Pith. sign in

REVIEW 68 references

Distillation can be skipped in distributed quantum computers by turning photonic phase noise into repeated measurement errors, so one nucleus per node is enough.

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

2026-07-31 06:07 UTC pith:TSYWPWVG

load-bearing objection Solid architecture paper: route link phase bias into non-propagating measurement error so the code replaces distillation, dropping to one nucleus (Floquet) or one ancilla (stabilizer), with clean stim thresholds—but the headline Floquet gains lean on independent pz shots that real electron baths may not give.

arxiv 2607.24907 v2 pith:TSYWPWVG submitted 2026-07-27 quant-ph

Fault-tolerant distributed quantum computing with a single nucleus per node

Yotam Vaknin , Shoham Jacoby , Roi Nevo , Aleksander Kubica , Alex Retzker This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords distributed quantum computingFloquet codesnoise biasBell pairssyndrome extractionlattice surgerysurface codeGHZ states
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.

Distributed quantum computers link small high-quality nodes with noisy optical Bell pairs. Earlier designs spent several nuclear spins per node purifying those pairs. This paper argues that purification subroutines are unnecessary if the link is biased so phase errors dominate and bit flips are rare. Syndrome circuits are then arranged so phase noise only flips measurement outcomes and never spreads onto the data; repeating the measurement lets the error-correcting code itself clean the link. Floquet codes then need only one data nucleus per node, and ordinary stabilizer codes need just one extra ancilla. Simulations report high phase-error thresholds and show lattice surgery stays near the memory threshold, so overall performance is set by the good nuclear qubits rather than by photon indistinguishability or electron coherence.

Core claim

By engineering photonic Bell pairs that suffer frequent phase errors but rare bit flips, and by designing syndrome extraction so that phase noise appears only as non-propagating measurement error, distillation can be avoided. The code itself purifies the link through repeated measurements. That cut reduces Floquet nodes to a single nucleus and general stabilizer nodes to one data qubit plus one ancilla, while still supporting high error-correction thresholds and lattice-surgery logical gates near the memory threshold.

What carries the argument

Communication error bias plus bias-preserving syndrome extraction: phase noise on Bell pairs or GHZ states is routed so it only flips the measured parity (a bulk measurement error), while residual bit-flip channels stay weak; majority-vote or repeated rounds then suppress the measurement errors without dedicated distillation.

Load-bearing premise

Inter-node links can be run deep in a phase-biased regime while every other error—nuclear idling, gates, residual Bell bit flips, and GHZ assembly—stays at one much smaller residual rate.

What would settle it

Circuit-level simulations or hardware runs in which residual bit-flip, gate, or idling noise cannot be held far below the engineered phase noise should erase the reported single-nucleus thresholds and force distillation or extra nuclei back into the architecture.

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

If this is right

  • Floquet codes become implementable on nodes that hold only one high-coherence nucleus plus a communication electron.
  • General stabilizer and qLDPC codes need only one extra ancilla nucleus for GHZ-based stabilizer readout, without multi-round Bell distillation.
  • Photon indistinguishability and communication-qubit coherence requirements can be relaxed into the several-percent phase-error range.
  • Lattice surgery remains viable for logical multi-qubit gates at thresholds close to quantum memory under the same bulk-measurement noise.
  • Overall logical performance is limited by nuclear data-qubit quality rather than by the optical link.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Materials and defects previously dismissed for having only one usable nucleus become candidate distributed nodes under this protocol.
  • The same bias-preserving GHZ construction may lift circuit distance toward code-capacity distance for weight-6+ qLDPC codes by suppressing single-error hooks.
  • A global decoder that consumes every raw repeated outcome, rather than local majority vote, is a natural next lever the paper leaves open and could raise thresholds further.
  • Transversal logical gates built from repeated two-qubit measurements instead of teleported CNOTs would keep the same non-propagating measurement-error structure across full algorithms.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: thresholds are independent Monte Carlo outputs under a declared noise model; bias and GHZ ingredients are external protocols, not self-definitions.

full rationale

The paper’s central claims—that engineered Bell-pair phase bias plus syndrome circuits that map phase noise to non-propagating measurement errors allow Floquet codes with one nucleus (and stabilizer codes with one ancilla) without dedicated distillation—are architectural and circuit-design claims, validated by stim/pymatching threshold simulations under an explicitly stated biased noise model (pz vs pres). Those thresholds (e.g. honeycomb pz≈0.88% at pres=10^-3; surface memory pz≈4.4%/pGHZ≈15%; lattice surgery ~4%) are empirical decoder outputs, not algebraic restatements of fitted constants. The binomial majority-vote identity and pGHZ≈4pz are standard independent-error channel reductions used as consistency checks, not predictions forced by a fit. Double-click bias (Barrett–Kok) and GHZ fusion/fault-tolerance (Nickerson, Shor-style, de Bone et al.) are cited as external ingredients. Author self-citations (Stairway codes, related Floquet work) supply optional code families or context and are not load-bearing uniqueness theorems. No parameter is fitted to data and re-exported as a prediction; no result reduces to its input by definition. Quasi-static correlation of pz (a physical-assumption risk) is outside circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The result rests on standard QEC and linear-optics entanglement tools plus a domain noise-bias assumption and a compacted two-scale error budget. No new physical entities are postulated. Free parameters are simulation knobs (pres, repetition r, merge rounds), not fits to experimental datasets claiming prediction.

free parameters (3)
  • pres (residual error rate) = typically 10^-3 in main threshold figures
    Hand-chosen scale for all non-phase link errors in threshold scans; central plots fix pres=10^-3 or 10^-4. Not fitted to device data, but the hardware claim depends on achieving pres ≪ pz.
  • measurement repetition count r (majority vote) = 1, 3, or 5
    Chosen as 1, 3, or 5 to trade pz threshold against accumulated residual noise; a design parameter of the protocol.
  • lattice-surgery merge rounds r_merge = r ∈ [d, 3d]
    Swept from d to 3d to show error-rate saturation; operational choice, not a fit.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Circuit-level Pauli/stabilizer error correction and threshold decoding with MWPM (stim/pymatching) correctly predict correctability in the simulated models.
    Standard FTQC methodology used throughout §§II–II E and appendices.
  • domain assumption Double-click (and even-repetition single-click) photonic protocols can produce Bell pairs with strong phase-vs-bit-flip bias, with accepted X errors dominated by controllable microwave/dark-count floors.
    Invoked in §III and App. F citing Barrett-Kok and related work; load-bearing for ‘no distillation’.
  • domain assumption Nuclear data qubits have high coherence and can be protected from electron-induced noise so their errors sit in pres; electron dephasing can be budgeted entirely as non-propagating pz on communication qubits.
    Stated in §II and App. C with citations to protection mechanisms [39,40]; enables single-nucleus performance limited by data qubits.
  • ad hoc to paper Local majority vote on r repeated pairwise measurements is adequately modeled by a leading-order effective DEM for outer-code thresholds.
    App. A; authors note global decoding of all shots is left to future work and may improve results.
  • domain assumption GHZ fusion from Bell pairs is bias-preserving and detects single X errors so weight-1 X on the GHZ is O(pres) and multi-data hooks are higher order.
    §II C, App. B–D, building on Shor-style and prior FT GHZ generation literature.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 26350 in / 3504 out tokens · 80755 ms · 2026-07-31T06:07:54.327992+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Distributed quantum computing interconnects small, high-quality nodes through optical links, but this architecture carries a pronounced asymmetry: in-node gates and measurements are cheap and high-fidelity, whereas inter-node communication relies on a low-coherence communication qubit and faulty photonics. Previous approaches overcame the noisy link by placing several high-quality data qubits in each node and consuming them for Bell pair and GHZ state distillation. Here we show that distillation can be avoided altogether. The key observation is that we can engineer a communication error bias, where photonic Bell pairs suffer frequent phase errors but only rare bit-flip errors. We design the syndrome-extraction circuits so that this phase noise appears solely as a measurement error that does not propagate to the data qubits, and is therefore suppressed by simply repeating the measurement; letting the error-correcting code itself, rather than a dedicated distillation subroutine, to purify the link. This dramatically reduces the need for ancillary nuclei: Floquet codes require only a single data qubit per node, while general stabilizer codes require just one additional ancilla. We demonstrate high error-correction thresholds throughout this regime, and we identify lattice surgery as inherently robust for this setting, enabling logical operations at a threshold close to that of quantum memory. As a result, the performance of the quantum computer is limited by the high-quality data qubits, while the requirements on photon indistinguishability and coherence of the communication qubit are substantially relaxed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24907 by Aleksander Kubica, Alex Retzker, Roi Nevo, Shoham Jacoby, Yotam Vaknin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Using only one high fidelity qubit and one low fidelity qubit per node we can implement Floquet QEC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Adding a single high fidelity ancilla qubit per node enables the implementation of general stabilizer codes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: , we present the logical error rate for a fixed pres = 10−4 . While Stairway codes exhibit a lower threshold, they achieve a lower error rate for sim￾ilar block sizes in the sub-threshold regime. Since 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 Bell-pair Z error rate pz 10 8 10 7 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 10 0 Logical error rate per observable Stairway + hyperbolic codes (pres = 0.0001) Stairway [[192,6,9]] (1-rep) Stairway … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. A quantum circuit generating a GHZ state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: We see that at pres = 10−3 , the pz thresh￾old is roughly 4.5%, while we can still tolerate pz > 10% when pres < 0.05%. As we explained earlier, pz can reach as high as 50% and still be correctable, as long as the residual error level is low enough. E. Lattice Surgery Because memory experiments are inherently ro￾bust to bulk measurement errors, a complemen￾tary experiment is necessary to demonstrate that o… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Performing pairwise measurement three times and taking majority vote can reduce measurement errors. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. ZX-calculus picture of error detection and correction in the GHZ generation protocol. (Left) A single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Comparison of the stability and memory experiments under the bulk-measurement-error noise model at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Comparison of microwave-induced [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png] 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

68 extracted references · 18 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    de Bone, P

    S. de Bone, P. M¨ oller, C. E. Bradley, T. H. Taminiau, and D. Elkouss, A VS Quantum Sci- ence6(2024), 10.1116/5.0200190

    doi:10.1116/5.0200190 2024

  2. [3]

    Floquetified

    +p ∗ 3 3 =p ∗ z.A similar condition applies to the 5-repetition case. Naively, one would expect thep z = 0 points of single and 3- or 5-fold repeated measurements to have ap res threshold smaller by a factor of 3 or 5, respectively, but we observe a different behavior in practice. Although the noise on the data qubits is multiplied by 3 or 5, the syndrome...

  3. [4]

    Sutcliffe, B

    E. Sutcliffe, B. Jonnadula, C. Le Gall, A. E. Moylett, and C. M. Westoby, in2025 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE)(IEEE, 2025) p. 649–657

    2025

  4. [5]

    Entanglement boosting: Low- volume logical bell pair preparation for dis- tributed fault-tolerant quantum computation,

    S. Sunami, Y. Hirano, T. Hinokuma, and H. Yamasaki, “Entanglement boosting: Low- volume logical bell pair preparation for dis- tributed fault-tolerant quantum computation,” (2026), arXiv:2511.10729 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  5. [6]

    N. K. Chandra, E. Kaur, and K. P. Seshadreesan, in2025 IEEE 7th International Conference on Trust, Privacy and Security in Intelligent Sys- tems, and Applications (TPS-ISA)(IEEE, 2025) p. 561–572

    2025

  6. [7]

    N. K. Chandra, D. Tipper, R. Nejabati, E. Kaur, and K. P. Seshadreesan, in2025 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE)(IEEE, 2025) p. 2482–2492

    2025

  7. [8]

    Ruskuc, C.-J

    A. Ruskuc, C.-J. Wu, E. Green, S. L. Hermans, W. Pajak, J. Choi, and A. Faraon, Nature639, 54 (2025)

    2025

  8. [9]

    Saggio, H

    V. Saggio, H. Larocque, M. Tao, M. Prabhu, A. Buzzi, Q. Gu, M. Pirro, C. Papon, O. Hooy- bergs, L. De Santis,et al., inCLEO: Science and Innovations(Optica Publishing Group, 2025) p. SS193 1

    2025

  9. [10]

    P. Inc, F. Afzal, M. Akhlaghi, S. J. Beale, O. Bedroya, K. Bell, L. Bergeron, K. Bonsma- Fisher, P. Bychkova, Z. M. Chaisson,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01704 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [12]

    Barral, F

    D. Barral, F. J. Cardama, G. D ´ ıaz-Camacho, D. Fa ´ ılde, I. F. Llovo, M. Mussa-Juane, J. V´ azquez-P´ erez, J. Villasuso, C. Pi˜ neiro, N. Costas,et al., Computer Science Review57, 100747 (2025)

    2025

  11. [13]

    Fault-tolerant connection of error- corrected qubits with noisy links,

    J. Ramette, J. Sinclair, N. P. Breuckmann, and V. Vuleti´ c, “Fault-tolerant connection of error- corrected qubits with noisy links,” (2023), arXiv:2302.01296 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [14]

    Networked re- alization of quantum ldpc codes,

    S. Shaw and N. Rengaswamy, “Networked re- alization of quantum ldpc codes,” (2026), arXiv:2604.25026 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  13. [15]

    Piqc: Scalable distributed quantum computing via pho- tonic integration of designed molecular quantum nodes,

    A. Aubele, G. Bayer, T. R. Eichhorn, T. Hahn, F. Jelezko, P. Mentzel, P. Neumann, M. Pfender, M. B. Plenio, A. Retzker, S. Roggors, A. Salhov, J. Scharpf, T. A. Schaub, N. Striegler, T. Un- den, J. Zolg, S. Brosh, and I. Schwartz, “Piqc: Scalable distributed quantum computing via pho- tonic integration of designed molecular quantum nodes,” (2026), arXiv:2...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  14. [16]

    A single-molecule spin-photon inter- face,

    S. Roggors, T. Unden, A. Aubele, P. Mentzel, G. Bayer, A. Salhov, J. Scharpf, M. B. Ple- nio, A. Retzker, F. Jelezko, T. R. Eichhorn, T. A. Schaub, M. Pfender, P. Neumann, and I. Schwartz, “A single-molecule spin-photon inter- face,” (2026), arXiv:2605.10077 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  15. [17]

    Van der Sar, Z

    T. Van der Sar, Z. Wang, M. Blok, H. Bernien, T. Taminiau, D. Toyli, D. Lidar, D. Awschalom, R. Hanson, and V. Dobrovitski, Nature484, 82 (2012)

    2012

  16. [19]

    Quantum communication networks with defects in silicon carbide,

    P. Sohr, P. Koller, S. Ecker, M. Fink, T. Scheidl, R. Ursin, M. J. Arshad, C. Bonato, P. Cilib- rizzi, A. Gali, P. Udvarhelyi, A. Politi, O. J. Tro- jak, M. Ghezellou, J. U. Hassan, I. G. Ivanov, N. T. Son, G. Burkard, B. Tissot, J. Hendriks, C. M. Gilardoni, C. H. van der Wal, C. David, M. Mokhtarzadeh, T. Astner, and M. Trupke, “Quantum communication ne...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  17. [20]

    Vanadium in sili- con carbide: Telecom-ready spin centres with long relaxation lifetimes and hyperfine-resolved opti- cal transitions,

    T. Astner, P. Koller, C. M. Gilardoni, J. Hen- driks, N. T. Son, I. G. Ivanov, J. U. Hassan, C. H. van der Wal, and M. Trupke, “Vanadium in sili- con carbide: Telecom-ready spin centres with long relaxation lifetimes and hyperfine-resolved opti- cal transitions,” (2022), arXiv:2206.06240 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [21]

    R. E. Evans, M. K. Bhaskar, D. D. Sukachev, C. T. Nguyen, A. Sipahigil, M. J. Burek, B. Machielse, G. H. Zhang, A. S. Zibrov, E. Biele- jec, H. Park, M. Lonˇ car, and M. D. Lukin, Science 362, 662–665 (2018)

    2018

  19. [22]

    Nguyen, D

    C. Nguyen, D. Sukachev, M. Bhaskar, B. Machielse, D. Levonian, E. Knall, P. Stroganov, R. Riedinger, H. Park, M. Lonˇ car, and M. Lukin, Physical Review Letters123 (2019), 10.1103/physrevlett.123.183602

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.183602 2019

  20. [23]

    Putterman, K

    H. Putterman, K. Noh, C. T. Hann, G. S. Mac- Cabe, S. Aghaeimeibodi, R. N. Patel, M. Lee, W. M. Jones, H. Moradinejad, R. Rodriguez, et al., Nature638, 927 (2025)

    2025

  21. [24]

    I. Zuk, D. Cohen, A. V. Gorshkov, and A. Ret- zker, Physical Review Research6, 013217 (2024)

    2024

  22. [25]

    Mehta, J

    N. Mehta, J. D. Teoh, T. Noh, A. Agrawal, A. An- derson, B. Birdsall, A. Brahmbhatt, W. Byrd, M. Cacioppo, A. Cabrera,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10935 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [26]

    Untangling qldpc codes with biased noise ancilla,

    R. Bi, K. Chang, and S. Puri, “Untangling qldpc codes with biased noise ancilla,” (2026), arXiv:2606.30592 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [27]

    de Bone, P

    S. de Bone, P. M¨ oller, C. E. Bradley, T. H. Taminiau, and D. Elkouss, A VS Quantum Sci- ence6, 033801 (2024)

    2024

  25. [28]

    P. W. Shor, inProceedings of 37th Conference on Foundations of Computer Science(IEEE, 1996) pp. 56–65

    1996

  26. [29]

    D. P. DiVincenzo and P. Aliferis, Physical Review Letters98, 020501 (2007)

    2007

  27. [30]

    Tansuwannont, B

    T. Tansuwannont, B. Pato, and K. R. Brown, Quantum7, 1075 (2023)

    2023

  28. [31]

    Prabhu and B

    P. Prabhu and B. W. Reichardt, Quantum7, 1154 (2023)

    2023

  29. [32]

    de Bone, P

    S. de Bone, P. M¨ oller, C. E. Bradley, T. H. Taminiau, and D. Elkouss, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10770 (2024), 10.48550/arXiv.2401.10770

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.10770 2024

  30. [33]

    N. H. Nickerson, Y. Li, and S. C. Benjamin, Na- ture Communications4, 1756 (2013)

    2013

  31. [34]

    Rodatz, B

    B. Rodatz, B. Po´ or, and A. Kissinger, arXiv:2506.17181 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  32. [35]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, Nature (Lon- don)627, 778 (2024)

    2024

  33. [36]

    Panteleev and G

    P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, inProceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing(ACM, Rome Italy, 2022) pp. 375–388

    2022

  34. [37]

    Kasai, arXiv:2601.08824 (2026)

    K. Kasai, arXiv:2601.08824 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  35. [38]

    Cabrillo, J

    C. Cabrillo, J. I. Cirac, P. Garcia-Fernandez, and P. Zoller, Physical Review A59, 1025 (1999)

    1999

  36. [39]

    S. D. Barrett and P. Kok, Physical Review A71, 060310 (2005)

    2005

  37. [40]

    Cohen, T

    I. Cohen, T. Unden, F. Jelezko, and A. Retzker, arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.01596 (2017)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [41]

    Brunelle, J

    N. Brunelle, J. Kanaganayagam, M. Keshavarz, C. Clear, O. Soykal, M. Ruether, A. DeAbreu, A. AlizadehKhaledi, Y. Xiong, N. V. Abrosimov, et al., Physical Review B113, 035201 (2026)

    2026

  39. [42]

    M. B. Hastings and J. Haah, Quantum5, 564 (2021)

    2021

  40. [43]

    S. Gu, A. Retzker, and A. Kubica, Physical Re- view Research7, 013249 (2025)

    2025

  41. [44]

    Stair- way codes: Floquetifying bivariate bicycle codes and beyond,

    S. Jacoby, A. Retzker, and F. Pastawski, “Stair- way codes: Floquetifying bivariate bicycle codes and beyond,” (2026), arXiv:2603.00228 [quant- ph]

    arXiv 2026

  42. [45]

    Gidney, M

    C. Gidney, M. Newman, A. Fowler, and M. Broughton, Quantum5, 605 (2021)

    2021

  43. [46]

    Gidney, M

    C. Gidney, M. Newman, and M. McEwen, Quan- tum6, 813 (2022)

    2022

  44. [47]

    Dennis, A

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

    2002

  45. [49]

    Higgott and N

    O. Higgott and N. P. Breuckmann, PRX Quantum 5(2024), 10.1103/prxquantum.5.040327

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.040327 2024

  46. [50]

    Fahimniya, H

    A. Fahimniya, H. Dehghani, K. Bharti, S. Mathew, A. J. Koll´ ar, A. V. Gorshkov, and M. J. Gullans, Quantum9, 1849 (2025)

    2025

  47. [51]

    C. A. Pattison, M. E. Beverland, M. P. da Silva, and N. Delfosse, arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13589 (2021)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [52]

    Gidney, Quantum5, 497 (2021)

    C. Gidney, Quantum5, 497 (2021)

    2021

  49. [53]

    Higgott, ACM Transactions on Quantum Com- puting3, 1 (2022)

    O. Higgott, ACM Transactions on Quantum Com- puting3, 1 (2022)

    2022

  50. [54]

    Short shor-style syndrome sequences,

    N. Delfosse and B. W. Reichardt, “Short shor-style syndrome sequences,” (2020), arXiv:2008.05051 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  51. [55]

    N. P. Breuckmann, PRX Quantum2, 040101 (2021)

    2021

  52. [56]

    Gottesman, Quantum Info

    D. Gottesman, Quantum Info. Comput.14, 1338 (2014)

    2014

  53. [57]

    M. A. Tremblay, N. Delfosse, and M. E. Bever- land, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 050504 (2022)

    2022

  54. [58]

    Leverrier and G

    A. Leverrier and G. Zemor, in2022 IEEE 63rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer 17 Science (FOCS)(IEEE, Denver, CO, USA, 2022) pp. 872–883

    2022

  55. [59]

    M. Cain, Q. Xu, R. King, L. R. Picard, H. Levine, M. Endres, J. Preskill, H.-Y. Huang, and D. Blu- vstein, arXiv:2603.28627 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  56. [60]

    C. Zhao, C. Duckering, A. Gu, N. Maskara, and H. Zhou, arXiv:2604.16209 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  57. [61]

    Gidney, Quantum6, 786 (2022)

    C. Gidney, Quantum6, 786 (2022)

    2022

  58. [62]

    Horsman, A

    C. Horsman, A. G. Fowler, S. Devitt, and R. Van Meter, New Journal of Physics14, 123011 (2012)

    2012

  59. [63]

    Litinski, Quantum3, 128 (2019)

    D. Litinski, Quantum3, 128 (2019)

    2019

  60. [64]

    Vuillot, L

    C. Vuillot, L. Lao, B. Benalcazar, and B. M. Ter- hal, New Journal of Physics21, 093021 (2019)

    2019

  61. [65]

    Quantum computing by color-code lattice surgery,

    A. J. Landahl and C. Ryan-Anderson, “Quantum computing by color-code lattice surgery,” (2014), arXiv:1407.5103 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  62. [66]

    Low overhead quan- tum computation using lattice surgery,

    A. G. Fowler and C. Gidney, “Low overhead quan- tum computation using lattice surgery,” (2019), arXiv:1808.06709 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  63. [67]

    Data for “fault-tolerant distributed quantum computing with a single nucleus per node

    Y. Vaknin, S. Jacoby, R. Nevo, A. Kubica, and A. Retzker, “Data for “fault-tolerant distributed quantum computing with a single nucleus per node”,” Zenodo (2026)

    2026

  64. [68]

    J. P. Bonilla Ataides, D. K. Tuckett, S. D. Bartlett, S. T. Flammia, and B. J. Brown, Nature Communications12(2021), 10.1038/s41467-021- 22274-1

    doi:10.1038/s41467-021- 2021

  65. [69]

    A. G. Manes and J. Claes, Quantum9, 1618 (2025)

    2025

  66. [70]

    S. J. S. Tan and L. Stambler, Quantum9, 1897 (2025)

    2025

  67. [71]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, Nature627, 778–782 (2024)

    2024

  68. [72]

    E. T. Campbell and S. C. Benjamin, Physi- cal Review Letters101(2008), 10.1103/phys- revlett.101.130502

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2008