Cited by 203Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Information and CryptographyQuantum many-body systems

Subsystem Fault Tolerance with the Bacon-Shor Code

Open access
Aliferis, Panos, Cross, Andrew W.·2007·Physical Review Letters

Abstract

We discuss how the presence of gauge subsystems in the Bacon-Shor code [D. Bacon, Phys. Rev. A 73, 012340 (2006)10.1103/PhysRevA.73.012340 (2006)] leads to remarkably simple and efficient methods for fault-tolerant error correction (FTEC). Most notably, FTEC does not require entangled ancillary states, and it can be implemented with nearest-neighbor two-qubit measurements. By using these methods, we prove a lower bound on the quantum accuracy threshold, 1.94 x 10(-4) for adversarial stochastic noise, that improves previous lower bounds by nearly an order of magnitude.

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/physrevlett.98.220502

Cites

14 of 14 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?

  • Calderbank and Shor and Steane showed that good quantum error-correcting codes exist.

    “Immediately after that, Calderbank and Shor[13] and Steane[68] showed that good quantum error correcting codes exist”

    From Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation with Constant Error Rate (2008) · cites this paper as [13]

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: 4

  1. [4]D. W. Kribs, R. Laflamme, D. Poulin, and M. Lesosky. Quantum Inf. Comp. 6 (4), 382-399 (2006).
  2. [10]D. Gottesman. Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA (1997). arXive e-print quant-ph/9705052. · arXiv
  3. [11]P. Aliferis. Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA (2007). arXive e-print quant-ph/0703230. · arXiv
  4. [14]P. Aliferis, D. Gottesman, and J. Preskill. Quantum Inf. Comp. 6 (2), 97-165 (2006).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aliferis, P., & Cross, A. W.
Affiliations
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • IBM Research - Thomas J. Watson Research Center (US)
Venue
Physical Review Letters
Published
2007-05-31
Volume
98
Issue
22
Pages
220502-220502
ISSN
  • 0031-9007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1079-7114
OpenAlex
W1974123702
Cited by
203
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 13
FWCI
18.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Review Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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
Bacon-Shor code, quantum error correction, lower bounds, adversarial perturbations

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