraction is $|J(A) \cup J(B)| + \omega + 2$. For the $[[144,12,12]]$ BB code spread over 12 modules of 12 qubits each, circuit-level simulations with long trapped-ion chains report a logical error rate below $2 \times 10^{-6}$ at a physical error rate of $10^{-3}$. If true, this is a path to modular hardware that avoids the connectivity bottleneck usually associated with quantum LDPC codes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $2 \times L$ module array equipped with a cyclic shift of the moving row, where each module is an $n$-qubit register and two-qubit gates are available between aligned modules. The paper's sparse cyclic layout (Algorithm 2) is built for bivariate bicycle codes, CSS codes (a class of stabilizer codes with separate X and Z parity checks) whose parity-check matrices are constructed from two circulant matrices $x = S_\ell \otimes I_m$ and $y = I_\ell \otimes S_m$. The key identity is Lemma 1: the coefficient of $x^i y^j$ in row $(v,w)$ and column $(v',w')$ is 1 exactly when $(v',w') = (v \oplus i, w \oplus j)$, which tells the circuit which CX gates to apply after a shift aligns module $M^a_w$ with $M^d_{w \oplus j}$. Because each monomial of $A$ or $B$ contains only one power of $y$, one cyclic shift can serve all CX gates for that monomial, which is why the total depth is proportional to the number of distinct $y$-exponents, $|J(A) \cup J(B)|$, plus the stabilizer weight $\omega$, rather than to the code length.

What would settle it

Measure the duration and depolarizing noise of an $s$-step cyclic shift in a physical $2 \times L$ ion module array as $s$ ranges from 1 to $L-1$. The depth bound and the $\tau_s = 30$ noise model predict both are constant in $s$; if either grows appreciably with $s$, the depth-one assumption fails and the reported logical error rates for the distributed BB code do not transfer to longer modules.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a two-row module array with a global cyclic shift is sufficient to implement constant-depth syndrome extraction for bivariate bicycle codes, and that this yields a distributed quantum memory whose logical error rate stays low. Algorithm 1 measures an arbitrary sequence of Pauli operators by streaming ancilla modules past fixed data modules, so it works for any stabilizer code; Algorithm 2 specialises to BB codes by using the polynomial structure of the parity-check matrices to align ancilla and data modules only when a monomial requires it. The proof shows that the X-syndrome extraction depth is $|J(A) \cup J(B)| + \omega + 2$, and by symmetry the Z-syndrome extraction has the same depth; for the BB codes of the reference that introduced them, this gives depth 12 per round. The paper also shows that the cyclic shift can be realised with flying qubits, including ions, neutral atoms, electrons, or photons, and that when modules are long ion chains, the distributed $[[144,12,12]]$ BB code reaches a logical error rate below $2 \times 10^{-6}$ at physical error rate $10^{-3}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that any cyclic shift, no matter how large, takes exactly one time step and adds the same amount of noise, because transport is dominated by fixed-duration processes independent of distance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any stabilizer code, not just CSS codes, can run syndrome extraction on the $2 \times L$ module array through the cyclic layout, so the architecture is a universal connector for modular error correction.
  • The $[[144,12,12]]$ BB code becomes a 12-module distributed memory with 12 physical qubits per module, giving a concrete footprint for high-performance LDPC codes in modular hardware.
  • The flat implementation (Algorithm 3) runs the same sparse layout on a $2 \times N$ qubit array with intra-module cyclic shifts, showing the construction is not limited to long ion chains.
  • The simulation comparison between noisy shifts and noiseless shifts indicates that modularity costs at most a factor of 2 in physical error rate for the tested BB codes.
  • Interleaving X and Z stabilizer measurements (Algorithm 4, using a $3 \times m$ generalization with two moving rows) reduces the amortized depth per syndrome round by up to 2 times relative to Algorithm 2.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the depth-one cyclic shift assumption survives physical implementation, the same two-row layout could plausibly be adapted to other LDPC families with a shift-invariant or bicyclic structure, extending the sparse layout beyond the specific BB codes treated here.
  • The factor-of-2 modularity cost suggests a testable trade-off: a modest increase in physical fidelity could offset the entire cost of distributing a BB code, which would strengthen the case for modular quantum memories.
  • The $3 \times m$ interleaved variant points to a general design principle: separating X and Z ancilla rows lets cyclic shifts and entangling-gate rounds overlap, so other stabilizer-measurement orderings might be engineered to shorten rounds further.
  • A direct experiment measuring per-shift crosstalk between the moving row and the interleaved fixed row during pass-through would test whether the depth-one assumption holds at the physical layer, a question the paper leaves open.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an architecture for a quantum memory distributed over a 2×L array of qubit modules, connected by a global cyclic shift implemented with flying qubits. It introduces two syndrome-extraction strategies: the cyclic layout (Algorithm 1), which works for any stabilizer code, and the sparse cyclic layout (Algorithm 2), which is specialized to bivariate bicycle (BB) codes. The central theoretical result is Theorem 1, which states that Algorithm 2 measures all X stabilizers of a BB code in depth |J(A)∪J(B)|+ω+2 using a 2×m module array, where ω is the stabilizer weight. The paper also describes physical implementations using trapped ions, neutral atoms, electrons, or photons, and reports circuit-level simulations showing that a distributed [[144,12,12]] BB code achieves a logical error rate below 2×10^{-6} at a physical error rate of 10^{-3} when modules are long ion chains.

Significance. If the assumptions hold, the paper makes a valuable contribution by showing that BB codes, which are nonlocal quantum LDPC codes, can be implemented in a modular architecture with only a cyclic-shift connector. The depth bound in Theorem 1 is a clean, self-contained derivation, and the generalization of the cyclic layout to arbitrary stabilizer codes is a useful conceptual step. The numerical simulations provide a concrete, falsifiable prediction for a specific trapped-ion realization. However, the paper's broader claim that quantum LDPC codes 'maintain their performance' in a distributed setting is supported only by simulation for specific codes and relies critically on the unvalidated assumption that any cyclic shift has depth one and fixed noise cost. The theoretical depth results are sound under the stated model, but the physical and quantitative claims need additional support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Theorem 1, Section V, Fig. 3] The assumption 'Any cyclic shift has depth one, independently of the shift size s' in Section II is load-bearing for the depth bound in Theorem 1 and for the simulation model in Fig. 3, where every cyclic shift is assigned a fixed idle-noise cost τ_s=30. Section V justifies this by asserting that transport times and noise are dominated by fixed-duration processes such as acceleration, deceleration and cooling for distances of hundreds of microns, but no experimental evidence, quantitative model, or reference is provided for the specific three-step secondary-zone protocol. If shift duration or noise grows with s, the wall-clock depth and the quoted logical error rates would change. The authors should either provide supporting measurements or references demonstrating constant-time transport over the required range of shift sizes (including the flat implementation's intra-module shifts), or reformulate the performance claims as conditional on this assumption and analyze the sensitivity to s-dependent shift costs.
  2. [Abstract, Section VI] The abstract states that 'This work proves that quantum LDPC codes such as BB codes can maintain their performance in a distributed setting while using solely one simple connector: a cyclic shift.' What is proven is a constant-depth syndrome-extraction circuit for BB codes (Theorem 1); the logical-error-rate performance is a simulation result for specific codes. The word 'proves' should be reserved for the depth and correctness results, and the performance claim should be described as a numerical demonstration, not a proof.
  3. [Section V, Figs. 3-4] The central quantitative claim (logical error rate below 2×10^{-6} at p=10^{-3}) is presented without confidence intervals, the number of Monte Carlo samples, or a description of the decoding algorithm used. No code or data release is mentioned. For a performance claim that is central to the paper's significance, the authors should report statistical uncertainties and, if possible, release the simulation code or data to allow reproduction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II] The depth-one cyclic-shift assumption is stated in the text; consider labeling it explicitly as an assumption (e.g., 'Assumption 1') so that its role in Theorem 1 and in the simulations is unambiguous.
  2. [Appendix D] The fitting formula pL = p^{d/2} exp(c0 + c1 p + c2 p^2) is fit to the same simulation data shown in Figs. 3-4; it should be described as an empirical fit used for interpolation, not as an independent verification of the logical error rates.
  3. [Section IV, proof of Theorem 1] The proof says the first and last instructions account for two steps, but the loop in Algorithm 2 also includes the initial preparation; this is a minor expositional point and could be clarified for readability.
  4. [Section V] The simulation parameters τ_m=30 and τ_s=30 (or τ_s=10 for the flat implementation) are introduced without discussion of how they are calibrated; a brief comment on their origin would help the reader assess the physical relevance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the depth theorems are self-contained counting/alignment derivations, the logical error rates are simulations under stated noise inputs, and the Appendix D fit is explicitly a fit.

full rationale

Walking the claimed derivation chain, the correctness and depth results for Algorithms 1-4 are counting and alignment arguments built on the stated 2xL model and the BB-code polynomial representation; Lemma 1 is essentially the definition of the x and y shift matrices, so Theorem 1 is a derivation rather than a circular reduction. The logical error rates in Figs. 3, 4, and 6 are circuit-level simulation outputs under explicitly stated noise parameters (two-qubit rate p, one-qubit rate p/10, idle rate p/100, tau_m=30, shift noise tau_s=30 or 10), so the below-2e-6 claim is a conditional simulation result, not a quantity derived from fitted parameters and then relabeled as a prediction. Appendix D explicitly labels its formula as a fit ('Here we use the formula ... to fit the logical error rate') and the paper does not use it as independent evidence. The one self-citation with any weight is [34], Ye and Delfosse, used for the ion-chain noise model and the logical-error-rate estimation procedure; that prior model does not assume the distributed BB-code result, so it is methodological support rather than a circular premise. The depth-one cyclic-shift assumption is also flagged by the paper: Section II warns 'Depending on the details of the gate operations, transport speeds, and other modality-specific physical details, this assumption may break down,' and Section V provides a separate physical argument that acceleration, deceleration, and cooling dominate for modest distances. If that assumption fails, the quoted rates would not be reliable, but this is a caveated input assumption, not a hidden self-referential derivation. Overall, no claimed prediction reduces to its input by construction; the score of 1 reflects only the minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new physical entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are the depth-one cyclic shift, full module connectivity, one-step measurement, and the ion chain noise model. These are domain assumptions from Section II and Section V, and they anchor all numerical performance claims.

free parameters (2)
  • Simulation noise parameters: p/10, p/100, tau_m=30, tau_s=30 (flat: tau_s=10) = Set by hand in Section V and Appendix A
    These parameters come from the ion chain model of [34] and are load-bearing for the absolute logical error rates in Figs 3-4.
  • Fitting constants c0, c1, c2 for logical error rate formula pL = p^(d/2) e^(c0 + c1 p + c2 p^2) = Listed in Table II
    These constants are fitted to the simulation data in Appendix D and are presented as a fitting formula, not as an independent prediction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A cyclic shift has depth one independent of shift size s, with a fixed idle-noise penalty.
    Stated in Section II and defended in Section V; if false, the depth bounds and the tau_s noise model break.
  • domain assumption Each module or pair of aligned modules is a fully connected and fully parallel qubit register.
    Used in Section II to count two-qubit gate depths; real hardware may not provide full connectivity or full parallelism within a module.
  • domain assumption Measurement and reset of a qubit can be performed in a single step.
    Assumed in the depth bounds of Algorithms 1 and 2; in trapped ions, measurement and cooling can be slow and may introduce crosstalk.
  • domain assumption The ion chain noise model of [34] with depolarizing noise rates p, p/10, p/100 and idle penalties tau_m=30, tau_s=30 describes the physical hardware.
    The quoted logical error rates are outputs of this model, not measured data.
  • standard math Bivariate bicycle codes with arbitrary polynomials A and B, not just the three-term polynomials of [28], are valid CSS codes.
    The construction is standard stabilizer code theory and is used in the sparse cyclic layout of Section IV.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distributed fault-tolerant quantum memories over a 2xL array of qubit modules." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O62OZBT3

@misc{pith2026250801879,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distributed fault-tolerant quantum memories over a 2xL array of qubit modules},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O62OZBT3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.01879}
}
abstract

We propose an architecture for a quantum memory distributed over a $2 \times L$ array of modules equipped with a cyclic shift implemented via flying qubits. The logical information is distributed across the first row of $L$ modules and quantum error correction is executed using ancilla modules on the second row equipped with a cyclic shift. This work proves that quantum LDPC codes such as BB codes can maintain their performance in a distributed setting while using solely one simple connector: a cyclic shift. We propose two strategies to perform quantum error correction on a $2 \times L$ module array: (i) The cyclic layout which applies to any stabilizer codes, whereas previous results for qubit arrays are limited to CSS codes. (ii) The sparse cyclic layout, specific to bivariate bicycle (BB) codes. For the $[[144,12,12]]$ BB code, using the sparse cyclic layout we obtain a quantum memory with $12$ logical qubits distributed over $12$ modules, containing $12$ physical qubits each. We propose physical implementations of this architecture using flying qubits, that can be faithfully transported, and include qubits encoded in ions, neutral atoms, electrons or photons. We performed numerical simulations when modules are long ion chains and when modules are single-qubit arrays of ions showing that the distributed BB code achieves a logical error rate below $2 \cdot 10^{-6}$ when the physical error rate is $10^{-3}$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. A Cross-Platform Analysis of High-Performance Quantum Error Correction Codes

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    A binomial fault-count model estimates QEC logical error rates from N_loc and p_loc, reproduces simulation trends, and identifies distributed-QPU sweet spots under interconnect noise.

  2. Remote entanglement need not be the bottleneck for modular trapped-ion quantum computing

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A projected architecture for trapped-ion quantum modules combines single-photon heralding, integrated photonics, recoil correction, and one distillation round to deliver 99.9%-fidelity remote Bell pairs at 10^5 s^-1 cm^-2.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [29]

    Siegel, A

    A. Siegel, A. Strikis, and M. Fogarty, Towards early fault tolerance on a 2 × n array of qubits equipped with shut- tling, PRX Quantum 5, 040328 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Reiher, N

    M. Reiher, N. Wiebe, K. M. Svore, D. Wecker, and M. Troyer, Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quantum computers, Proceedings of the national academy of sci- ences 114, 7555 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [2]

    M. E. Beverland, P. Murali, M. Troyer, K. M. Svore, T. Hoefler, V. Kliuchnikov, G. H. Low, M. Soeken, A. Sundaram, and A. Vaschillo, Assessing requirements to scale to practical quantum advantage, arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.07629 (2022)

    arXiv 2022

  4. [3]

    A. M. Dalzell, S. McArdle, M. Berta, P. Bienias, C.-F. Chen, A. Gily´ en, C. T. Hann, M. J. Kastoryano, E. T. Khabiboulline, A. Kubica, et al., Quantum algorithms: A survey of applications and end-to-end complexities, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03011 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  5. [4]

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

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

    arXiv 2025

  6. [5]

    H. Zhou, C. Duckering, C. Zhao, D. Bluvstein, M. Cain, A. Kubica, S.-T. Wang, and M. D. Lukin, Resource anal- ysis of low-overhead transversal architectures for recon- figurable atom arrays, in Proceedings of the 52nd An- nual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (2025) pp. 1432–1448

    work page 2025

  7. [6]

    K. A. Landsman, Y. Wu, P. H. Leung, D. Zhu, N. M. Linke, K. R. Brown, L. Duan, and C. Monroe, Two-qubit entangling gates within arbitrarily long chains of trapped ions, Physical Review A 100, 022332 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    Shapira, L

    Y. Shapira, L. Peleg, D. Schwerdt, J. Nemirovsky, N. Ak- erman, A. Stern, A. B. Kish, and R. Ozeri, Fast design and scaling of multi-qubit gates in large-scale trapped- ion quantum computers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09566 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    Zeissler, Superconducting qubits at scale, Nature Elec- tronics 7, 847 (2024)

    K. Zeissler, Superconducting qubits at scale, Nature Elec- tronics 7, 847 (2024)

    2024

  2. [9]

    J. Ang, G. Carini, Y. Chen, I. Chuang, M. Demarco, S. Economou, A. Eickbusch, A. Faraon, K.-M. Fu, S. Girvin, et al., Arquin: architectures for multinode su- perconducting quantum computers, ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing 5, 1 (2024)

    2024

  3. [10]

    Henriet, L

    L. Henriet, L. Beguin, A. Signoles, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, G.-O. Reymond, and C. Jurczak, Quantum computing with neutral atoms, Quantum 4, 327 (2020)

    2020

  4. [11]

    Fellous-Asiani, J

    M. Fellous-Asiani, J. H. Chai, Y. Thonnart, H. K. Ng, R. S. Whitney, and A. Auff` eves, Optimizing resource effi- ciencies for scalable full-stack quantum computers, PRX Quantum 4, 040319 (2023)

    2023

  5. [12]

    Jiang, J

    L. Jiang, J. M. Taylor, A. S. Sørensen, and M. D. Lukin, Distributed quantum computation based on small quan- tum registers, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 76, 062323 (2007)

    2007

  6. [13]

    Li and S

    Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, High threshold distributed quantum computing with three-qubit nodes, New Jour- nal of Physics 14, 093008 (2012)

    2012

  7. [14]

    Fujii, T

    K. Fujii, T. Yamamoto, M. Koashi, and N. Imoto, A distributed architecture for scalable quantum compu- tation with realistically noisy devices, arXiv preprint arXiv:1202.6588 (2012)

    2012 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Monroe, R

    C. Monroe, R. Raussendorf, A. Ruthven, K. R. Brown, P. Maunz, L.-M. Duan, and J. Kim, Large-scale mod- ular quantum-computer architecture with atomic mem- ory and photonic interconnects, Physical Review A 89, 022317 (2014). 9

    2014

  9. [16]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy chan- nels, Physical review letters 76, 722 (1996)

    1996

  10. [17]

    Ramette, J

    J. Ramette, J. Sinclair, N. P. Breuckmann, and V. Vuleti´ c, Fault-tolerant connection of error-corrected qubits with noisy links, npj Quantum Information 10, 58 (2024)

    2024

  11. [18]

    de Bone, P

    S. de Bone, P. M¨ oller, C. E. Bradley, T. H. Taminiau, and D. Elkouss, Thresholds for the distributed surface code in the presence of memory decoherence, A VS Quantum Science 6 (2024)

    2024

  12. [19]

    Sutcliffe, B

    E. Sutcliffe, B. Jonnadula, C. L. Gall, A. E. Moylett, and C. M. Westoby, Distributed quantum error correc- tion based on hyperbolic floquet codes, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14029 (2025)

    2025

  13. [20]

    N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, Quantum low- density parity-check codes, PRX quantum 2, 040101 (2021)

    2021

  14. [21]

    Hoory, N

    S. Hoory, N. Linial, and A. Wigderson, Expander graphs and their applications, Bulletin of the American Mathe- matical Society 43, 439 (2006)

    2006

  15. [22]

    D. P. DiVincenzo, The physical implementation of quan- tum computation, Fortschritte der Physik: Progress of Physics 48, 771 (2000)

    2000

  16. [23]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics, nature 409, 46 (2001)

    2001

  17. [24]

    Loss and D

    D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, Quantum computation with quantum dots, Physical Review A 57, 120 (1998)

    1998

  18. [25]

    Lyon, Spin-based quantum computing using electrons on liquid helium, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecu- lar, and Optical Physics 74, 052338 (2006)

    S. Lyon, Spin-based quantum computing using electrons on liquid helium, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecu- lar, and Optical Physics 74, 052338 (2006)

    2006

  19. [26]

    J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Quantum computations with cold trapped ions, Physical review letters 74, 4091 (1995)

    1995

  20. [27]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature 626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  21. [28]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, High-threshold and low- overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory, Nature 627, 778 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    A. A. Kovalev and L. P. Pryadko, Quantum kronecker sum-product low-density parity-check codes with finite rate, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Opti- cal Physics 88, 012311 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    A. R. Calderbank and P. W. Shor, Good quantum error-correcting codes exist, Physical Review A 54, 1098 (1996)

    1996

  24. [32]

    Steane, Multiple-particle interference and quantum er- ror correction, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- don

    A. Steane, Multiple-particle interference and quantum er- ror correction, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- don. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 452, 2551 (1996)

    1996

  25. [33]

    L. Voss, S. J. Xian, T. Haug, and K. Bharti, Multivariate bicycle codes, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19151 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Ye and N

    M. Ye and N. Delfosse, Quantum error correction for long chains of trapped ions, arXiv:2503.22071 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    S. J. Devitt, A. D. Greentree, A. M. Stephens, and R. Van Meter, High-speed quantum networking by ship, Scientific reports 6, 36163 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    Micciche, A

    A. Micciche, A. Chatterjee, A. McGregor, and S. Kras- tanov, Optimizing compilation of error correction codes for 2xn quantum dot arrays and its np-hardness, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09061 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Delfosse, M

    N. Delfosse, M. E. Beverland, and M. A. Tremblay, Bounds on stabilizer measurement circuits and obstruc- tions to local implementations of quantum ldpc codes, arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.14599 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Baspin and A

    N. Baspin and A. Krishna, Connectivity constrains quan- tum codes, Quantum 6, 711 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. Poulin, and B. Terhal, Tradeoffs for reliable quantum information storage in 2D systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 050503 (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    Bravyi and R

    S. Bravyi and R. K¨ onig, Classification of topologically protected gates for local stabilizer codes, Physical review letters 110, 170503 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    Pastawski and B

    F. Pastawski and B. Yoshida, Fault-tolerant logical gates in quantum error-correcting codes, Physical Review A 91, 012305 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    Jochym-O’Connor, A

    T. Jochym-O’Connor, A. Kubica, and T. J. Yoder, Dis- jointness of stabilizer codes and limitations on fault- tolerant logical gates, Physical Review X 8, 021047 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 86, 032324 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Vargo, Simulation of rare events in quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. A 88, 062308 (2013)

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.