Cited by 220Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Information and CryptographyQuantum many-body systems

Magic State Distillation: Not as Costly as You Think

Open access
Litinski, Daniel·2019·Quantum

Abstract

Despite significant overhead reductions since its first proposal, magic state distillation is often considered to be a very costly procedure that dominates the resource cost of fault-tolerant quantum computers. The goal of this work is to demonstrate that this is not true. By writing distillation circuits in a form that separates qubits that are capable of error detection from those that are not, most logical qubits used for distillation can be encoded at a very low code distance. This significantly reduces the space-time cost of distillation, as well as the number of qubits. In extreme cases, it can cost less to distill a magic state than to perform a logical Clifford gate on full-distance logical qubits.

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 · 10.22331/q-2019-12-02-205

Cites

9 of 9 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?

  • In the week before we first released this paper, Daniel Litinsky made [56] available. He independently arrived at the idea of using distillation to herald errors within the factory, and provided rough numerics indicating this may reduce the volume of distillation by as much as a factor of 10.

    “In fact, in the week before we first released this paper, Daniel Litinsky made [56] available. He independently arrived at the idea of using distillation to herald errors within the factory, and provided rough numerics indicating this may reduce the volume of distillation by as much as a factor of 10.”

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: 30

  1. J. Preskill, Reliable quantum computers, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 454, 385 (1998). · DOI · Paper page
  2. E. T. Campbell, B. M. Terhal, and C. Vuil- lot, Roads towards fault-tolerant universal quantum computation, Nature 549, 172 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  3. A. Y. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Ann. Phys. 303, 2 (2003). · DOI · Paper page
  4. D. Litinski and F. v. Oppen, Lattice Surgery with a Twist: Simplifying Clifford Gates of Surface Codes, Quantum 2, 62 (2018). · DOI
  5. S. Bravyi and J. Haah, Magic-state distillation with low overhead, Phys. Rev. A 86, 052329 (2012). · DOI
  6. A. G. Fowler, S. J. Devitt, and C. Jones, Surface code implementation of block code state distillation, Scientific Rep. 3, 1939 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  7. A. M. Meier, B. Eastin, and E. Knill, Magic- state distillation with the four-qubit code, Quant. Inf. Comp. 13, 195 (2013).
  8. C. Jones, Multilevel distillation of magic states for quantum computing, Phys. Rev. A 87, 042305 (2013). · DOI
  9. G. Duclos-Cianci and K. M. Svore, Distillation of nonstabilizer states for universal quantum compu- tation, Phys. Rev. A 88, 042325 (2013). · DOI
  10. G. Duclos-Cianci and D. Poulin, Reducing the quantum-computing overhead with complex gate distillation, Phys. Rev. A 91, 042315 (2015). · DOI
  11. E. T. Campbell and M. Howard, Unified framework for magic state distillation and multiqubit gate syn- thesis with reduced resource cost, Phys. Rev. A 95, 022316 (2017). · DOI
  12. J. O'Gorman and E. T. Campbell, Quantum com- putation with realistic magic-state factories, Phys. Rev. A 95, 032338 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  13. E. T. Campbell and M. Howard, Magic state parity-checker with pre-distilled components, Quantum 2, 56 (2018). · DOI
  14. C. Gidney and A. G. Fowler, Efficient magic state factories with a catalyzed |CCZ to 2|T transfor- mation, Quantum 3, 135 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  15. C. Jones, P. Brooks, and J. Harrington, Gauge color codes in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. A 93, 052332 (2016). · DOI
  16. S. Bravyi and A. Cross, Doubled color codes, arXiv:1509.03239 (2015). · arXiv
  17. T. Jochym-O'Connor and S. D. Bartlett, Stacked codes: Universal fault-tolerant quantum computa- tion in a two-dimensional layout, Phys. Rev. A 93, 022323 (2016). · DOI
  18. H. Bombin, 2D quantum computation with 3D topological codes, arXiv:1810.09571 (2018). · arXiv
  19. C. Chamberland and A. W. Cross, Fault-tolerant magic state preparation with flag qubits, Quantum 3, 143 (2019). · DOI
  20. D. Litinski, A Game of Surface Codes: Large-Scale Quantum Computing with Lattice Surgery, Quan- tum 3, 128 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  21. M. Amy and M. Mosca, T-count optimization and Reed-Muller codes, IEEE Transactions on Informa- tion Theory , 1 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  22. J. Haah, M. B. Hastings, D. Poulin, and D. Wecker, Magic state distillation with low space overhead and optimal asymptotic input count, Quantum 1, 31 (2017). · DOI
  23. A. J. Landahl and C. Ryan-Anderson, Quan- tum computing by color-code lattice surgery, arXiv:1407.5103 (2014). · arXiv
  24. Y. Li, A magic states fidelity can be superior to the operations that created it, New J. Phys. 17, 023037 (2015). · DOI
  25. J. Lodyga, P. Mazurek, A. Grudka, and M. Horodecki, Simple scheme for encoding and de- coding a qubit in unknown state for various topo- logical codes, Scientific Rep. 5, 8975 (2015). · DOI
  26. K. Wright, K. Beck, S. Debnath, J. Amini, Y. Nam, N. Grzesiak, J.-S. Chen, N. Pisenti, M. Chmielewski, C. Collins, et al., Benchmarking an 11-qubit quantum computer, arXiv:1903.08181 (2019). · arXiv
  27. E. T. Campbell and M. Howard, Unifying gate syn- thesis and magic state distillation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 060501 (2017). · DOI
  28. P. Selinger, Quantum circuits of T -depth one, Phys. Rev. A 87, 042302 (2013). · DOI
  29. C. Jones, Low-overhead constructions for the fault- tolerant Toffoli gate, Phys. Rev. A 87, 022328 (2013). · DOI
  30. B. J. Brown and S. Roberts, Universal fault- tolerant measurement-based quantum computation, arXiv:1811.11780 (2018). · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Litinski, D.
Affiliations
Freie Universität Berlin (DE)
Corresponding author
Litinski, Daniel
Venue
Quantum
Published
2019-12-02
Volume
3
Pages
205
ISSN
2521-327X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2945632438
Cited by
220
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 1
FWCI
6.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Quantum (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (TR 183, CRC/TR183)
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
magic state distillation, fault-tolerant quantum computing, resource costs, logical qubits, code distance, error detection, overhead reduction

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