Kitaev surface code[1][2][3]


A family of abelian topological CSS stabilizer codes whose generators are few-body \(X\)-type and \(Z\)-type Pauli strings associated to the stars and plaquettes, respectively, of a cellulation of a two-dimensional surface (with a qubit located at each edge of the cellulation). Toric code often either refers to the construction on the two-dimensional torus or is an alternative name for the general construction. The construction on surfaces with boundaries is often called the planar code [4].

The original construction can be naturally extended to arbitrary \(D\)-dimensional manifolds [5][6]. Given a cellulation, qubits are put on \(i\)-dimensional faces, \(X\)-type stabilizers are associated with \((i-1)\)-faces, while \(Z\)-type stabilizers are associated with \(i+1\)-faces. Such extensions are often called the \(D\)-dimensional surface or \(D\)-dimensional toric codes.

The stabilizers of the surface code on the 2-dimensional torus are generated by star operators \(A_v\) and plaquette operators \(B_p\). Each star operator is a product of four Pauli-\(X\) operators on the edges adjacent to a vertex \(v\) of the lattice; each plaquette operator is a product of four Pauli-\(Z\) operators applied to the edges adjacent to a face, or plaquette, \(p\) of the lattice (Figure I).

Figure I: Stabilizer generators and logical operators of the 2D surface code on a torus. The star operators \(A_v\) and the plaquette operators \(B_p\) generate the stabilizer group of the toric code. The logical operators are strings that wrap around the torus.

The two-dimensional toric code encodes two logical qubits. We denote by \(\overline{X}_i,\overline{Z}_i\) the logical Pauli-\(X\) and Pauli-\(Z\) operator of the \(i\)-th logical qubit. They can are represented by strings of Pauli-\(X\) operators or Pauli-\(Z\) operators that wrap around the torus as shown in Figure I.


Toric code on an \(L\times L\) torus is a \([[2L^2,2,L]]\) CSS code, and there exists a planar code with \([[L^2,1,L]]\) [7]. More generally, the code distance is related to the homology of the cellulation [8].

Coherent physical errors are expected to become incoherent logical errors after MWPM decoding; see corroborating numerical studies performed via the Majorana mapping [9] as well as analytical bounds [10].


Rate depends on the underlying cellulation and manifold. For general 2D manifolds, \(kd^2\leq c(\log k)^2 n\) for some constant \(c\) [11], meaning that (1) 2D surface codes with bounded geometry have distance scaling at most as \(O(\sqrt{n})\) [12][13], and (2) surface codes with finite rate can only achieve an asymptotic minimum distance that is logarithmic in \(n\). Higher-dimensional hyperbolic manifolds (see code children below) yield distances scaling more favorably. Loewner's theorem provides an upper bound for any bounded-geometry surface code [5].


For an \(L\times L\) lattice, deterministic state preparation can be done with a geometrically local unitary \(O(L)\)-depth circuit [14][15] or an \(O(\log{L})\)-depth unitary circuit with non-local two-qubit gates [16][17] (matching a lower bound in Ref. [18]).Lindbladian-based dissipative encoding for the toric code [19] that does not give a speedup relative to circuit-based encoders [20].Stabilizer measurement-based circuit of linear depth [8][21].

Transversal Gates

Transversal Pauli gates exist and are based on non-trivial loops on surface. Transversal Clifford gates can be done on folded surface codes [22].


Clifford gates can be implemented via lattice surgery [7][23][24][25], twist-based lattice surgery [26], or braiding defects [27][28][29][30]. Non-Clifford gates require magic state distillation [31], Dehn twists [32], or just-in-time decoding [33]. Non-stabilizer surface-code states can be prepared by augmenting the code with a quantum double model [34].


Maximum-likelihood (ML) [8], which takes time of order \(O(n^2)\) for independent \(X,Z\) noise [35].Minimum weight perfect-matching (MWPM) [8][36] (based on work by Edmonds on finding a matching in a graph [37][38]). Pipeline MWPM [39][40] - a modification accounting for correlations between events. A modification utilizing the continuous signal obtained in the physical implementation of the stabilizer measurement (as opposed to discretizing the signal into a syndrome bit) [41]. Correlated matching modifies MWPM to include correlations between \(X\) and \(Z\)-type errors [39]. Belief perfect matching is a combination of belief-propagation and MWPM [42].Renormalization group (RG) [43][44][45].Markov-chain Monte Carlo [46].Tensor network [35].Cellular automaton [47][48].Neural network [49][50][51][52] and reinforcement learning [53].Union-find [54]. A subsequent modification utilizes the continuous signal obtained in the physical implementation of the stabilizer measurement (as opposed to discretizing the signal into a syndrome bit) [41]. Belief union find is a combination of belief-propagation and union-find [42].Decoders can be augmented with a pre-decoder [55][56], which can allow for some processing to be done inside the cryogenic environment of the quantum system [57].Sliding-window [58][59] and parallel-window [58] parallelizable decoders can be combined with many inner decoders, such as MWPM or union-find.Generalized belief propagation (GBP) [60] based on a classical version [61].

Fault Tolerance

Transversal (non-Clifford) CCZ gate by bringing 2D surface codes together and using just-in-time decoding [33]. Gate can be simulated by taking 2D slices out of 3D surface codes [62].Homomorphic measurement protocols for arbitrary surface codes [63].Non-geometrically local connectivity can reduce overhead cost [64].Fault-tolerant post-selection framework yields magic states with low overhead [65].

Code Capacity Threshold

Independent \(X,Z\) noise: \(p_X = 10.31\%\) under MWPM decoding [66] (see also Ref. [35]), \(9.9\%\) under BP-OSD decoding [67], and \(8.9\%\) under GBP decoding [60]. The threshold under ML decoding corresponds to the value of critical point of the two-dimensional random-bond Ising model on the Nishimori line [68][8] (see also [69]), calculated to be \(10.94 \pm 0.02\%\) in Ref. [70], \(10.93(2)\%\) in Ref. [71], and estimated to be between \(10.9\%\) and \(11\%\) in Ref. [35]. Above values are for one type of noise only, and ML threshold for combined \(X\) and \(Z\) noise is \(2p_X - p_X^2 \approx 20.6\%\).Depolarizing noise: between \(17\%\) and \(18.5\%\) under tensor-network decoding [35], \(14\%\) under GBP decoding [60], \(16.5\%\) under recursive MWPM [72], and between \(15\%\) and \(16\%\) under RG [43], Markov-chain [46], or MWPM [73] decoding. The threshold under ML decoding corresponds to the value of critical point in the disordered eight-vertex Ising model, calculated to be \(18.9(3)\%\) [74] (see also APS Physics viewpoint [75]).Erasure noise: \(50\%\) for square tiling [76]. There is an inverse relationship between coordination number of the syndrome graph, with the threshold corresponding to a percolation transition [77].


\(1.8\%\) for circuit-level depolarizing noise under optimal decoder [78]. \(0.57\%\) for depolarizing noise on data and syndrome qubits as well initialization, gate, and measurement errors under MPWM decoding [29]. For this model, a logical qubit with a \(10^{-14}\) logical error rate requires between \(10^3\) to \(10^4\) physical qubits and a target gate fidelity above \(99.9\%\). Later work showed that arbitrarily large computations are possible for a physical error rate of approximately \(10^{-4}\) [79].\(0.35\%\) for circuit-level independent \(X,Z\) noise under optimal decoder [78].Phenomenological noise: \(3.3\%\) for square tiling [80].Phenomenological noise model for the 2D toric code: \(2.93(2)\%\) using several rounds of syndrome measurement [66].\(0.5-2.9\%\) for various noise models [81] (see also Refs. [66][82]).


One cycle of syndrome readout on 19-qubit planar and 24-qubit toric codes realized in two-dimensional Rydberg atomic arrays [83]. Signatures of corresponding topological phase of matter detected in superconducting circuits [84] and two-dimensional Rydberg atomic arrays [85].


Surfmap framework provides a way to stitch the surface code to various superconducting-circuit geometries by assigning each superconducting qubit to be either a physical or ancilla qubit, designing stabilizer measurement circuits, and scheduling stabilizer measurements [86].2D and 3D surface code visualization tool. Tutorials from error-correction perspective by J. Haah and condensed-matter perspective by M. Levin and C. Nayak.


  • Calderbank-Shor-Steane (CSS) stabilizer code
  • Clifford-deformed surface code (CDSC) — CDSC codes are deformations of the surface code via constant-depth Clifford circuits that may not be CSS.
  • Abelian topological code — When treated as ground states of the code Hamiltonian, the code states realize \(\mathbb{Z}_2\) topological order, a topological phase of matter that also exists in \(\mathbb{Z}_2\) lattice gauge theory [87]. Codewords correspond to ground state of the code Hamiltonian, and error operators correspond to spontaneous creation and annihilation of pairs of charges or vortices.



  • Hypergraph product code — Planar (toric) code can be obtained from hypergraph product of two repetition (cyclic) codes ([88], Ex. 6).
  • Quantum-double code — A quantum-double model with \(G=\mathbb{Z}_2\) is the surface code. Non-stabilizer surface-code states can be prepared by augmenting the code with a quantum double model [34].
  • String-net code — String-net model reduces to the surface code when the category is the group \(\mathbb{Z}_2\).
  • Majorana stabilizer code — The Majorana mapping can be used to construct efficient algorithms for simulating rounds of error correction for the surface code [9].
  • Analog surface code — The analog surface code is an oscillator-into-oscillator version of the surface code.
  • Color code — Color code is equivalent to surface code in several ways [89][90]. For example, the color code on a \(D\)-dimensional closed manifold is equivalent to multiple decoupled copies of the \(D-1\)-dimensional surface code.
  • Double-semion code — There is a logical basis for the toric and double-semion codes where each codeword is a superposition of states corresponding to all noncontractible loops of a particular homotopy type. The superposition is equal for the toric code, whereas some loops appear with a \(-1\) coefficient for the double semion.
  • Galois-qudit topological code — Surface code has been extended to Galois qudits.
  • Haah cubic code — The energy of any partial implementation of code 1 is proportional to the boundary length similar to the 4D toric code, which can potentially surpress the effects of thermal errors, but it is currently an open problem.
  • Heavy-hexagon code — Surface code stabilizers are used to measure the Z-type stabilizers of the code.
  • Honeycomb Floquet code — Measurement of each check operator of the honeycomb Floquet code involves two qubits and projects the state of the two qubits to a two-dimensional subspace, which we regard as an effective qubit. These effective qubits form a surface code on a hexagonal superlattice. Electric and magnetic operators on the embedded surface code correspond to outer logical operators of the Floquet code. In fact, outer logical operators transition back and forth from magnetic to electric surface code operators under the measurement dynamics. Inspired by this code, stabilizer measurement circuits consisting of two-body measurements have been designed for the surface code [91][92].
  • Lifted-product (LP) code — A lifted product code for the ring \(R=\mathbb{F}_2[x,y]/(x^L-1,y^L-1)\) is the toric code.
  • Modular-qudit surface code — The qudit surface code with \(q=2\) is the surface code.
  • Raussendorf-Bravyi-Harrington (RBH) code — Without symmetry protection, one of 2D boundaries of the cubic RBH code is effectively a 2D toric code.
  • Subsystem surface code
  • Translationally invariant stabilizer code — Translation-invariant 2D qubit topological stabilizer codes are equivalent to several copies of the Kitaev surface code via a local constant-depth Clifford circuit [93][94][95].


A. Y. Kitaev, “Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction”, Russian Mathematical Surveys 52, 1191 (1997). DOI
A. Y. Kitaev, “Quantum Error Correction with Imperfect Gates”, Quantum Communication, Computing, and Measurement 181 (1997). DOI
A. Y. Kitaev, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons”, Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003). DOI; quant-ph/9707021
S. B. Bravyi and A. Yu. Kitaev, “Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary”. quant-ph/9811052
“Z2-systolic freedom and quantum codes”, Mathematics of Quantum Computation 303 (2002). DOI
G. Zémor, “On Cayley Graphs, Surface Codes, and the Limits of Homological Coding for Quantum Error Correction”, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 259 (2009). DOI
C. Horsman et al., “Surface code quantum computing by lattice surgery”, New Journal of Physics 14, 123011 (2012). DOI; 1111.4022
E. Dennis et al., “Topological quantum memory”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 43, 4452 (2002). DOI; quant-ph/0110143
S. Bravyi et al., “Correcting coherent errors with surface codes”, npj Quantum Information 4, (2018). DOI; 1710.02270
J. K. Iverson and J. Preskill, “Coherence in logical quantum channels”, New Journal of Physics 22, 073066 (2020). DOI; 1912.04319
N. Delfosse, “Tradeoffs for reliable quantum information storage in surface codes and color codes”, 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (2013). DOI; 1301.6588
S. Bravyi, D. Poulin, and B. Terhal, “Tradeoffs for Reliable Quantum Information Storage in 2D Systems”, Physical Review Letters 104, (2010). DOI; 0909.5200
E. Fetaya, “Bounding the distance of quantum surface codes”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 53, 062202 (2012). DOI
O. Higgott et al., “Optimal local unitary encoding circuits for the surface code”, Quantum 5, 517 (2021). DOI; 2002.00362
Y.-J. Liu et al., “Methods for Simulating String-Net States and Anyons on a Digital Quantum Computer”, PRX Quantum 3, (2022). DOI; 2110.02020
M. Aguado and G. Vidal, “Entanglement Renormalization and Topological Order”, Physical Review Letters 100, (2008). DOI; 0712.0348
J. Joo et al., “Generating and verifying graph states for fault-tolerant topological measurement-based quantum computing in two-dimensional optical lattices”, Physical Review A 88, (2013). DOI; 1207.0253
Dorit Aharonov and Yonathan Touati, “Quantum Circuit Depth Lower Bounds For Homological Codes”. 1810.03912
J. Dengis, R. König, and F. Pastawski, “An optimal dissipative encoder for the toric code”, New Journal of Physics 16, 013023 (2014). DOI; 1310.1036
R. König and F. Pastawski, “Generating topological order: No speedup by dissipation”, Physical Review B 90, (2014). DOI; 1310.1037
J. Łodyga et al., “Simple scheme for encoding and decoding a qubit in unknown state for various topological codes”, Scientific Reports 5, (2015). DOI; 1404.2495
J. E. Moussa, “Transversal Clifford gates on folded surface codes”, Physical Review A 94, (2016). DOI; 1603.02286
D. Litinski and F. von . Oppen, “Lattice Surgery with a Twist: Simplifying Clifford Gates of Surface Codes”, Quantum 2, 62 (2018). DOI; 1709.02318
D. Litinski, “A Game of Surface Codes: Large-Scale Quantum Computing with Lattice Surgery”, Quantum 3, 128 (2019). DOI; 1808.02892
C. Chamberland and E. T. Campbell, “Universal Quantum Computing with Twist-Free and Temporally Encoded Lattice Surgery”, PRX Quantum 3, (2022). DOI; 2109.02746
C. Chamberland and E. T. Campbell, “Circuit-level protocol and analysis for twist-based lattice surgery”, Physical Review Research 4, (2022). DOI; 2201.05678
R. Raussendorf and J. Harrington, “Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation with High Threshold in Two Dimensions”, Physical Review Letters 98, (2007). DOI; quant-ph/0610082
R. Raussendorf, J. Harrington, and K. Goyal, “Topological fault-tolerance in cluster state quantum computation”, New Journal of Physics 9, 199 (2007). DOI; quant-ph/0703143
A. G. Fowler et al., “Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation”, Physical Review A 86, (2012). DOI; 1208.0928
B. J. Brown et al., “Poking Holes and Cutting Corners to Achieve Clifford Gates with the Surface Code”, Physical Review X 7, (2017). DOI; 1609.04673
D. Litinski, “Magic State Distillation: Not as Costly as You Think”, Quantum 3, 205 (2019). DOI; 1905.06903
G. Zhu, A. Lavasani, and M. Barkeshli, “Instantaneous braids and Dehn twists in topologically ordered states”, Physical Review B 102, (2020). DOI; 1806.06078
B. J. Brown, “A fault-tolerant non-Clifford gate for the surface code in two dimensions”, Science Advances 6, (2020). DOI; 1903.11634
K. Laubscher, D. Loss, and J. R. Wootton, “Universal quantum computation in the surface code using non-Abelian islands”, Physical Review A 100, (2019). DOI; 1811.06738
S. Bravyi, M. Suchara, and A. Vargo, “Efficient algorithms for maximum likelihood decoding in the surface code”, Physical Review A 90, (2014). DOI; 1405.4883
Austin G. Fowler, “Minimum weight perfect matching of fault-tolerant topological quantum error correction in average $O(1)$ parallel time”. 1307.1740
J. Edmonds, “Paths, Trees, and Flowers”, Canadian Journal of Mathematics 17, 449 (1965). DOI
J. Edmonds, “Maximum matching and a polyhedron with 0,1-vertices”, Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards Section B Mathematics and Mathematical Physics 69B, 125 (1965). DOI
Austin G. Fowler, “Optimal complexity correction of correlated errors in the surface code”. 1310.0863
Alexandru Paler and Austin G. Fowler, “Pipelined correlated minimum weight perfect matching of the surface code”. 2205.09828
Christopher A. Pattison et al., “Improved quantum error correction using soft information”. 2107.13589
Oscar Higgott et al., “Fragile boundaries of tailored surface codes and improved decoding of circuit-level noise”. 2203.04948
G. Duclos-Cianci and D. Poulin, “Fast Decoders for Topological Quantum Codes”, Physical Review Letters 104, (2010). DOI; 0911.0581
Guillaume Duclos-Cianci and David Poulin, “Fault-Tolerant Renormalization Group Decoder for Abelian Topological Codes”. 1304.6100
F. H. E. Watson, H. Anwar, and D. E. Browne, “Fast fault-tolerant decoder for qubit and qudit surface codes”, Physical Review A 92, (2015). DOI; 1411.3028
A. Hutter, J. R. Wootton, and D. Loss, “Efficient Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm for the surface code”, Physical Review A 89, (2014). DOI; 1302.2669
J. W. Harrington, Analysis of Quantum Error-correcting Codes: Symplectic Lattice Codes and Toric Codes, California Institute of Technology, 2004. DOI
M. Herold et al., “Cellular automaton decoders of topological quantum memories in the fault tolerant setting”, New Journal of Physics 19, 063012 (2017). DOI; 1511.05579
G. Torlai and R. G. Melko, “Neural Decoder for Topological Codes”, Physical Review Letters 119, (2017). DOI; 1610.04238
C. Chamberland and P. Ronagh, “Deep neural decoders for near term fault-tolerant experiments”, Quantum Science and Technology 3, 044002 (2018). DOI; 1802.06441
R. Sweke et al., “Reinforcement learning decoders for fault-tolerant quantum computation”, Machine Learning: Science and Technology 2, 025005 (2020). DOI; 1810.07207
Yosuke Ueno et al., “NEO-QEC: Neural Network Enhanced Online Superconducting Decoder for Surface Codes”. 2208.05758
Elisha Siddiqui Matekole et al., “Decoding surface codes with deep reinforcement learning and probabilistic policy reuse”. 2212.11890
N. Delfosse and N. H. Nickerson, “Almost-linear time decoding algorithm for topological codes”, Quantum 5, 595 (2021). DOI; 1709.06218
Nicolas Delfosse, “Hierarchical decoding to reduce hardware requirements for quantum computing”. 2001.11427
Samuel C. Smith, Benjamin J. Brown, and Stephen D. Bartlett, “A local pre-decoder to reduce the bandwidth and latency of quantum error correction”. 2208.04660
Gokul Subramanian Ravi et al., “Better Than Worst-Case Decoding for Quantum Error Correction”. 2208.08547
Xinyu Tan et al., “Scalable surface code decoders with parallelization in time”. 2209.09219
Luka Skoric et al., “Parallel window decoding enables scalable fault tolerant quantum computation”. 2209.08552
Josias Old and Manuel Rispler, “Generalized Belief Propagation Algorithms for Decoding of Surface Codes”. 2212.03214
J. S. Yedidia, W. T. Freeman, and Y. Weiss, Generalized belief propagation, in NIPS, Vol. 13 (2000) pp. 689–695.
T. R. Scruby et al., “Numerical Implementation of Just-In-Time Decoding in Novel Lattice Slices Through the Three-Dimensional Surface Code”, Quantum 6, 721 (2022). DOI; 2012.08536
Shilin Huang, Tomas Jochym-O'Connor, and Theodore J. Yoder, “Homomorphic Logical Measurements”. 2211.03625
Daniel Litinski and Naomi Nickerson, “Active volume: An architecture for efficient fault-tolerant quantum computers with limited non-local connections”. 2211.15465
Héctor Bombín et al., “Fault-tolerant Post-Selection for Low Overhead Magic State Preparation”. 2212.00813
C. Wang, J. Harrington, and J. Preskill, “Confinement-Higgs transition in a disordered gauge theory and the accuracy threshold for quantum memory”, Annals of Physics 303, 31 (2003). DOI; quant-ph/0207088
J. Roffe et al., “Decoding across the quantum low-density parity-check code landscape”, Physical Review Research 2, (2020). DOI; 2005.07016
H. Nishimori, “Geometry-Induced Phase Transition in the ±<i>J</i>Ising Model”, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 55, 3305 (1986). DOI
Ruihua Fan et al., “Diagnostics of mixed-state topological order and breakdown of quantum memory”. 2301.05689
A. Honecker, M. Picco, and P. Pujol, “Universality Class of the Nishimori Point in the 2D<mml:math xmlns:mml="" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">J</mml:mi></mml:math>Random-Bond Ising Model”, Physical Review Letters 87, (2001). DOI; cond-mat/0010143
F. Merz and J. T. Chalker, “Two-dimensional random-bond Ising model, free fermions, and the network model”, Physical Review B 65, (2002). DOI; cond-mat/0106023
Antonio deMarti iOlius et al., “Performance enhancement of surface codes via recursive MWPM decoding”. 2212.11632
D. S. Wang et al., “Threshold error rates for the toric and surface codes”. 0905.0531
H. Bombin et al., “Strong Resilience of Topological Codes to Depolarization”, Physical Review X 2, (2012). DOI; 1202.1852
D. Gottesman, “Keeping One Step Ahead of Errors”, Physics 5, (2012). DOI
T. M. Stace, S. D. Barrett, and A. C. Doherty, “Thresholds for Topological Codes in the Presence of Loss”, Physical Review Letters 102, (2009). DOI; 0904.3556
Naomi Nickerson and Héctor Bombín, “Measurement based fault tolerance beyond foliation”. 1810.09621
Bettina Heim, Krysta M. Svore, and Matthew B. Hastings, “Optimal Circuit-Level Decoding for Surface Codes”. 1609.06373
A. G. Fowler, “Proof of Finite Surface Code Threshold for Matching”, Physical Review Letters 109, (2012). DOI; 1206.0800
T. Ohno et al., “Phase structure of the random-plaquette gauge model: accuracy threshold for a toric quantum memory”, Nuclear Physics B 697, 462 (2004). DOI; quant-ph/0401101
M. Ohzeki, “Locations of multicritical points for spin glasses on regular lattices”, Physical Review E 79, (2009). DOI; 0811.0464
A. M. Stephens, “Fault-tolerant thresholds for quantum error correction with the surface code”, Physical Review A 89, (2014). DOI; 1311.5003
D. Bluvstein et al., “A quantum processor based on coherent transport of entangled atom arrays”, Nature 604, 451 (2022). DOI; 2112.03923
K. J. Satzinger et al., “Realizing topologically ordered states on a quantum processor”, Science 374, 1237 (2021). DOI; 2104.01180
G. Semeghini et al., “Probing topological spin liquids on a programmable quantum simulator”, Science 374, 1242 (2021). DOI; 2104.04119
Anbang Wu et al., “Mapping Surface Code to Superconducting Quantum Processors”. 2111.13729
F. J. Wegner, “Duality in Generalized Ising Models and Phase Transitions without Local Order Parameters”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 12, 2259 (1971). DOI
A. A. Kovalev and L. P. Pryadko, “Improved quantum hypergraph-product LDPC codes”, 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory Proceedings (2012). DOI; 1202.0928
A. Kubica, B. Yoshida, and F. Pastawski, “Unfolding the color code”, New Journal of Physics 17, 083026 (2015). DOI; 1503.02065
Arun B. Aloshious, Arjun Nitin Bhagoji, and Pradeep Kiran Sarvepalli, “On the Local Equivalence of 2D Color Codes and Surface Codes with Applications”. 1804.00866
R. Chao et al., “Optimization of the surface code design for Majorana-based qubits”, Quantum 4, 352 (2020). DOI; 2007.00307
Craig Gidney, “A Pair Measurement Surface Code on Pentagons”. 2206.12780
H. Bombin, G. Duclos-Cianci, and D. Poulin, “Universal topological phase of two-dimensional stabilizer codes”, New Journal of Physics 14, 073048 (2012). DOI; 1103.4606
H. Bombín, “Structure of 2D Topological Stabilizer Codes”, Communications in Mathematical Physics 327, 387 (2014). DOI; 1107.2707
J. Haah, “Algebraic Methods for Quantum Codes on Lattices”, Revista Colombiana de Matemáticas 50, 299 (2017). DOI; 1607.01387
Page edit log

Zoo code information

Internal code ID: surface

Your contribution is welcome!

on (edit & pull request)

edit on this site

Zoo Code ID: surface

Cite as:
“Kitaev surface code”, The Error Correction Zoo (V. V. Albert & P. Faist, eds.), 2023.
@incollection{eczoo_surface, title={Kitaev surface code}, booktitle={The Error Correction Zoo}, year={2023}, editor={Albert, Victor V. and Faist, Philippe}, url={} }
Share via:
Twitter |  | E-mail
Permanent link:

Cite as:

“Kitaev surface code”, The Error Correction Zoo (V. V. Albert & P. Faist, eds.), 2023.