Threshold Accuracy for Quantum Computation
Open accessAbstract
We have previously (quant-ph/9608012) shown that for quantum memories and quantum communication, a state can be transmitted over arbitrary distances with error $ε$ provided each gate has error at most $cε$. We discuss a similar concatenation technique which can be used with fault tolerant networks to achieve any desired accuracy when computing with classical initial states, provided a minimum gate accuracy can be achieved. The technique works under realistic assumptions on operational errors. These assumptions are more general than the stochastic error heuristic used in other work. Methods are proposed to account for leakage errors, a problem not previously recognized.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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 threshold theorem guarantees the existence of a physical error rate below which any arbitrarily long quantum computation can be performed reliably by scaling up the number of qubits.
“Informally, this cornerstone theorem guarantees the existence of a physical error rate below which any arbitrarily long quantum computation can be performed reliably by scaling up the number of qubits of the quantum computer.”
From Quantum error correction and fault tolerance: A comprehensive tutorial (2026) · cites this paper as [24]
The theorem statement (p. 1) gives a threshold below which imperfect operations can achieve any desired accuracy, with polylogarithmic overhead; the discussion on p. 15 includes an overhead in qubits. But the paper defines the covered algorithms as starting from classical initial states and excludes unencoded unknown input states (pp. 1–2). It also requires assumptions about how errors behave (p. 2), so the claim's unqualified ‘any’ quantum computation is broader than the result. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFor any Jn, k, dK qubit error-correcting code, the quantum Singleton bound is n − k ≥ 2(d − 1).
“For any Jn, k, dK qubit error-correcting code, the quantum Singleton bound is given by the inequality: n− k ≥ 2(d− 1) . (10.4)”
From Quantum error correction and fault tolerance: A comprehensive tutorial (2026) · cites this paper as [24]
The discussion of code constructions and minimum distance (p. 10) gives examples of classical codes, but does not state a bound for every [[n,k,d]] qubit code. Searches for “Singleton” and the inequality n−k ≥ 2(d−1) found no passage in our copy establishing the claimed bound. (LLM, conf=0.70)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe quantum Singleton bound establishes a different kind of limit on the parameters of a quantum error-correcting code.
“The quantum Singleton bound establishes a different kind of limit on the parameters of a quantum error-correcting code [24, 78, 219].”
From Quantum error correction and fault tolerance: A comprehensive tutorial (2026) · cites this paper as [24]
The Introduction (p. 1) and Section 3 (p. 7) discuss error-correcting codes in the context of fault-tolerant computation, but neither states a Singleton bound on code parameters. Searches for “Singleton” and for a bound relating code length, encoded qubits, and distance found no passage addressing the claimed limit. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons
Kitaev, A. Y. (2003) · Annals of Physics · doi:10.1016/s0003-4916(02)00018-0 · Cited by 7,238 · see citing works
Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction
Kitaev, A. Y. (1997) · Russian Mathematical Surveys · doi:10.1070/rm1997v052n06abeh002155 · Cited by 1,424 · see citing works
Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error
Aharonov, D., & Ben-Or, M. (1997) · Proceedings of the twenty-ninth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing - STOC '97 · doi:10.1145/258533.258579 · Cited by 631 · see citing works
A Survey on Quantum Channel Capacities
Gyongyosi, L., Imre, S., & Nguyen, H. V. (2018) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2017.2786748 · Cited by 337 · see citing works
Bonilla Ataides, J. P., Tuckett, D. K., Bartlett, S. D., Flammia, S. T., & Brown, B. J. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-22274-1 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Gauge color codes: optimal transversal gates and gauge fixing in topological stabilizer codes
Bombín, H. (2015) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/17/8/083002 · Cited by 217 · see citing works
Alicki, R., Lidar, D. A., & Zanardi, P. (2006) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.73.052311 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Fault-Tolerant Operation of a Quantum Error-Correction Code
Egan, L., Debroy, D. M., Noel, C., Risinger, A., Zhu, D., Biswas, D., Newman, M., Li, M., Brown, K. R., Cetina, M., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.11482 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Anticoncentration theorems for schemes showing a quantum speedup
Hangleiter, D., Bermejo-Vega, J., Schwarz, M., & Eisert, J. (2018) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2018-05-22-65 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Decoherence of up to 8-qubit entangled states in a 16-qubit superconducting quantum processor
Ozaeta, A., & McMahon, P. L. (2019) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab13e5 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Magic state cultivation: growing T states as cheap as CNOT gates
Gidney, C., Shutty, N., & Jones, C. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.17595 · Cited by 9
“We refine ideas from [KLZ96; JBH16; CN20; Bom+24; GJ23; Gid+23; HIF24] to efficiently prepare good | T ⟩ states.”
MethodQuantum error correction and fault tolerance: A comprehensive tutorial
Spencer, D. J., Jain, S. P., Tanggara, A., Sun, Z., Haug, T., Khu, D., & Bharti, K. (2026) · arXiv
Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons
Kitaev, A. Y. (1997) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/9707021
- Authors
- Knill, E., Laflamme, R., & Zurek, W.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 1996
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- quant-ph/9610011
- OpenAlex
- W1533024485
- Cited by
- 99
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (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
- fault-tolerant quantum computing, concatenated quantum codes, fault-tolerant networks, leakage error, quantum memory, quantum communication
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
