pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00026 · v3 · pith:ASXYLFYLnew · submitted 2026-04-22 · 🧬 q-bio.NC · quant-ph

The γ_c-Peak: Covariant Recovery on Four Organic Qubit Platforms

Hikaru Wakaura , Taiki Tanimae This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 17:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.NC quant-ph
keywords Petz recoveryquantum error correctionorganic qubitsfidelity gainentanglement-breaking thresholdcovariant recoverygamma_c peakradical-pair platforms
0
0 comments X

The pith

The fidelity gain from Petz recovery in covariant quantum error correction reaches its maximum exactly at the entanglement-breaking threshold on organic qubit platforms.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper benchmarks a Petz-style covariant-purification quantum error correction protocol across four organic qubit platforms that run without magnetic fields. Simulations show that the fidelity improvement peaks precisely at the entanglement-breaking noise threshold gamma_c. The peak reaches +0.303 at dimension 64 and scales linearly with log base 2 of dimension from 2 to 64. This result confirms that the recovery map protects coherence past the threshold where entanglement breaks. The gains appear across five quantum algorithms and two machine-learning tasks with high statistical significance, pointing to practical utility on low-cost organic hardware.

Core claim

The central finding is the gamma_c-peak: the fidelity gain Delta F is maximised at the entanglement-breaking threshold gamma_c, with Delta F_max = +0.303 at d=64 and a linear log2 d scaling over d=2-64, algorithmically confirming the prediction that Petz recovery preserves coherence beyond this threshold. Across five quantum algorithms and two ML tasks on platforms P1-P4, CQEC gains are significant for all sixteen path-by-algorithm pairs. Bernstein-Vazirani yields a 7.6-31 times provable quantum advantage at n=3-5, diarylethene-photoswitch CZ fidelities reach at least 0.987 for P2-P4, and projected manufacturing costs are 10-40 times lower with 10-200 times less operating power than on super

What carries the argument

The Petz recovery map applied within a covariant-purification quantum error correction (CQEC) protocol, which produces the gamma_c-peak where fidelity gain is largest at the entanglement-breaking noise threshold.

If this is right

  • CQEC delivers statistically significant fidelity gains for all tested quantum algorithms including QKAN, qDRIFT, control-free QPE, Shor-Regev, and Bernstein-Vazirani.
  • Bernstein-Vazirani achieves a provable 7.6 to 31 times quantum advantage at n=3 to 5.
  • Diarylethene-photoswitch CZ gates attain fidelities of at least 0.987 on platforms P2 through P4.
  • Projected manufacturing costs fall by a factor of 10-40 and operating power by 10-200 compared with superconducting platforms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Confirmation on real hardware would open quantum error correction to organic materials that avoid cryogenic cooling or strong magnets.
  • The observed linear log scaling implies that larger system sizes could yield proportionally larger benefits on these platforms.
  • Experimental priority on the PTM-COF platform would provide the fastest test of whether the gamma_c-peak appears in physical devices.

Load-bearing premise

The open-source organic-qc-bench package and its noise models accurately capture the physical dissipation and coherence properties of the four real organic platforms when operated without magnetic fields.

What would settle it

Experimental execution of the CQEC protocol on the perchlorotriphenylmethyl radical platform P2, checking whether the measured fidelity gain reaches its maximum exactly at the predicted gamma_c value.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00026 by Hikaru Wakaura, Taiki Tanimae.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: fig_P1_schematic.pdf — Path 1 (engineered flavin–nitroxide radical-pair quantum reservoir, RT): (a) 3-layer device with LED excitation, flavin–TEMPO radical-pair ensemble in 13C-glycerol, and RF coil for nuclear-spin memory; (b) radical-pair reaction-yield dynamics (photo-excitation → radical pair → hyperfine-mediated singlet– triplet mixing → spin-selective recombination). The reservoir-computing pipeline… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Quantum circuits for Paths 1–4 drawn with quantikz [13]. Panel (A) is a process-flow abstraction of the continuous Lindblad reservoir dynamics (not a gate-model circuit): the state iterates nres times through U(Hres) followed by the organic noise channel Norg = Eδ◦Dγ (nres = 4 in our simulations; two iterations shown explicitly), then feature extraction feeds a ridge/SVM readout. Panels (B)–(D) are genuine… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The γc-peak. Fidelity (a) and CQEC gain ∆F = Fcqec − Fnoisy (b) as a function of effective dephasing γ for four algorithms, error bars = 95% CI. The dotted line at γc = 0.3 marks the entanglement-breaking threshold; ∆F peaks at γ ≃ γc for every algorithm — the universal γc-peak — with the largest gain on Shor–Regev (d = 64, ∆F = +0.303 at γ = 0.5). Data and code: organic-qc-bench, file organic_benchmarks_e… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Scaling of the γc-peak. The CQEC gain peak converges to the entanglement-breaking threshold γc = 0.3 as the state dimension d grows, and its magnitude scales linearly with log2 d. (a) Peak location γpeak for d ∈ {2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64} on random pure states (ntrials = 10 for d ≤ 16, 4 for d ≥ 32) and on structured algorithm states (QKAN, qDRIFT, QPE, Shor–Regev). γpeak approaches γc from above for random sta… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Path 3 (κ-(BEDT-TTF) SVILC) is essen￾tially noise-free at F = 0.9999 across all algorithms. Algorithm-level fidelity for the four realisation paths, be￾fore (a) and after (b) CQEC; each cell is the mean of 10 trials. P1 (reservoir) shows the largest CQEC gain. Data: organic_benchmarks_extended.json, field algorithm_benchmarks_all_paths. Classical Ideal QM P1 noisy P1 CQEC P2 noisy P2 CQEC P3 noisy P3 CQEC … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Noise-driven reservoir slightly outperforms the noiseless-quantum baseline on MNIST. 5-fold stratified cross-validated accuracy on the 1797-sample sklearn digits set; error bars are 95% CIs over the five folds. Noisy {P1,P2,P3,P4} reach 0.974±0.008 vs ideal￾quantum 0.973±0.009, consistent with the 3-layer hy￾pothesis. Data: mnist_full field. 4.6 Shor/Regev scaling ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: An external feed current amplifies the two-SVQ coupling by 1.9×103 on the κ-(BEDT-TTF) lat￾tice, validating SVILC physics in the organic-superconductor geometry. (a) Two-SVQ coupling VαΥ [Eq. (15)] vs inter-SVQ separation on the anisotropic triangular lattice (t ′/t = 0.8); coupling decays to ∼ 10−2 at r = 10a, agreeing qualitatively with Ref. [1] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: All four organic paths achieve photo￾switch CZ fidelity above 0.87, with P3 reaching 0.993. CZ-gate fidelity vs gate time tgate for the diarylethene photoswitch coupler [20]. The integral R J(t) dt= 0.25 (GHz·ns) is satisfied at t≃5.8 ns [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: fig8_bv.pdf — Bernstein–Vazirani success rate (100 trials per point, Wilson 95% CIs). The dot￾ted black curve is the single-query classical bound 2 −n. Paths 2–4 with CQEC recover the hidden bit-string with probability ≥ 0.95 at n = 5 — a 31× advan￾tage over classical. Path 1 (reservoir) retains a 22× advantage even at its much higher operating γ. Data: results/bernstein_vazirani_bench.json. 4.10 Hybrid v… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: fig9_hs.pdf — (a) CQEC gain ∆F per (algorithm, path) pair with up to n= 100 trials. (b) − log10 of the one-sided paired Wilcoxon p-value. Bonferroni-corrected threshold (− log10 p > 2.94) is passed by all 16 tests. Data: results/high_stats_flagship.json [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: fig10_hybrid_v2.pdf — The multi-copy SWAP bridge (v2) of Sec. III.H reduces the hybrid pipeline’s angular MSE from ∼ 3.0 (v1 with diagonal projection) to 0.02–0.44 across input noise levels. While v2 still does not beat Path 2 alone on this linear task, it is now within a factor of ∼10 of classical/Path 2 for σ ≤ 1.2 — an honest improvement rather than a total failure. clean light_noise medium_noise heavy… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Path 1 reservoir marginally beats clas￾sical on clean MNIST (0.9844 vs 0.9839); clas￾sical dominates at high corruption. 5-fold CV accuracy vs corruption level (salt-and-pepper density psp, Gaussian σadd). At medium noise Path 2 (QPE block) edges classical; the current hybrid bridge is destructive at high noise (see Sec. 6). Data: hybrid_nonlinear_denoising.json [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Petz recovery map (1986) provably reverses a noisy quantum channel on a reference state, but its algorithmic relevance to real, dissipation-dominated platforms has remained unclear. Using the open-source \texttt{organic-qc-bench} simulation package, we benchmark a Petz-style covariant-purification quantum error correction (CQEC) protocol across four engineered organic qubit platforms operated \emph{without any magnetic field}: a flavin-nitroxide radical-pair reservoir (P1); perchlorotriphenylmethyl radicals in a covalent organic framework (P2); the SVILC qubit [Wakaura2017] on $\kappa$-(BEDT-TTF)$_2$Cu[N(CN)$_2$]Br (P3, conditional on SVILC confirmation); and a Su-Schrieffer-Heeger soliton on \emph{trans}-polyacetylene (P4). Across five quantum algorithms (QKAN, qDRIFT, control-free QPE, Shor-Regev, Bernstein-Vazirani) and two ML tasks, CQEC gains are significant ($p\!<\!10^{-5}$; Wilcoxon, Bonferroni $\alpha\!=\!0.05/44$) for all sixteen path$\times$algorithm pairs. The central finding is the \emph{$\gamma_c$-peak}: the fidelity gain $\Delta F$ is maximised \emph{at} the entanglement-breaking threshold $\gamma_c$, with $\Delta F_{\rm max}\!=\!+0.303$ at $d\!=\!64$ and a linear $\log_2 d$ scaling over $d=2$-$64$ -- algorithmically confirming the prediction [Wakaura2026LQBH] that Petz recovery preserves coherence beyond this threshold. Bernstein-Vazirani also yields a $7.6$-$31\times$ provable quantum advantage at $n\!=\!3$-$5$, diarylethene-photoswitch CZ fidelities reach $F_{CZ}\!\ge\!0.987$ for P2-P4, and projected manufacturing costs are 10-40$\times$ lower with 10-200$\times$ less operating power than superconducting platforms. The $\gamma_c$-peak establishes Petz-style recovery as a practically relevant primitive at the dissipation-coherence boundary and identifies PTM-COF (P2) as the highest-priority experimental target.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses the open-source organic-qc-bench simulation package to benchmark a Petz-style covariant-purification quantum error correction (CQEC) protocol on four simulated organic qubit platforms (P1: flavin-nitroxide radical pair; P2: PTM-COF; P3: SVILC on κ-(BEDT-TTF)₂Cu[N(CN)₂]Br, conditional on confirmation; P4: SSH soliton on trans-polyacetylene) operated without magnetic fields. Across five quantum algorithms and two ML tasks, it reports statistically significant fidelity gains (p < 10^{-5}, Wilcoxon with Bonferroni correction) for all 16 path-algorithm pairs. The central result is the γ_c-peak: fidelity gain ΔF is maximized exactly at the entanglement-breaking threshold γ_c, reaching ΔF_max = +0.303 at d=64 with linear log₂d scaling from d=2 to 64, algorithmically confirming the prediction in [Wakaura2026LQBH]. Additional results include 7.6–31× quantum advantage for Bernstein-Vazirani at n=3–5, CZ fidelities ≥0.987 on P2–P4, and projected 10–40× lower manufacturing costs with 10–200× less power than superconducting platforms.

Significance. If the underlying noise models prove accurate, the γ_c-peak would supply a concrete, numerically verified operating point at which Petz-style recovery becomes practically useful for coherence preservation on dissipation-dominated organic hardware. The open-source release of organic-qc-bench is a clear strength that enables direct reproduction of the reported numerical experiments. The work also usefully flags PTM-COF (P2) as a high-priority experimental target and supplies concrete cost/power projections that could guide hardware development.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results: the headline numerical claims (p < 10^{-5} significance, ΔF_max = +0.303 at d=64, linear log₂d scaling) are presented without error bars, full dataset exclusion criteria, or raw simulation outputs from organic-qc-bench. This omission directly affects assessment of the robustness of the γ_c-peak and the cross-algorithm consistency.
  2. [Methods] Methods: the noise models for platforms P1–P4 are not anchored by any reported calibration to published experimental T₁/T₂ values, dissipation rates, or measured entanglement-breaking thresholds for the cited physical systems. Because the central claim is that the γ_c-peak is relevant to real organic platforms operated without magnetic fields, the absence of such validation is load-bearing.
  3. [Results] Results: the reported linear log₂d scaling and the assertion that Petz recovery 'preserves coherence beyond this threshold' are obtained entirely from runs of the organic-qc-bench package; no sensitivity analysis with respect to the free parameter γ_c or alternative noise models is supplied to test whether the peak location and height are robust.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the parenthetical qualifier 'conditional on SVILC confirmation' for platform P3 should be expanded with a brief statement of what confirmation would entail and how the results would change if the assumption fails.
  2. [References] References: repeated self-citations to Wakaura2017 and Wakaura2026LQBH are used to ground the coherence-preservation claim; the manuscript should explicitly separate the new numerical evidence from quantities already defined in those works.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each comment and made revisions to enhance the clarity, robustness, and validation of our results. Our point-by-point responses are provided below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and Results: the headline numerical claims (p < 10^{-5} significance, ΔF_max = +0.303 at d=64, linear log₂d scaling) are presented without error bars, full dataset exclusion criteria, or raw simulation outputs from organic-qc-bench. This omission directly affects assessment of the robustness of the γ_c-peak and the cross-algorithm consistency.

    Authors: We acknowledge the importance of providing statistical details for assessing robustness. In the revised version, we have included error bars computed from 50 independent runs of the organic-qc-bench simulator for each reported value, showing standard deviations typically below 0.01 for ΔF. Dataset exclusion criteria are now detailed in the Methods section: runs were excluded only if they failed to converge within 10^6 iterations, affecting fewer than 1.5% of simulations. The full raw output datasets have been deposited in a public repository linked in the manuscript. These additions confirm the consistency of the γ_c-peak across algorithms and support the reported significance levels. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Methods: the noise models for platforms P1–P4 are not anchored by any reported calibration to published experimental T₁/T₂ values, dissipation rates, or measured entanglement-breaking thresholds for the cited physical systems. Because the central claim is that the γ_c-peak is relevant to real organic platforms operated without magnetic fields, the absence of such validation is load-bearing.

    Authors: We agree that explicit anchoring to experimental data strengthens the connection to real platforms. The revised Methods section now includes a table mapping the simulation parameters (e.g., dissipation rates γ) to published experimental T1 and T2 values for each platform: for P1 from studies on flavin-nitroxide pairs, for P2 from PTM-COF measurements, and similarly for P3 and P4. While direct experimental measurements of entanglement-breaking thresholds γ_c are not yet available for all cited systems, the models use values consistent with reported coherence times in zero-field conditions. We have added citations to the relevant experimental papers. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Results: the reported linear log₂d scaling and the assertion that Petz recovery 'preserves coherence beyond this threshold' are obtained entirely from runs of the organic-qc-bench package; no sensitivity analysis with respect to the free parameter γ_c or alternative noise models is supplied to test whether the peak location and height are robust.

    Authors: To address this, we have performed additional sensitivity analyses in the revised manuscript. We varied the parameter γ_c by ±20% around the nominal value and tested alternative noise models including phase damping and combined amplitude-phase damping. In all cases, the location of the γ_c-peak remained within 5% of the original threshold, and ΔF_max varied by at most 0.02. These results are presented in a new figure and accompanying text in the Results section, demonstrating the robustness of the linear log₂d scaling and the coherence preservation claim. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

γ_c-peak and ΔF_max=+0.303 claims reduce to algorithmic confirmation of authors' own prior prediction [Wakaura2026LQBH] via organic-qc-bench simulations

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract]
    "the central finding is the γ_c-peak: the fidelity gain ΔF is maximised at the entanglement-breaking threshold γ_c, with ΔF_max = +0.303 at d=64 and a linear log₂ d scaling over d=2-64 -- algorithmically confirming the prediction [Wakaura2026LQBH] that Petz recovery preserves coherence beyond this threshold."

    The headline numerical result (ΔF_max = +0.303, linear log2 d scaling) and its physical interpretation are presented solely as confirmation of a prediction from the authors' own prior paper [Wakaura2026LQBH]. The simulations that produce these values therefore reproduce the Petz-recovery framework and coherence-preservation claim defined in that self-citation rather than testing against external physical data or independent models.

full rationale

The paper's central result—the γ_c-peak with specific ΔF_max and log2 d scaling—is explicitly framed as 'algorithmically confirming the prediction [Wakaura2026LQBH]' that Petz recovery preserves coherence beyond the entanglement-breaking threshold. This confirmation is obtained by running the authors' organic-qc-bench package on four platforms whose noise models and one qubit definition (P3 via [Wakaura2017]) originate in the same research line. No external experimental calibration, measured T1/T2 values, or independent benchmarks are supplied, so the numerical outputs and their interpretation as confirmation reduce to reproduction of quantities and assumptions defined in the authors' prior self-cited work rather than an independent derivation or falsification.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of the organic-qc-bench noise model, the physical realizability of the four platforms without external fields, and the validity of the Petz map as a recovery primitive; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • gamma_c threshold value
    The entanglement-breaking threshold at which the peak occurs is treated as a known physical point but its precise numerical placement in each platform simulation is not derived from first principles in the abstract.
axioms (1)
  • standard math Petz recovery map provably reverses a noisy quantum channel on a reference state
    Invoked in the opening sentence as the theoretical foundation for the CQEC protocol.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5990 in / 1507 out tokens · 55624 ms · 2026-05-19T17:20:43.216142+00:00 · methodology

Review history (3 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Ex- ternal current as a coupler between the spin-vortex-induced loop current qubits

    HikaruWakauraandHiroyasuKoizumi. “Ex- ternal current as a coupler between the spin-vortex-induced loop current qubits”. Journal of Physics Communications1, 055013 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    3-Layer Quantum Brain Hypothesis: Covariant Error Correction, Dynamical Decoupling and Petz Recovery in Biological Radical-Pair Systems

    Hikaru Wakaura. “3-Layer Quantum Brain Hypothesis: Covariant Error Correction, Dynamical Decoupling and Petz Recovery in Biological Radical-Pair Systems”. Research Square preprint (2026). v1; always cite the most recent version. When the peer-reviewed version is published, that citation supersedes this one

    work page 2026

  3. [3]

    The radical-pair mechanism of magnetorecep- tion

    P. J. Hore and Henrik Mouritsen. “The radical-pair mechanism of magnetorecep- tion”. Annual Review of Biophysics45, 299– 344 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Sufficient subalgebras and the relative entropy of states of a von neumann algebra

    Dénes Petz. “Sufficient subalgebras and the relative entropy of states of a von neumann algebra”. Communications in Mathematical Physics105, 123–131 (1986)

    work page 1986

  5. [5]

    Harness- ing nonlinearity: Predicting chaotic systems and saving energy in wireless communica- tion

    Herbert Jaeger and Harald Haas. “Harness- ing nonlinearity: Predicting chaotic systems and saving energy in wireless communica- tion”. Science304, 78–80 (2004)

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    A modular design of molecular qubits to im- plement universal quantum gates

    Jesús Ferrando-Soria, Eufemio Moreno- Pineda, Alessandro Chiesa, Antonio Fernan- dez, Samuel A. Magee, Stefano Carretta, Paolo Santini, Inigo J. Vitorica-Yrezabal, Floriana Tuna, Grigore A. Timco, Eric J. L. McInnes, and Richard E. P. Winpenny. “A modular design of molecular qubits to im- plement universal quantum gates”. Nature Communications7, 11377 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Pulsed electrically de- tected magnetic resonance in organic semi- conductors

    Christoph Boehme, Dane R. McCamey, Kipp J. van Schooten, William J. Baker, Sang-Yun Lee, Seoung-Yong Paik, and John M. Lupton. “Pulsed electrically de- tected magnetic resonance in organic semi- conductors”. Physica Status Solidi B246, 2750–2755 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Op- tically addressable molecular spin qubits

    Sarah K. Mann and Sam L. Bayliss. “Op- tically addressable molecular spin qubits”. MRS Bulletin51, 312–327 (2026)

    work page 2026

  9. [9]

    Persistent current in dielectric solid due to hole-doping-induced spin-vortex formation

    Hiroyasu Koizumi, Shinpei Miyaki, and Kiyoshi Makoshi. “Persistent current in dielectric solid due to hole-doping-induced spin-vortex formation”. Journal of the Phys- ical Society of Japan77, 034702 (2008)

    work page 2008

  10. [10]

    Effects of spin-vortices on electromagnetic properties of cuprate superconductors

    Hiroyasu Koizumi, Ryota Hidekata, Akira Okazaki, and Masaaki Tachiki. “Effects of spin-vortices on electromagnetic properties of cuprate superconductors”. Journal of Su- perconductivity and Novel Magnetism27, 121–132 (2014)

    work page 2014

  11. [11]

    Solitons in polyacetylene

    W. P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger. “Solitons in polyacetylene”. Physical Review Letters42, 1698–1701 (1979)

    work page 1979

  12. [12]

    Nobel lecture: Semicon- ducting and metallic polymers: The fourth generation of polymeric materials

    Alan J. Heeger. “Nobel lecture: Semicon- ducting and metallic polymers: The fourth generation of polymeric materials”. Reviews of Modern Physics73, 681–700 (2001)

    work page 2001

  13. [13]

    Quantum computation and quantum infor- mation: 10th anniversary edition

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. “Quantum computation and quantum infor- mation: 10th anniversary edition”. Cam- bridge University Press. (2010)

    work page 2010

  14. [14]

    Tutorial on the Quantikz Package

    Alastair Kay. “Tutorial on the Quantikz Package” (2018). LaTeX package avail- able on CTAN:https://ctan.org/pkg/ quantikz

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Molecular one- and two-qubit systems with very long coherence times

    Dennis Schäfter, Jonathan Wischnat, Lorenzo Tesi, J.Ãlejandro De Sousa, 18 Edmund Little, Jake McGuire, Marta Mas-Torrent, Concepción Rovira, Jaume Veciana, Floriana Tuna, Núria Crivillers, and Joris van Slageren. “Molecular one- and two-qubit systems with very long coherence times”. Advanced Materials35, 2302114 (2023)

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Inert carbon free radicals. perchlorotriph- enylmethyl and related compounds

    Manuel Ballester, Juan Riera-Figueras, José Castañer, CarlosBadia, andJuanM.Monsó. “Inert carbon free radicals. perchlorotriph- enylmethyl and related compounds”. Jour- nal of the American Chemical Society89, 5613–5617 (1967)

    work page 1967

  17. [17]

    Reconstructed cova- lent organic frameworks

    Wei Zhang, Liang Chen, Shuang Dai, An- drew I. Cooper, et al. “Reconstructed cova- lent organic frameworks”. Nature604, 72– 79 (2022)

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Chemistry and physics of an organic superconductorκ- (bedt-ttf)2cu[n(cn)2]br

    Gunzi Saito, Hiroshi Urayama, Hideki Yamochi, Ken Oshima, Tatsuhiko Ya- mauchi, and Shigeru Kondo. “Chemistry and physics of an organic superconductorκ- (bedt-ttf)2cu[n(cn)2]br”. Solid State Com- munications75, 93–96 (1990)

    work page 1990

  19. [19]

    Electron correlation, metal-insulator transition and superconduc- tivity in quasi-2d organic systems,(et) 2x

    Kazushi Kanoda. “Electron correlation, metal-insulator transition and superconduc- tivity in quasi-2d organic systems,(et) 2x”. Physica C: Superconductivity282–287, 299–302 (1997)

    work page 1997

  20. [20]

    New process for the produc- tion of metallic, conductive polyacetylene

    Herbert Naarmann and Nikolaos Theophilou. “New process for the produc- tion of metallic, conductive polyacetylene”. Synthetic Metals22, 1–8 (1987)

    work page 1987

  21. [21]

    Diarylethenes for memories and switches

    Masahiro Irie. “Diarylethenes for memories and switches”. Chemical Reviews100, 1685– 1716 (2000)

    work page 2000

  22. [22]

    Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits

    William K. Wootters. “Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits”. Physical Review Letters80, 2245– 2248 (1998)

    work page 1998

  23. [23]

    QKAN: quantum Kolmogorov-Arnold networks with applications in machine learning and multivariate state preparation

    Petr Ivashkov, Po-Wei Huang, Kelvin Koor, Lirandë Pira, and Patrick Rebentrost. “QKAN: Quantum Kolmogorov-Arnold net- works” (2024). arXiv:2410.04435

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Concentration for random product formulas

    Chi-Fang Chen, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and Joel A. Tropp. “Concentration for random product formulas”. PRX Quan- tum2, 040305 (2021)

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Quantum phase esti- mation without controlled unitaries

    Laura Clinton, Toby S. Cubitt, Raul Garcia- Patron, Ashley Montanaro, Stasja Stanisic, and Maarten Stroeks. “Quantum phase esti- mation without controlled unitaries”. PRX Quantum7, 010345 (2026)

    work page 2026

  26. [26]

    Quantum complexity theory

    Ethan Bernstein and Umesh Vazirani. “Quantum complexity theory”. SIAM Jour- nal on Computing26, 1411–1473 (1997)

    work page 1997

  27. [27]

    Polynomial-time algo- rithms for prime factorization and dis- crete logarithms on a quantum computer

    Peter W. Shor. “Polynomial-time algo- rithms for prime factorization and dis- crete logarithms on a quantum computer”. SIAM Journal on Computing26, 1484– 1509 (1997)

    work page 1997

  28. [28]

    arXiv:2308.06572 (2023)

    OdedRegev. “Anefficientquantumfactoring algorithm” (2024). arXiv:2308.06572

    work page arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Factoring polynomials with rational coeffi- cients

    A. K. Lenstra, H. W. Lenstra, and L. Lovász. “Factoring polynomials with rational coeffi- cients”. Mathematische Annalen261, 515– 534 (1982)

    work page 1982

  30. [30]

    Mathematics of pub- lic key cryptography

    Steven D. Galbraith. “Mathematics of pub- lic key cryptography”. Cambridge Univer- sity Press. (2012). url:https://www. cambridge.org/9781107013926

    work page arXiv 2012

  31. [31]

    Individual comparisons by ranking methods

    Frank Wilcoxon. “Individual comparisons by ranking methods”. Biometrics Bulletin1, 80–83 (1945)

    work page 1945

  32. [32]

    Quantum supremacy us- ingaprogrammablesuperconductingproces- sor

    Frank Arute et al. “Quantum supremacy us- ingaprogrammablesuperconductingproces- sor”. Nature574, 505–510 (2019)

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    Building logical qubits in a superconducting quantum computing sys- tem

    Jay M. Gambetta, Jerry M. Chow, and Matthias Steffen. “Building logical qubits in a superconducting quantum computing sys- tem”. npj Quantum Information3, 2 (2017)

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    Ibm quantum devel- opment & innovation roadmap

    IBM Quantum. “Ibm quantum devel- opment & innovation roadmap” (2024). https://www.ibm.com/quantum/ technology#roadmap

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Dilution refrigera- tor measurement systems

    BlueFors Cryogenics. “Dilution refrigera- tor measurement systems” (2024). Product datasheets,https://bluefors.com/

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    Trapped- ion quantum computing: Progress and challenges

    Colin D. Bruzewicz, John Chiaverini, Robert McConnell, and Jeremy M. Sage. “Trapped- ion quantum computing: Progress and challenges”. Applied Physics Reviews6, 021314 (2019)

    work page 2019

  37. [37]

    Fusion-based quantum computation

    Sara Bartolucci, Patrick Birchall, Hector Bombin, Hugo Cable, et al. “Fusion-based quantum computation”. Nature Communi- cations14, 912 (2023)

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    The nitrogen- vacancy colour centre in diamond

    Marcus W. Doherty, Neil B. Manson, Paul Delaney, FedorJelezko, JörgWrachtrup, and Lloyd C. L. Hollenberg. “The nitrogen- vacancy colour centre in diamond”. Physics Reports528, 1–45 (2013). 19

    work page 2013

  39. [39]

    Milestones toward majorana-based quan- tum computing

    David Aasen, Michael Hell, Ryan V. Jones, Andrew C. O. Higginbotham, Jeroen Danon, Martin Leijnse, Thomas S. Jes- persen, Joshua A. Folk, Charles M. Mar- cus, Karsten Flensberg, and Jason Alicea. “Milestones toward majorana-based quan- tum computing”. Physical Review X6, 031016 (2016)

    work page 2016

  40. [40]

    Majorana zero modes and topological quantum computation

    Sankar Das Sarma, Michael Freedman, and Chetan Nayak. “Majorana zero modes and topological quantum computation”. npj Quantum Information1, 15001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  41. [41]

    State preservation by repet- itive error detection in a superconducting quantum circuit

    J. Kelly et al. “State preservation by repet- itive error detection in a superconducting quantum circuit”. Nature519, 66–69 (2015). 20

    work page 2015