Breaking RSA Using Shor's Algorithm
Cryptographic implications of our construction
Methodology
To minimize the spacetime volume for a given choice of and
, we consider all combinations
of level 1 and 2 surface code distances
and
used
during distillation and computation, window sizes
and
, runway
spacings
, and padding offsets
where
. Furthermore, we consider two different magic state distillation strategies: the
CCZ factory and the T factory. For each combination of parameters we
estimate the execution time t and physical qubit count s, and upper bound the overall probability
of errors occurring (to obtain the "retry risk" ).
To derive an upper bound on the overall probability of errors occurring, we separately estimate
the probabilities of topological errors occurring due to a failure of the surface code to correct errors,
of approximation errors occurring due to using oblivious carry runways and the coset representation
of modular integers, of magic state distillation errors, and of the classical post-processing algorithm
failing to recover the solution from a correct run of the quantum algorithm. We combine these
error probabilities, assuming independence, to derive an upper bound on the overall probability of
errors occurring.
We chose to optimize the quantity , which we refer to as the "skewed expected
spacetime volume". The
factor is the expected runtime, and the
factor grows slightly
faster than the space usage. We skew the space usage when optimizing because we have a slight
preference for decreasing space usage over decreasing runtime. We consider all combinations of
parameters
, choose the set that minimizes the skewed expected space-
time volume, and report the corresponding estimated costs.