Imagine you're untangling a string of holiday lights. Each bulb you check either works or doesn't, and when you find a dead one, you snip it out and reconnect the neighbors. If the string is designed well — no tangles, clear paths — you can walk the whole string once, end to end, removing dead bulbs as you go. That's essentially what the classical Peeling decoder does for erasure codes on expander graphs: walk the structure, peel off known bad locations, done in time proportional to the length of the string. The problem is that quantum codes have TWO tangled strings at once — X and Z stabilizers — and pulling on one can yank the other. Until now, nobody had proven you could peel both simultaneously in linear time. The committed claim: Small-Set-Peeling is the first erasure decoder for quantum expander codes that is provably guaranteed to correct up to D-1 erasures in O(n) time, where n is the code length and D is the code distance. This is not an asymptotic improvement on an existing quantum decoder — it is the first decoder for this code family with a linear-time guarantee at all. The classical Peeling decoder for expander codes (Sipser-Spielman style) is the obvious baseline. It runs in linear time and corrects up to a constant fraction of erasures. The quantum challenge is that the Tillich-Zémor quantum expander codes (2013) and their descendants (Leverrier-Tillich-Zémor, FOCS 2015) have a hypergraph product structure that couples X and Z checks. Previous decoders for these codes either ran in polynomial (but super-linear) time or lacked the D-1 guarantee. This paper explicitly closes that gap. The result also chains with Small-Set-Find (Krishna-Livni-Navon-Wootters, SODA 2024), which converts Pauli errors into erasures, yielding a novel graph-local linear-time Pauli error decoder — a two-for-one. Architecturally, this lives in the LDPC / expander-graph / combinatorial decoding family — no optimization, no variational loops, no neural networks. The key structural property exploited is the expansion of the underlying Tanner graph: small sets of erased qubits have large unique neighborhoods in the check structure, so each peeling step always finds a check that pins down at least one erased qubit. The quantum generalization must handle the fact that X and Z stabilizers share support, so the algorithm tracks 'small sets' on both sides and peels them in concert. The compute property is pure graph-local combinatorial manipulation — no matrix inversions, no iterative convergence. Integrity here is mathematical, not experimental. The result is a theorem with a proof: the decoder terminates in O(n) steps and corrects up to D-1 erasures for any quantum expander code meeting the stated expansion conditions. There is no simulation cherry-picking risk because this is not a benchmarking paper — it is a worst-case guarantee. The relevant integrity question is whether the proof is correct, and the building blocks (classical Peeling, Small-Set-Find) are published and peer-reviewed. The code distance D itself is a design parameter of the code family, not something tuned post-hoc. The milestone to watch is not qubit count but decoder overhead in a full fault-tolerance stack. Current surface-code decoders (Union-Find, MWPM) run in near-linear time but apply to surface codes with O(√n) distance. Quantum expander codes offer O(n) distance at fixed rate — far better asymptotic parameters — but practical deployment requires fast decoders and good thresholds under circuit-level noise. This paper removes the decoder-speed objection for the erasure channel. The next concrete milestone is a comparable linear-time guarantee under depolarizing (not just erasure) noise with a demonstrated threshold competitive with surface codes — likely requiring a combination of this decoder with soft-information techniques. The obvious experiment not run: numerical threshold simulations under realistic circuit-level noise. The paper is a pure algorithmic/proof contribution, so Monte Carlo threshold estimates would have been a different paper. The honest read is (a) and (c): threshold simulations require significant engineering and compute infrastructure, and the authors' contribution is the theoretical guarantee. Expect a follow-up or a collaborating group to run these simulations within 1-2 years.
