Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent discoveries in asymptotically good quantum codes have intensified research on their application in quantum computation and fault-tolerant operations. This study focuses on the addressability problem within CSS codes: we ask what circuits might implement logical gates on strict subsets of logical qubits. With some notion of fault-tolerance, we prove several impossibility results: for CSS codes with non-zero rate, one cannot address a logical <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mi>H</mml:mi> </mml:math> , <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mi>H</mml:mi> <mml:mi>S</mml:mi> </mml:math> , <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mi>S</mml:mi> <mml:mi>H</mml:mi> </mml:math> , or <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"> <mml:mi mathvariant="sans-serif">C</mml:mi> <mml:mi mathvariant="sans-serif">N</mml:mi> <mml:mi mathvariant="sans-serif">O</mml:mi> <mml:mi mathvariant="sans-serif">T</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> to any non-empty strict subset of logical qubits using a circuit made only from 1-local Clifford gates.Furthermore, we show that one cannot permute the logical qubits in a code purely by permuting the physical qubits, if the rate of the code is (asymptotically) greater than 1/3 and the distance is at least 3. We can show a similar no-go result for <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"> <mml:mi mathvariant="sans-serif">C</mml:mi> <mml:mi mathvariant="sans-serif">N</mml:mi> <mml:mi mathvariant="sans-serif">O</mml:mi> <mml:mi mathvariant="sans-serif">T</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> s and <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"> <mml:mi mathvariant="sans-serif">C</mml:mi> <mml:mi mathvariant="sans-serif">Z</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> s between two such high-rate codes, albeit under a more restrictive assumption on the circuit, which we call "global" (though recent addressable CCZ gates use global circuits).This work pioneers the study of distance-preserving addressability in quantum codes, mainly by considering automorphisms of the code. This perspective offers new insights and potential directions for future research. We argue that studying this trade off between addressability and efficiency of the codes is essential to understand better how to do efficient quantum computation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".