Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 103 references

Error-correcting simple cat or Fock states cuts the cost of GKP magic-state distillation by about a factor of three versus vacuum.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-10 17:05 UTC pith:OGKCPSZB

load-bearing objection Clean, useful extension of Baragiola’s GKP magic protocol to cats and Focks that really does cut the CV resource count by ~3× under ideal conditions, plus a better design rule than symmetry. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07833 v1 pith:OGKCPSZB submitted 2026-07-08 quant-ph

Improved GKP magic states from error-corrected non-Gaussian quantum states

Sharon David , Jack Davis , Ulysse Chabaud , Francesco Arzani This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords GKP codesmagic state distillationcat statesFock statesbosonic quantum computationgate teleportationnon-Gaussian resources
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

In bosonic quantum computing the Gottesman–Kitaev–Preskill (GKP) code already lets Gaussian operations realize Clifford gates, but non-Clifford gates still need magic states that are normally distilled at high cost. Earlier work showed that simply error-correcting a vacuum (or thermal) state already produces noisy logical magic states good enough to feed into distillation. This paper shows that feeding the same error-correction circuit simple non-Gaussian states—superpositions of a few coherent states (“cat” states) or a few Fock states—raises the probability of obtaining high-fidelity distillable magic states. When those higher success probabilities are plugged into a standard 15-to-1 Reed–Muller distillation protocol, the average number of continuous-variable resource states needed to reach a target fidelity can drop by a factor of roughly three. The improvement is not explained by shared symmetry with the target magic state; the best inputs are those whose post-correction probability mass simply avoids the neighborhoods of the six Pauli eigenstates on the Bloch sphere.

Core claim

GKP error correction applied to certain low-photon-number cat states or Fock-state superpositions produces distillable logical magic states with substantially higher success probability than the vacuum. For optimized superpositions the average continuous-variable resource cost of subsequent 15-to-1 Reed–Muller distillation to a fixed target fidelity is reduced by a factor of approximately three relative to vacuum.

What carries the argument

The GKP error-correction gadget (two ideal GKP ancillas, CZ gates, and syndrome measurements) that maps any continuous-variable input to a logical qubit whose Bloch vector is a function of the syndrome outcomes; success probability is the measure of the syndrome set whose best Clifford-orbit fidelity exceeds a chosen threshold.

Load-bearing premise

The whole resource-count comparison assumes perfect, infinite-energy GKP ancillas and ideal syndrome extraction; any finite squeezing would lower the quoted success probabilities and cost ratios.

What would settle it

Recompute the same success-probability curves and distillation-cost ratios after replacing the ideal GKP ancillas by approximate finite-squeezing GKP states of realistic photon number; if the factor-of-three advantage disappears, the claim fails under practical conditions.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Platforms that already produce cat or Fock states can lower the continuous-variable overhead of GKP magic-state distillation without new hardware.
  • Resource estimates for concatenated GKP-plus-qubit architectures should replace the vacuum baseline with optimized few-component non-Gaussian inputs.
  • Input-state design for the protocol can focus on suppressing projection near stabilizer states rather than matching magic-state symmetries.
  • The same non-Gaussian advantage is expected for other distillation codes (e.g., Steane) once their thresholds are substituted.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the advantage survives for states that share none of the target’s lattice symmetries, a more general continuous-variable resource theory of “stabilizer avoidance” may be needed.
  • The same Bloch-sphere histograms could be used as a cheap diagnostic when screening larger families of experimentally accessible non-Gaussian states.
  • If finite-squeezing calculations preserve even a factor-of-two saving, near-term photonic or circuit-QED GKP experiments would already benefit from substituting |2 angle or a two-legged cat for vacuum.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends the GKP error-correction protocol of Baragiola et al. (which produces distillable logical magic states from Gaussian inputs such as the vacuum) to simple non-Gaussian inputs: cat states (superpositions of coherent states) and Fock states (including finite superpositions). Analytic expressions for the syndrome-dependent logical Bloch vectors are derived via overlaps involving Riemann theta functions (and their derivatives for Fock states). Success probabilities of obtaining states above a fidelity threshold F* to the H-type magic orbit are computed by numerical integration over the syndrome torus; optimized superpositions are found via differential evolution. These yield higher success probabilities than vacuum, which (via the 15-to-1 Reed–Muller formulas) reduce the average number of CV input states N_CV needed to reach a target fidelity after distillation by up to a factor of ~3. Bloch-sphere histograms of the output distributions are used to argue that the best inputs primarily avoid projection near stabilizer states rather than matching the symmetries of the target magic states.

Significance. If the ideal-case results hold, the work supplies a concrete, experimentally accessible route to lower the CV overhead of GKP-based magic-state distillation by replacing vacuum with cats or low-n Fock states that are already routinely prepared on the same platforms. The analytic overlaps (theta functions and derivatives) and the normalization-checked 400 imes400 integrations are carefully executed and make the numerics reproducible in principle; the optimized states and the “avoid-stabilizer” design rule extracted from the histograms constitute a useful, falsifiable insight into the conversion of CV non-Gaussianity into encoded DV magic. The limitation to perfect GKP ancillas is shared with the original Baragiola protocol, so the paper still advances the resource-theoretic understanding of that framework.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (64), Figs. 5–6; abstract] Sec. IV (Eq. (64), Figs. 5–6) and the abstract claim a factor-of-three reduction in N_CV relative to vacuum. Every success probability and every ratio is obtained from the ideal Kraus operator (14) that uses perfect (infinite-energy) GKP ancillas and perfect syndrome extraction; this is stated explicitly in Sec. IV and the caption of Fig. 6, and flagged as open in Sec. VI. Because N_CV is inversely proportional to Pr[F*], any degradation of the high-fidelity tails under finite squeezing can shrink or erase the reported factor. The quantitative claim should therefore be scoped more prominently to the ideal setting (including in the abstract), or a simple estimate of the degradation should be supplied.
  2. [Sec. V, Fig. 7; abstract] Sec. V and the abstract assert that “the suitability of input states is not fully explained by symmetry arguments” and that “the best states seem to avoid projection near stabilizer states.” The histograms (Fig. 7) supply clear qualitative support, yet the argument remains correlational: no quantitative figure of merit (e.g., integrated probability mass inside a fixed ball around the six Pauli eigenstates versus success probability) is computed across the family of states. A short quantitative check would make the design rule more robust and less open to alternative interpretations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figs. 3, 7] Fig. 3 and Fig. 7 captions are dense; the phase-space diagrams in Fig. 3 are useful but the radii-as-coefficients convention is easy to misread as Wigner functions (the authors already note this once; a second reminder in the caption would help).
  2. [Sec. III A, Appendix C] Notation for optimized cats (|Γ_opt,2′⟩, |Γ_opt,4′⟩, etc.) is introduced without a single consolidated table of coefficients and displacements; Appendix C lists them, but a compact table in the main text would improve readability.
  3. [Sec. IV A] The Reed–Muller formulas (62)–(63) are taken from Bravyi–Kitaev; a one-sentence reminder that the same qualitative ranking of inputs is expected for other codes (e.g., 7-to-1 Steane) would forestall the impression that the factor-of-three is code-specific.
  4. [throughout] Minor typographical issues: “Alto-gether” (p. 1), occasional missing spaces around math, and the inconsistent use of |□ angle versus |Γ angle for the same cat states in figure panels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: success probabilities and distillation costs are computed from the ideal GKP Kraus map and standard Reed–Muller formulas; optimized input coefficients are free parameters, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper’s derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. Logical Bloch vectors after GKP error correction are obtained from the Kraus operator (14)–(16) applied to explicit cat/Fock density operators, with overlaps expressed via coherent/Fock wavefunctions and Riemann theta functions (Secs. III A–B, Eqs. 34–60). Success probability is the measure of the syndrome set where the best Clifford-orbit fidelity meets a threshold F* (Eqs. 27–29), evaluated by direct numerical integration—not by fitting to any target. Distillation cost N_CV = ν(ε,ε_target)/Pr[F*≥1−ε] (Eq. 64) uses the standard 15-to-1 Reed–Muller overhead formulas of Bravyi–Kitaev (Eqs. 62–63), which are external and parameter-free with respect to the CV inputs. Optimized superpositions maximize Pr or minimize N_CV over free amplitudes/displacements of the *input* states; that is ordinary parameter optimization, not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The vacuum comparison and the Bloch-sphere histograms are independent diagnostics. Foundational citations (Baragiola et al. for the gadget; Bravyi–Kitaev for distillation) are external to the author list and are used as tools, not as load-bearing uniqueness theorems. The ideal (infinite-energy) EC assumption is a robustness limitation, not a circular reduction of the claimed result to its inputs. No self-definitional loop, fitted-as-prediction step, or self-citation chain is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard GKP error-correction Kraus operators, the known Reed-Muller distillation formulas, and the ideal (infinite-energy) limit. Free parameters appear only in the optimized input states and in numerical discretization choices; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • complex amplitudes and coherent-state displacements of optimized cat states
    Obtained by differential-evolution maximization of success probability or minimization of N_CV; they define the concrete input states that achieve the reported factor-of-three reduction.
  • complex amplitudes of optimized Fock superpositions (up to n=4)
    Same optimization procedure; the five-component state |Φ_opt,5⟩ is the best reported resource reducer.
  • grid resolution N_divs=400 for syndrome integration
    Chosen for numerical convergence of the success-probability integral; coarser grids already give the correct qualitative ordering.
  • target fidelity F_target and post-selection threshold F*
    Free choices that set the operating point of the distillation-cost curves; results are shown for several values.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Ideal (infinite-energy) GKP codewords and perfect syndrome extraction
    Used throughout Secs. II–V; explicitly flagged as a limitation in the discussion and left for future finite-squeezing work.
  • standard math 15-to-1 Reed-Muller distillation formulas of Bravyi & Kitaev (2005)
    Adopted without modification to convert success probability into average CV resource count N_CV.
  • domain assumption Clifford corrections can be applied (or tracked in the Pauli frame) after each syndrome outcome
    Allows the success probability to be defined via the best fidelity over the Clifford orbit rather than a fixed magic state.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 35177 in / 2603 out tokens · 33762 ms · 2026-07-10T17:05:59.266356+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improved GKP magic states from error-corrected non-Gaussian quantum states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OGKCPSZB

@misc{pith2026260707833,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improved GKP magic states from error-corrected non-Gaussian quantum states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OGKCPSZB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07833}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Gate teleportation, together with magic state distillation, is a promising route towards fault-tolerant, universal computation. In the context of bosonic quantum computation, Baragiola et al. PRL 123(20).200502 (2019) showed that within the framework of Gottesman--Kitaev--Preskill codes, encoded magic states suitable for distillation can be produced by error correcting Gaussian states, such as the vacuum. Here, we show that applying the same framework to simple non-Gaussian input states can significantly improve the quality of the magic states obtained, reducing the overall resources for the complete distillation procedure. We focus on superpositions of coherent states or Fock states, showing that many can lead to improvements in the generation of high-quality encoded magic states, which in some cases reduces the resources required for magic state distillation by about a factor $3$. We also investigate the primary source of these improvements and find that, unlike what was previously conjectured, the suitability of input states is not fully explained by symmetry arguments. Instead, the best states seem to avoid projection near stabilizer states as a result of the error correction procedure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07833 by Francesco Arzani, Jack Davis, Sharon David, Ulysse Chabaud.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The Bloch sphere is a geometric representation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The GKP error-correction gadget corrects any ar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: These figures are to be read as follows, the graphs on the left contain the success probabilities of cat states as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The success probability curves for Fock states. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Log plot of NCV for different superpositions of Fock states. The superposition weights were found by minimiz￾ing over the number of CV resources NCV for different min￾imum fidelities F ∗ . The target fidelity of the output state was set at Ftarget = 0.999. Here χopt,2 = ϕ0 |0⟩ + ϕ1 |1⟩, and χopt,3 = ϕ0 |0⟩ + ϕ1 |1⟩ + ϕ2 |2⟩, and so on. We assume per￾fect syndrome extraction; therefore, experimental values … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ratio of the vacuum resources to the new non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Each Bloch vector, (r1(t), r2(t), r3(t)), is mapped to the spherical coordinates (θ, φ), that then serve as Cartesian coordinates for a 2D plane. The azimuthal angle φ is depicted on the horizontal axis and the polar angle θ on the vertical axis. Colors correspond to the probability of the state being projected in the corresponding region.(a) This is the output state distribution of the GKP error-corrected… view at source ↗

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

103 extracted references · 103 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Computing Bloch vector coefficients The Kraus operator acting on an input state produces a syndrome-dependent, unnormalized output state ˆ¯ρout(t) = ˆKEC(t)ˆρin ˆK † EC(t),(17) where the bar reminds us that it is some logical (mixed) state. Being such an ideal code state, it can be normal- ized by dividing by the probability density function ¯r0 (t) = Tr[...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Best fidelity Let us define|+H⟩as the +1 eigenstate of the Hadamard operator ˆH. The logical fidelity of the out- put state with respect to the|+H L⟩logical magic state is F=⟨+H L|ˆρout(t)|+H L⟩= 1 2 [1 +⃗ rH ·⃗ rB(t)],(25) where⃗ rH ·⃗ rB(t) is the ordinary scalar product between the Bloch 3-vectors of the Hadamard eigenstate and the logical state obtain...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Success probability The above details how to compute thebest fidelityfor each syndrome outcomet. Individual outcomes have zero probability, so the expected performance is instead mea- sured via thesuccess probabilityof obtainingat leasta given value for the fidelityF ∗, integrated over all possible syndrome outcomes [1] Psuccess = Z t:FH,best(t)≥F ∗ ¯r0 (...

    work page

  4. [4]

    (34) By using the cyclic invariance of the trace and expanding the logical Pauli operator as in Eq

    Computing Bloch vector coefficients By writing the density matrix of a general cat state as ˆρcat =|Γ⟩ ⟨Γ|= 1 Ncat ΛX c=1 ΛX d=1 ¯γc¯γ∗ d |αc⟩ ⟨αd|(32) = 1 Ncat   ΛX c=1 |¯γc|2 |αc⟩ ⟨αc|+ ΛX c̸=d (¯γc¯γ∗ d |αc⟩ ⟨αd|)   , (33) we can expand the Bloch coefficients (24) as ¯r(cat) µ (t) = Tr[ˆV(−t)ˆρcat ˆV(t)ˆσµ L] = 1 Ncat ΛX c,d ¯γc¯γ∗ dTr[ˆV(−t)|α c⟩ ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    In turn, this can be used to compute the success probability as a function ofF ∗, which is displayed in Fig

    Numerical results The final expression above can be used to numerically compute the best fidelity for any input cat state and any given syndrome. In turn, this can be used to compute the success probability as a function ofF ∗, which is displayed in Fig. 3 for several input cat states. Here, the success probability is found as a function of the minimum fi...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Starting with Eq

    Bloch vector calculations We essentially follow the same procedure as in Sec- tion III A 1 to compute the Bloch vector components for error-corrected Fock states. Starting with Eq. (22), the input state is ˆρin = ˆρn =|n⟩ ⟨n|, and ¯r(n) µ (t) = Tr h ˆV(−t)|n⟩ ⟨n| ˆV †(−t)ˆσµ L i (48) = X jk σµ jk ⟨n| ˆV(t)|j L⟩ ⟨kL| ˆV(−t)|n⟩| {z } f(n) k (t) .(49) Once m...

    work page

  7. [7]

    ,|4⟩, alongside an optimized superposition of the five states, by generating their suc- cess probabilities, see Fig

    Optimized results As in the case of cat states, we evaluate the perfor- mance of Fock states|0⟩, . . . ,|4⟩, alongside an optimized superposition of the five states, by generating their suc- cess probabilities, see Fig. 4 for the results. All states have fidelities higher than the Reed–Muller distillation threshold ofF ∗ >0.859 with probabilities close to...

    work page

  8. [8]

    The ratioN CV,|0⟩/NCV,state is plotted in Fig

    Numerical results ForF target = 0.99, we computed the distillation cost for various input cat and Fock states and compared it to that of the vacuum state. The ratioN CV,|0⟩/NCV,state is plotted in Fig. 5. Relative to using vacuum states, |2⟩and the superposition state|Φ opt,5⟩allow one to re- duce the (average) number of error correction rounds by factors...

    work page 2030

  9. [9]

    Success probability The graphs seen in Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 were obtained by performing the double integral in Eq. (28) at each minimum fidelityF ∗. A grid-based Riemann sum integration method was chosen because the domain of the integral is dependent on a threshold condition, and is therefore not smooth, which is a requirement for adaptive m...

    work page

  10. [10]

    Here we detail the specifics of how this optimization was executed

    Optimization over success probability Optimization techniques enabled the discovery of several different superposition states, that were not only found to have higher success probabilities than the vacuum state but also lower distillation costs. Here we detail the specifics of how this optimization was executed. We maximized both cat and Fock state succes...

    work page

  11. [11]

    (64) was minimized over to find superposition states which consumed the least amount of resources

    Optimization of the number of CV resources A similar optimization to the case of the success probabilities was done here, Eq. (64) was minimized over to find superposition states which consumed the least amount of resources. This was only carried out on Fock states, therefore the pre-computedf (n) 0 (tq, tp) andf (n) 1 (tq, tp) values were utilized here a...

    work page

  12. [12]

    Fock state 0 coefficients f(0) k (t) = 1 2 4√π G¯0(t)Θ(z¯n(t),Ω ¯n).(E1) Note that this overlap can also be obtained by substituting withα c = 0 in Eq. (40)

    work page

  13. [13]

    1 2 √ 2 1 π1/4 exp

    Fock state 2 coefficients To find the overlaps for|2⟩, we continue fromf (n) k (t) f(2) k (t) = 1 2 4√π X l e−itp(2l+k)√π q (2l+k) √π+t q 2 | {z } ψ2(q=(2l+k)√π+tq) ,(E2) where now the wavefunction isψ 2(q) = 1√ 8 1 π1/4 e− q2 2 (4q2 −2). Then we obtain f(2) k (t) = 1 2 4√π X l ei(−tp)(2l+k)√π " 1 2 √ 2 1 π1/4 exp " −2l2π−2lkπ− k2π 2 −2l √πtq −k √πtq − t2...

    work page

  14. [14]

    Fock state 3 coefficients f(3) k (t) = 1 2 4√π G¯3(t) A3 d3Θ(z¯n(t),Ω ¯n) dz3 +A 2 d2Θ(z¯n(t),Ω ¯n) dz2 +A 1 dΘ(z¯n(t),Ω ¯n) dz +A 0Θ(z¯n(t),Ω ¯n) (E5) whereA 3 = 8i π3/2 ,A 2 = −24k√π − 24tq π ,A 1 = 12i√π −24ik 2√π−48ikt q − 24it2 q√π ,A 0 =−12k √π+ 8k3π3/2 −12t q + 24k2πtq + 24k√πt2 q + 8t3 q. 20

    work page

  15. [15]

    Appendix F: Bloch vectors of magic states and stabilizer states and their polar coordinates

    Fock state 4 coefficients f(4) k (t) = 1 2 4√π G¯4(t) A4 d4Θ(z¯n(t),Ω ¯n) dz4 +A 3 d3Θ(z¯n(t),Ω ¯n) dz3 +A 2 d2Θ(z¯n(t),Ω ¯n) dz2 +A1 dΘ(z¯n(t),Ω ¯n) dz +A 0Θ(z¯n(t),Ω ¯n) (E6) whereA 4 = 16 π2 ,A 3 = 64ik π + 64itq π3/2 ,A 2 =−96k 2 + 48 π − 192ktq√π − 96t2 q π ,A 1 = 96ik−64ik 3π+ 96itq√π −192ik 2√πtq − 192ikt2 q − 64it3 q√π andA 0 = 12−48k 2π+ 16k 4π2 ...

    work page

  16. [16]

    ( π 4 ,0) |−H⟩ ( −1√ 2 ,0, −1√

    work page

  17. [17]

    ( 3π 4 , π) Z|+H⟩ ( −1√ 2 ,0, 1√

    work page

  18. [18]

    ( π 4 , π) X|+H⟩ ( 1√ 2 ,0, −1√

    work page

  19. [19]

    ( 3π 4 ,0) |+Hy⟩ (0, 1√ 2 , 1√

    work page

  20. [20]

    ( π 4 , π 2 ) |−Hy⟩ (0, −1√ 2 , −1√

    work page

  21. [21]

    ( 3π 4 , 3π 2 ) Z|+H y⟩ (0, −1√ 2 , 1√

    work page

  22. [22]

    ( π 4 , 3π 2 ) X|+H y⟩ (0, 1√ 2 , −1√

    work page

  23. [23]

    ( 3π 4 , π 2 ) |+Hxy⟩ ( 1√ 2 , 1√ 2 ,0) ( π 2 , π 4 ) |−Hxy⟩ ( −1√ 2 , −1√ 2 ,0) ( π 2 , 5π 4 ) Z|+H xy⟩ ( −1√ 2 , 1√ 2 ,0) ( π 2 , 3π 4 ) Y|+H xy⟩ ( −1√ 2 , 1√ 2 ,0) ( π 2 , 7π 4 ) |+F⟩ ( 1√ 3 , 1√ 3 , 1√

    work page

  24. [24]

    (arccos 1√ 3 , π 4 ) |−F⟩ ( −1√ 3 , −1√ 3 , −1√

    work page

  25. [25]

    (arccos −1√ 3 , 5π 4 ) Z|+F⟩ ( −1√ 3 , −1√ 3 , 1√

    work page

  26. [26]

    (arccos 1√ 3 , 5π 4 ) Y|+F⟩ ( −1√ 3 , 1√ 3 , −1√

    work page

  27. [27]

    (arccos −1√ 3 , 3π 4 ) X|+F⟩ ( 1√ 3 , −1√ 3 , −1√

    work page

  28. [28]

    (arccos −1√ 3 , 7π 4 ) X|−F⟩ ( −1√ 3 , 1√ 3 , 1√

    work page

  29. [29]

    (arccos 1√ 3 , 3π 4 ) Y|−F⟩ ( 1√ 3 , −1√ 3 , 1√

    work page

  30. [30]

    (arccos 1√ 3 , 7π 4 ) Z|−F⟩ ( 1√ 3 , 1√ 3 , −1√

    work page

  31. [31]

    The Bloch vectors and polar coordinates for theH-type andF-type magic states and stabilizer states

    (arccos −1√ 3 , π 4 ) Table II. The Bloch vectors and polar coordinates for theH-type andF-type magic states and stabilizer states. The states |+Hy⟩and|+H xy⟩are generated from|+H⟩as follows:|+H y⟩=S|+H⟩ |+H xy⟩=SHS|+H⟩, where the phase gate is defined asS= 1 0 0i !

    work page

  32. [32]

    B. Q. Baragiola, G. Pantaleoni, R. N. Alexander, A. Karanjai, and N. C. Menicucci, All-Gaussian univer- sality and fault tolerance with the Gottesman-Kitaev- Preskill code, Physical Review Letters123, 200502 (2019)

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

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

    work page 1995

  34. [34]

    Gottesman, The heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers (1998), university of North Texas Li- braries, UNT Digital Library

    D. Gottesman, The heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers (1998), university of North Texas Li- braries, UNT Digital Library

    work page 1998

  35. [35]

    Eastin and E

    B. Eastin and E. Knill, Restrictions on transversal en- coded quantum gate sets, Physical Review Letters102, 10.1103/physrevlett.102.110502 (2009)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.102.110502 2009

  36. [37]

    Bravyi and A

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

    work page 2005

  37. [38]

    S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Quantum information with continuous variables, Reviews of Modern Physics 77, 513 (2005)

    work page 2005

  38. [39]

    U. L. Andersen, G. Leuchs, and C. Silberhorn, Continuous-variable quantum information processing, Laser & Photonics Reviews4, 337 (2010). 21

    work page 2010

  39. [40]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc´ ıa-Patr´ on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Gaus- sian quantum information, Reviews of Modern Physics 84, 621 (2012)

    work page 2012

  40. [41]

    Adesso, S

    G. Adesso, S. Ragy, and A. R. Lee, Continuous vari- able quantum information: Gaussian states and beyond, Open Systems & Information Dynamics21, 1440001 (2014)

    work page 2014

  41. [42]

    Serafini,Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of Theoretical Methods, 2nd ed

    A. Serafini,Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of Theoretical Methods, 2nd ed. (CRC Press, 2023)

    work page 2023

  42. [43]

    Matsuura, N

    T. Matsuura, N. C. Menicucci, and H. Yamasaki, Continuous-variable fault-tolerant quantum computation under general noise, Nature Communications17, 1709 (2026)

    work page 2026

  43. [44]

    Pfister, Continuous-variable quantum computing in the quantum optical frequency comb, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics53, 012001 (2020)

    O. Pfister, Continuous-variable quantum computing in the quantum optical frequency comb, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics53, 012001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  44. [45]

    U. L. Andersen, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, P. van Loock, and A. Furusawa, Hybrid discrete- and continuous- variable quantum information, Nature Physics11, 713 (2015)

    work page 2015

  45. [46]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wall- raff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics93, 025005 (2021)

    work page 2021

  46. [47]

    W.-L. Ma, S. Puri, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and L. Jiang, Quantum control of bosonic modes with superconducting circuits, Science Bulletin66, 1789 (2021)

    work page 2021

  47. [48]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Phys. Rev. A64, 012310 (2001)

    work page 2001

  48. [49]

    V. V. Albert, K. Noh, K. Duivenvoorden, D. J. Young, R. T. Brierley, P. Reinhold, C. Vuillot, L. Li, C. Shen, S. M. Girvin, B. M. Terhal, and L. Jiang, Performance and structure of single-mode bosonic codes, Phys. Rev. A97, 032346 (2018)

    work page 2018

  49. [50]

    T. B. Harris, T. Matsuura, B. Q. Baragiola, and N. C. Menicucci, Logical channel for heralded and pure loss with the Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill code, Phys. Rev. A 112, 042417 (2025)

    work page 2025

  50. [51]

    Konno, W

    S. Konno, W. Asavanant, F. Hanamura, H. Nagayoshi, K. Fukui, A. Sakaguchi, R. Ide, F. China, M. Yabuno, S. Miki, H. Terai, K. Takase, M. Endo, P. Marek, R. Filip, P. Van Loock, and A. Furusawa, Logical states for fault- tolerant quantum computation with propagating light, Science383, 289–293 (2024)

    work page 2024

  51. [52]

    M. V. Larsen, J. E. Bourassa, S. Kocsis, J. F. Tasker, R. S. Chadwick, C. Gonz´ alez-Arciniegas, J. Hastrup, C. E. Lopetegui-Gonz´ alez, F. M. Miatto, A. Motamedi, R. Noro, G. Roeland, R. Baby, H. Chen, P. Contu, I. Di Luch, C. Drago, M. Giesbrecht, T. Grainge, I. Krasnokutska, M. Menotti, B. Morrison, C. Puviraj, K. Rezaei Shad, B. Hussain, J. McMahon, J...

    work page 2025

  52. [53]

    Fl¨ uhmann, T

    C. Fl¨ uhmann, T. L. Nguyen, M. Marinelli, V. Negnevit- sky, K. Mehta, and J. P. Home, Encoding a qubit in a trapped-ion mechanical oscillator, Nature566, 513–517 (2019)

    work page 2019

  53. [54]

    V. G. Matsos, C. H. Valahu, M. J. Millican, T. Navickas, X. C. Kolesnikow, M. J. Biercuk, and T. R. Tan, Uni- versal quantum gate set for Gottesman–Kitaev–Preskill logical qubits, Nature Physics21, 1664 (2025)

    work page 2025

  54. [55]

    Error Correction of Beamsplitter-Generated Entangled GKP States

    M. Fontbot´ e-Schmidt, J. Metzner, F. Berterotti` ere, I. Ro- jkov, A. Ferk, M. Stadler, B. D¨ onmez, R. Berner, S. Welte, D. Kienzler, and J. P. Home, Error correction of beamsplitter-generated entangled GKP states (2026), arXiv:2605.08009

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  55. [57]

    Lachance-Quirion, M.-A

    D. Lachance-Quirion, M.-A. Lemonde, J. O. Simoneau, L. St-Jean, P. Lemieux, S. Turcotte, W. Wright, A. Lacroix, J. Fr´ echette-Viens, R. Shillito, F. Hopf- mueller, M. Tremblay, N. E. Frattini, J. Camirand Le- myre, and P. St-Jean, Autonomous quantum error cor- rection of Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill states, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 150607 (2024)

    work page 2024

  56. [58]

    V. V. Sivak, A. Eickbusch, B. Royer, S. Singh, I. Tsiout- sios, S. Ganjam, A. Miano, B. L. Brock, A. Haim, and M. H. Devoret, Real-time quantum error correction be- yond break-even, Nature616, 50 (2023)

    work page 2023

  57. [59]

    Yamasaki, T

    H. Yamasaki, T. Matsuura, and M. Koashi, Cost-reduced all-Gaussian universality with the Gottesman-Kitaev- Preskill code: Resource-theoretic approach to cost anal- ysis, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023270 (2020)

    work page 2020

  58. [60]

    Pantaleoni, B

    G. Pantaleoni, B. Q. Baragiola, and N. C. Menicucci, Modular bosonic subsystem codes, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 040501 (2020)

    work page 2020

  59. [61]

    O. Hahn, A. Ferraro, L. Hultquist, G. Ferrini, and L. Garc´ ıa-´Alvarez, Quantifying qubit magic resource with Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill encoding, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 210502 (2022)

    work page 2022

  60. [62]

    Calcluth, A

    C. Calcluth, A. Ferraro, and G. Ferrini, Vacuum pro- vides quantum advantage to otherwise simulatable archi- tectures, Phys. Rev. A107, 062414 (2023)

    work page 2023

  61. [63]

    M. H. Shaw, A. C. Doherty, and A. L. Grimsmo, Sta- bilizer subsystem decompositions for single- and multi- mode Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill codes, PRX Quantum 5, 010331 (2024)

    work page 2024

  62. [64]

    Calcluth, N

    C. Calcluth, N. Reichel, A. Ferraro, and G. Ferrini, Suffi- cient condition for universal quantum computation using bosonic circuits, PRX Quantum5, 020337 (2024)

    work page 2024

  63. [65]

    O. Hahn, G. Ferrini, and R. Takagi, Bridging magic and non-gaussian resources via Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill encoding, PRX Quantum6, 010330 (2025)

    work page 2025

  64. [66]

    Davis, N

    J. Davis, N. Fabre, and U. Chabaud, Identifying quan- tum resources in encoded computations, npj Quantum Information 10.1038/s41534-026-01263-6 (2026)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-026-01263-6 2026

  65. [67]

    Hosseinynejad, P

    F. Hosseinynejad, P. Iyer, G. Dauphinais, and D. L. Feder, Realistic Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill stabilizer states enable universal quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 150602 (2026)

    work page 2026

  66. [68]

    Descamps, N

    E. Descamps, N. Fabre, A. Saharyan, A. Keller, and P. Milman, Superselection rules and bosonic quantum computational resources, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 260605 (2024)

    work page 2024

  67. [69]

    Descamps, A

    E. Descamps, A. Saharyan, A. Keller, and P. Milman, Heisenberg-weyl bosonic phase spaces: emergence, con- straints and quantum informational resources (2025), arXiv:2512.05603 [quant-ph]. 22

    work page arXiv 2025

  68. [70]

    Descamps, A

    E. Descamps, A. Saharyan, A. Chivet, A. Keller, and P. Milman, Unified framework for bosonic quantum in- formation encoding, resources, and universality from su- perselection rules, Optica Quantum4, 148 (2026)

    work page 2026

  69. [71]

    A. E. Deneris, P. Braccia, P. Bermejo, N. L. Diaz, A. A. Mele, and M. Cerezo, Analyzing the free states of one quantum resource theory as resource states of another, Advanced Quantum Technologies9, e00702 (2026)

    work page 2026

  70. [72]

    Campagne-Ibarcq, A

    P. Campagne-Ibarcq, A. Eickbusch, S. Touzard, E. Zalys- Geller, N. E. Frattini, V. V. Sivak, P. Reinhold, S. Puri, S. Shankar, R. J. Schoelkopf, L. Frunzio, M. Mirrahimi, and M. H. Devoret, Quantum error correction of a qubit encoded in grid states of an oscillator, Nature584, 368 (2020)

    work page 2020

  71. [73]

    Fl¨ uhmann, T

    C. Fl¨ uhmann, T. L. Nguyen, M. Marinelli, V. Negnevit- sky, K. Mehta, and J. P. Home, Encoding a qubit in a trapped-ion mechanical oscillator, Nature566, 513 (2019)

    work page 2019

  72. [74]

    de Neeve, T.-L

    B. de Neeve, T.-L. Nguyen, T. Behrle, and J. P. Home, Error correction of a logical grid state qubit by dissipative pumping, Nature Physics18, 296 (2022)

    work page 2022

  73. [75]

    Vlastakis, G

    B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchmair, Z. Leghtas, S. E. Nigg, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. De- voret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Deterministically encoding quantum information using 100-photon Schr¨ odinger cat states, Science342, 607 (2013)

    work page 2013

  74. [76]

    Hofheinz, H

    M. Hofheinz, H. Wang, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank, J. Wen- ner, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Synthesizing ar- bitrary quantum states in a superconducting resonator, Nature459, 546 (2009)

    work page 2009

  75. [77]

    Tzitrin, J

    I. Tzitrin, J. E. Bourassa, K. K. Sabapathy, B. Walshe, and L. G. Helt, Progress towards practical qubit com- putation using approximate Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill codes, Physical Review A101, 032315 (2020)

    work page 2020

  76. [78]

    Eaton, H

    M. Eaton, H. Roh, R. Nehra, A. Joglekar, and N. Kil- loran, Seeding Gaussian boson samplers with single pho- tons for non-Gaussian state engineering, Physical Review A109, 023717 (2024)

    work page 2024

  77. [79]

    Conrad,The fabulous world of GKP codes, Ph.D

    J. Conrad,The fabulous world of GKP codes, Ph.D. thesis (2024)

    work page 2024

  78. [80]

    Kubischta and I

    E. Kubischta and I. Teixeira, Family of quantum codes with exotic transversal gates, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 240601 (2023)

    work page 2023

  79. [81]

    We use the notationFhere to avoid confusion, sinceH- type states can be used to implement what has come to be known as ˆTgate, orπ/8-gate in the literature

    Note thatF-type magic states are calledT-type in [6]. We use the notationFhere to avoid confusion, sinceH- type states can be used to implement what has come to be known as ˆTgate, orπ/8-gate in the literature

    work page

  80. [82]

    Gottesman and I

    D. Gottesman and I. L. Chuang, Demonstrating the vi- ability of universal quantum computation using telepor- tation and single-qubit operations, Nature402, 390–393 (1999)

    work page 1999

Showing first 80 references.