CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 158Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Information and CryptographyQuantum many-body systems

Quantum computation with realistic magic-state factories

Open access
O'Gorman, Joe, Campbell, Earl T.·2017·Physical Review A
DOI 10.1103/physreva.95.032338
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Leading approaches to fault-tolerant quantum computation dedicate a significant portion of the hardware to computational factories that churn out high-fidelity ancillas called magic states. Consequently, efficient and realistic factory design is of paramount importance. Here we present the most detailed resource assessment to date of magic-state factories within a surface code quantum computer, along the way introducing a number of techniques. We show that the block codes of Bravyi and Haah [Phys. Rev. A 86, 052329 (2012)] have been systematically undervalued; we track correlated errors both numerically and analytically, providing fidelity estimates without appeal to the union bound. We also introduce a subsystem code realization of these protocols with constant time and low ancilla cost. Additionally, we confirm that magic-state factories have space-time costs that scale as a constant factor of surface code costs. We find that the magic-state factory required for postclassical factoring can be as small as 6.3 million data qubits, ignoring ancilla qubits, assuming ${10}^{\ensuremath{-}4}$ error gates and the availability of long-range interactions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physreva.95.032338

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The physical qubit count of 2.18·10^8 from O'Gorman et al. (2017) [61] only includes distillation; we increased it by 3·2048·(2·32^2) ≈ 0.13·10^8 to account for three n-logical-qubit data registers.

    “The physical qubit count of 2 . 18 · 10 8 from their table only includes distillation; we increased it by 3 · 2048 · (2 · 32 2 ) ≈ 0 . 13 · 10 8 to account for three n -logical-qubit data registers.”

    From How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits (2021) · cites this paper as [61]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. C. Jones, Phys. Rev. A 87, 042305 (2013). · DOI
  2. A. G. Fowler, S. J. Devitt, and C. Jones, Sci. Rep. 3, 1939 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  3. P. W. Shor, in Proceedings of the 37th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE Computer Society Press, 1996), pp. 56-65.
  4. E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, Science 279, 342 (1998). · DOI · Paper page
  5. R. Raussendorf, J. Harrington, and K. Goyal, Ann. Phys. (NY) 321, 2242 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  6. H. Bombin, New J. Phys. 17, 083002 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  7. A. Paetznick and B. W. Reichardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 090505 (2013). · DOI
  8. J. T. Anderson, G. Duclos-Cianci, and D. Poulin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 080501 (2014). · DOI
  9. T. Jochym-O'Connor and R. Laflamme, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 010505 (2014). · DOI
  10. B. J. Brown, N. H. Nickerson, and D. E. Browne, Nat. Commun. 7, 12302 (2016). · DOI
  11. S. Bravyi and A. Cross, arXiv:1509.03239. · arXiv
  12. P. Selinger, Phys. Rev. A 87, 042302 (2013). · DOI
  13. A. G. Fowler, arXiv:1210.4626. · arXiv
  14. A. M. Meier, B. Eastin, and E. Knill, Quantum Inf. Comput. 13, 195 (2013).
  15. S. Bravyi and J. Haah, Phys. Rev. A 86, 052329 (2012). · DOI
  16. H. Anwar, E. T. Campbell, and D. E. Browne, New J. Phys. 14, 063006 (2012). · DOI
  17. E. T. Campbell, H. Anwar, and D. E. Browne, Phys. Rev. X 2, 041021 (2012). · DOI
  18. E. T. Campbell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 230501 (2014). · DOI
  19. D. Poulin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 230504 (2005). · DOI
  20. D. Bacon, Phys. Rev. A 73, 012340 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  21. H. Bombin, Phys. Rev. A 81, 032301 (2010). · DOI
  22. H. Bombin, R. W. Chhajlany, M. Horodecki, and M. A. Martin- Delgado, New J. Phys. 15, 055023 (2013). · DOI
  23. B. Eastin, Phys. Rev. A 87, 032321 (2013). · DOI
  24. C. Jones, Phys. Rev. A 87, 022328 (2013). · DOI
  25. R. Raussendorf, J. Harrington, and K. Goyal, New J. Phys. 9, 199 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  26. A. J. Landahl and C. Ryan-Anderson, arXiv:1407.5103. · arXiv
  27. S. D. Barrett and P. Kok, Phys. Rev. A 71, 060310 (2005). · DOI
  28. L. Jiang, J. M. Taylor, A. S. Sørensen, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. A 76, 062323 (2007). · DOI
  29. D. K. L. Oi, S. J. Devitt, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Phys. Rev. A 74, 052313 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  30. D. L. Moehring, P. Maunz, S. Olmschenk, K. C. Younge, D. N. Matsukevich, L. M. Duan, and C. Monroe, Nature (London) 449, 68 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  31. E. T. Campbell and S. C. Benjamin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 130502 (2008). · DOI
  32. E. Campbell and J. Fitzsimons, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 8, 219 (2010). · DOI
  33. H. Bernien, B. Hensen, W. Pfaff, G. Koolstra, M. S. Blok, L. Robledo, T. H. Taminiau, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, L. Childress, and R. Hanson, Nature (London) 497, 86 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  34. N. H. Nickerson, J. F. Fitzsimons, and S. C. Benjamin, Phys. Rev. X 4, 041041 (2014). · DOI
  35. J. T. Anderson, arXiv:1205.0289. · arXiv
  36. E. T. Campbell and M. Howard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 060501 (2017). · DOI
  37. E. T. Campbell and M. Howard, Phys. Rev. A 95, 022316 (2017). · DOI
  38. Y. Li, New J. Phys. 17, 023037 (2015). · DOI
  39. M. Reiher, N. Wiebe, K. M. Svore, D. Wecker, and M. Troyer, arXiv:1605.03590. · arXiv
  40. G. Duclos-Cianci and K. M. Svore, Phys. Rev. A 88, 042325 (2013). · DOI
  41. A. J. Landahl and C. Cesare, arXiv:1302.3240. · arXiv
  42. G. Duclos-Cianci and D. Poulin, Phys. Rev. A 91, 042315 (2015). · DOI
  43. E. T. Campbell and J. O'Gorman, Quantum Sci. Technol. 1, 015007 (2016). · DOI
  44. D. Herr, F. Nori, and S. J. Devitt, New J. Phys. 19, 013034 (2017). · DOI
  45. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.95.032338 for a Mathematica notebook which calculates the dual matrix of G(k) for the Bravyi-Haah codes and a list of the specific combinations of protocols which produced the data points in Fig. 5.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
O'Gorman, J., & Campbell, E. T.
Affiliations
University of Sheffield (GB)
ORCID
Campbell, Earl T.
Venue
Physical Review A
Publisher
American Physical Society (APS)
Published
2017-03-31
Volume
95
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 0556-2791 (ISSN-L)
  • 2469-9926
  • 2469-9934
DOI
10.1103/physreva.95.032338
OpenAlex
W2408216867
Cited by
158
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 6
FWCI
9.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Physical Review A (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/M024261/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
Keywords
surface code, fault-tolerant quantum computing, correlated errors, subsystem codes, resource assessment, long-range interactions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review