Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

High-fidelity initialization a logical qubit with multiple injections

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that spreading a logical rotation over several logical chains of a surface code dilutes undetectable Z errors and achieves continuous fault tolerance at smaller code distance.

desk verdict Multiple-injection idea is plausible but the error analysis is wrong: Eqs. (8)-(9) give invalid infidelities, so the headline claims about code-distance reduction are unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02897 v1 pith:ELF6BE5S submitted 2025-02-05 quant-ph

Zhi-Cheng He , Zheng-Yuan Xue This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords surfacecodenon-Cliffordgatescontinuousfaulttolerancemultipleinjectionlogicalqubitinitializationpost-selectionresourceoverheadsmall-anglerotations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Quantum error correction protocols that prepare non-Clifford states by injecting small Z-rotations into a single logical chain need a large code distance before an undetectable error becomes harmless. This paper proposes spreading the same logical rotation across $n$ separate logical chains, each rotated by only $\theta_L/n$, and post-selecting on the original stabilizer trajectory. The claim is that a single undetectable Z error then changes the final infidelity from $1 - \frac{1}{2}|1 + e^{i\delta_c}|^2$ to $1 - \frac{1}{2}|1 + e^{i\delta_c/n}|^2$, so the error is diluted by the number of chains. If this holds, continuous fault tolerance is reachable on mid-scale surface-code chips with distance 3 through 7, and the resource overhead is reduced for small rotation angles, converting a space cost into a time cost.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a logical chain of the surface code: a set of physical qubits whose product is the logical $Z$ operator, such as one row of the lattice. Applying physical $R_z(\theta_p)$ to every qubit of a chain creates, after post-selection on the stabilizer trajectory, a logical $Z$-rotation by $\theta_c$ (Eq. 2). Multiple non-adjacent chains are rotated simultaneously; because the logical $Z$ operator is a product on each chain, the logical rotations compose, giving $\theta_L = \sum_n \theta_c^n$ (Eq. 5), with the number of chains capped at $n = (d+1)/2$ by the non-adjacency condition. The same chain calculus turns a $Z$ error into a chain-level over-rotation and yields Eq. 9.

What would settle it

Prepare a distance-3 surface code in $|+\rangle_L$, apply equal single-qubit $Z$-rotations to two non-adjacent logical chains, post-select on an unchanged stabilizer trajectory, and tomographically measure the logical state; the protocol predicts exactly $R_Z(2\theta_c)|+\rangle_L$, so any deviation larger than the predicted infidelity falsifies the independence assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a multiple-injection rule for the surface code: if physical qubits in $n$ logical chains, each contributing rotation angle $\theta_c = \theta_L/n$, are rotated around $Z$ and the stabilizer trajectory is post-selected to be unchanged, the resulting logical operation is $R_{Z,L}(\theta_L)$, with success probability equal to the product of per-chain probabilities. The single undetectable error channel, a $Z$ error before or after a physical rotation equivalent to an over-rotation by $\pi$, now affects only one chain, so the logical angle shifts by $\delta_c/n$ rather than $\delta_c$. The paper derives the infidelity formula (Eq. 9), shows numerically that infidelity decays much faster with code distance than in single injection, extends the conclusion to coherent over-rotation noise, and compares space-time overhead, reporting a break-even rotation angle $\theta_L = \pi/50$ below which multiple injection is cheaper.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol assumes that rotating several non-adjacent logical chains at once and post-selecting on the original stabilizer trajectory makes each chain contribute an independent logical rotation whose angles add exactly, with the number of usable chains capped at $n=(d+1)/2$; if the chains interfere or the sum rule (Eq. 5) fails, the infidelity formula and the resource savings do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mid-scale surface codes of distance 3 through 7 can initialize small-angle non-Clifford states at infidelities near $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-6}$, levels that otherwise require larger code distances.
  • For a target logical rotation $\theta_L$, each chain needs only $\theta_L/n$, so the per-chain success probability rises and partly compensates the exponential cost of post-selecting $n$ chains.
  • For rotation angles below roughly $\theta_L = \pi/50$, the space-time cost of multiple injection is lower than single injection (Fig. 4), so the protocol trades space for time favorably.
  • Algorithms dominated by small-angle Z-rotations, such as Trotter simulation and variational eigensolvers, inherit the lower overhead.
  • The protocol prepares these non-Clifford states without magic state distillation, obtaining the state directly from rotations and post-selection.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An implication not drawn in the paper: because the infidelity scales roughly as $\delta_c^2/(4n^2)$ for one error, each additional chain should quarter the infidelity, giving a simple experimental signature to test the mechanism.
  • The same dilution argument should extend to coherent over-rotation noise, and unequal per-chain angles could be optimized to maximize success probability while keeping the target $\theta_L$ fixed.
  • The non-adjacency constraint $n \le (d+1)/2$ means the benefit saturates with code distance; beyond this one would need multi-round injection or lattice surgery, which the paper does not address.
  • It is an open question whether adaptive angle choices, based on intermediate stabilizer outcomes, can improve the post-selection success probability; the paper assumes fixed angles.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multiple-injection scheme for initializing non-Clifford logical states in the surface code. Instead of applying physical Z-rotations along a single logical chain, it applies them along several non-adjacent logical chains and post-selects on the original stabilizer trajectory. The authors claim that the total logical rotation angle is the sum of the individual chain angles, that undetectable Z errors are suppressed by an additional factor of 1/n, and that this reduces the code distance and resource overhead needed for continuous fault tolerance. The central quantitative claims are contained in Eqs. (8) and (9) and in the resource-overhead comparison of Fig. 4.

Significance. If the central claims were correct, the proposal would be a useful step toward reducing the code-distance overhead of non-Clifford state preparation in the surface code, and the idea of trading space for time via multiple chains is worth exploring. The paper correctly identifies that commuting rotations on disjoint logical chains can add coherently, and it attempts to make a concrete overhead comparison. However, the main quantitative result rests on an incorrect infidelity formula, and several load-bearing assumptions are stated without proof. Because Eqs. (8) and (9) are algebraically wrong, the figures and the resource-overhead comparison do not support the stated conclusions. No machine-checked proofs or reproducible code are provided.

major comments (4)
  1. [III.A, Eqs. (8) and (9)] The infidelity formulas are algebraically wrong under the paper's own convention in Appendix B. From Rz(θ)|+⟩ = cos(θ/2)|+⟩ + i sin(θ/2)|−⟩, the overlap between two logical rotations differing by a phase angle Δ is cos(Δ/2), so the infidelity is 1 − cos²(Δ/2). Equation (8), 1 − (1/2)|1 + e^{iδ_c}|², equals −cos δ_c, which is approximately −1 for small δ_c and is therefore not a valid fidelity. For multiple injection, the paper's own erroneous state is |ψ⟩'_L = Rz[(n − n_e)θ_c + n_e θ_c^e]|+⟩_L and the target is Rz(nθ_c)|+⟩_L, so the logical phase difference is n_e(θ_c − θ_c^e) = n_e δ_c, not (n_e/n)δ_c as written in Eq. (9). The spurious 1/n factor is the direct source of the claimed 'n times more robust' behavior in Figs. 2–4, so the central quantitative comparison is unsupported.
  2. [II.A, around Eq. (5)] The assumption that several non-adjacent logical chains can be operated simultaneously with independent logical rotation effects is stated but not proved. The text asserts that nearby chains 'induce the collapsed logical states to unwanted results' and that the maximum number of chains is n = (d + 1)/2, but no derivation, stabilizer-level analysis, or numerical evidence is given. This assumption is load-bearing: if nearby chains interfere through the post-selection procedure, Eq. (5) and all subsequent error analysis fail. A proof or a concrete check for at least d = 5 and d = 7 is needed.
  3. [III.B, Eq. (10)] The resource-overhead formula is under-specified and cannot be reproduced from the text. The symbols m, N, and Pn appear in Eq. (10) without definitions; Ns is the only quantity explicitly defined, and the meaning of the binomial term P_i^n(1 − P_n)^{m−i} is unclear. Since Fig. 4 and the break-even angle θ_L = π/50 are derived from this overhead model, the resource-overhead comparison is not supported as written.
  4. [III.A, Fig. 3] The overrotation analysis is not connected to the derived formulas. Equation (7) is written for a discrete π Z error, while the text and Fig. 3 consider a small overrotation θ_e = (1 + ϵ)θ_p. No analogous formula for this continuous error is derived, and because Eq. (9) is incorrect, Fig. 3's multiple-injection advantage is unsubstantiated. The authors should derive the infidelity for a general overrotation from the state overlap formula and recompute the figure.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Title] The title has a grammatical error: 'High-fidelity initialization a logical qubit' should be 'High-fidelity initialization of a logical qubit.'
  2. [II.A, Eq. (7)] The product notation Q_{i∈Q−1} in Eq. (7) is ambiguous; it should be written as Q_{i∈Q\{j}} to indicate which qubit is excluded after the Z error.
  3. [III.A] The sentence 'the success probability of the multiple injection scheme increases exponentially with n' is confusing and appears to contradict the stated formula Pt = (Pc)^n. The authors should clarify whether they mean the per-chain success probability or the total success probability, and how the decrease in θ_c with n affects the comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the multiple-injection result extends independently cited single-chain fault-tolerance work, and the central quantitative claim arises from an algebraic error in Eq. (9), not from an input's being renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The multiple-chain sum rule in Eq. (5) is presented as a direct generalization of the single-chain identity in Eq. (2), and the numerical infidelities are computed from the paper's own state-convention equations rather than from fitted parameters. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then predicted; no load-bearing conclusion is justified by a self-citation; refs. [48]-[50] supply the single-injection starting point from external groups. The text does contain two support gaps that should be weighed in the verdict, but neither is circularity. First, the bound n <= (d+1)/2 and the claim that non-adjacent chains give independent logical rotations are asserted without proof; that is an omitted justification, not an equivalence of output to input. Second, Eq. (9) writes the phase error as (n_e/n) delta_c even though the paper's own erroneous-state expression R_L[(n-n_e)theta_c + n_e theta_c^e]|+>_L differs from the target R_L(n theta_c)|+>_L by n_e delta_c; this is an algebraic inconsistency that artificially inflates the claimed robustness, but the robustness is not a fitted or definitional restatement of an input. Because the core protocol is an extension of external work and no prediction reduces to its inputs by construction, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The protocol inherits the single-chain continuous fault tolerance framework (Refs. [48-50]) and adds the assumption of independent chain contributions. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters listed are inputs to illustrative figures, not fitted to data.

free parameters (2)
  • Overrotation noise strength epsilon = 0.2
    Chosen for Fig. 3 to model a 20% angle error; no experimental basis given.
  • Physical error rate p = 10^-4
    Input from Refs. [51,52] used to argue two-error events are negligible; not fitted.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Surface code logical Z operators are chains of physical qubits; |+>_L can be fault-tolerantly initialized.
    Used throughout Sec. II and inherited from Ref. [46].
  • domain assumption Circuit noise is depolarizing; only Z errors on operated chain qubits evade detection, all other errors are caught by post-selection.
    Stated in Sec. III A and used for all infidelity calculations; no circuit-level simulation of the full noise model is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper At most one Z error occurs in the whole operation for small and middle distance lattices (d <= 8) in the multiple-injection scheme.
    Introduced in Sec. III A to neglect multi-error events; not derived from a noise model.
  • ad hoc to paper Multiple non-adjacent chains can be operated simultaneously with independent logical effects, with maximum n = (d+1)/2.
    Assumed after Eq. (5) in Sec. II A; no proof or numerical test is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-fidelity initialization a logical qubit with multiple injections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ELF6BE5S

@misc{pith2026250202897,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-fidelity initialization a logical qubit with multiple injections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ELF6BE5S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02897}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum error correction represents a significant advancement in large-scale quantum computing. However, achieving fault-tolerant implementations of non-Clifford logical gates with reduced overhead remains a challenge in the popular surface code strategy. Recent advances have underscored the need for a substantial code distance to attain complete fault tolerance. Here, we introduce a continuous fault-tolerant scheme for non-Clifford logical gates via multiple injections. Unlike existing protocols that focus on a single logical chain, our approach utilizes multiple logical chains, each can employ the same or different logical rotation angles, to initialize a non-Clifford state. Compared to previous efforts, our protocol significantly alleviates the challenges associated with the requirement for a large code distance and reduces the corresponding resource overhead, making it more feasible to be implemented in current mid-scale chips via the surface code strategy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02897 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The illustration of the injection protocol, with a distance 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Performance of continuous fault-tolerance with an over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The performance of continuous fault-tolerance with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Resource overhead comparison between single and multiple [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Transversal architecture for megaquop-scale quantum simulation with neutral atoms

    quant-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A neutral-atom co-designed 'transversal STAR' architecture could reach megaquop-scale Hamiltonian simulation with about 10,000 physical qubits at 1e-3 error rates, corresponding to over 1e6 to 1e7 T gates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P. W. Shor, Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum com- puter memory, Phys. Rev. A52, R2493 (1995)

    1995

  2. [2]

    However, this fact will not significantly impact the success probability for mid- size lattices

    Besides, the success probability of the multiple injection scheme increases exponentially with n. However, this fact will not significantly impact the success probability for mid- size lattices. As n increases, the rotation angle for each chain decreases since θL = nθn l , which leads to the increase of the success probability for each chain. Furthermore,...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Gottesman, Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction, PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology (1997)

    D. Gottesman, Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction, PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology (1997)

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    A. M. Steane, Error Correcting Codes in Quantum Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 793 (1996)

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    A. R. Calderbank and P. W. Shor, Good quantum error- correcting codes exist, Phys. Rev. A 54, 1098 (1996)

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    Laflamme, C

    R. Laflamme, C. Miquel, J. P. Paz, and W. H. Zurek, Per- fect Quantum Error Correcting Code, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 198 (1996)

    1996

  7. [7]

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Woot- ters, Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996)

    1996

  8. [8]

    Cleve and D

    R. Cleve and D. Gottesman, Efficient computations of encod- ings for quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. A 56, 76 (1997)

    work page 1997

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Knill and R

    E. Knill and R. Laflamme, Theory of quantum error-correcting codes, Phys. Rev. A 55, 900 (1997)

    1997

  2. [10]

    A. Y . Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Ann. Phys. (N.Y .)303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  3. [11]

    Raussendorf and J

    R. Raussendorf and J. Harrington, Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation with High Threshold in Two Dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 190504 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum compu- tation, Phys. Rev. A 86, 032324 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    A. G. Fowler, A. M. Stephens, and P. Groszkowski, High- threshold universal quantum computation on the surface code, Phys. Rev. A 80, 052312 (2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    D. S. Wang, A. G. Fowler, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Surface code quantum computing with error rates over 1%, Phys. Rev. A 83, 020302(R) (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    Acharya, I

    R. Acharya, I. Aleiner, R. Allen, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, et al. , Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, Nature (London) 614, 676 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Tomita and K

    Y . Tomita and K. M. Svore, Low-distance surface codes under realistic quantum noise, Phys. Rev. A 90, 062320 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    C. K. Andersen, A. Remm, S. Lazar, S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, G. J. Norris, M. Gabureac, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Repeated quantum error detection in a surface code, Nat. Phys. 16, 875 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Barends, J

    R. Barends, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, A. Veitia, D. Sank, E. Jeffrey, T. C. White, J. Mutus, A. G. Fowler, B. Campbell,et al., Super- conducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance, Nature (London) 508, 500 (2014). 7

    2014

  11. [19]

    A. G. Fowler, A. C. Whiteside, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Towards Practical Classical Processing for the Surface Code, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 180501 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell et al. , Quantum supremacy using a programmable supercon- ducting processor, Nature (London) 574, 505 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    D. R. Simon, On the power of quantum computation, SIAM J. Comput. 26, 1474 (1997)

    1997

  14. [22]

    Bernstein and U

    E. Bernstein and U. Vazirani, Quantum complexity theory, SIAM J. Comput. 26, 1411 (1997)

    1997

  15. [23]

    Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

    1996

  16. [24]

    Aaronson and A

    S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, The computational complexity of linear optics, Theory of Comput. 9, 143 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    P. W. Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete log- arithms and factoring, Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (1994), pp. 124-134

    1994

  18. [26]

    L. K. Grover, A framework for fast quantum mechanical algo- rithms, Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (1996), pp. 212-219

    1996

  19. [27]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nat. Com- mun. 5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum algorithms, Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Kandala, A

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum mag- nets, Nature (London) 549, 242 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Quantum algorithm providing ex- ponential speed increase for finding eigenvalues and eigenvec- tors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5162 (1999)

    1999

  23. [31]

    Horsman, A

    C. Horsman, A. G. Fowler, S. Devitt, and R. V . Meter, Surface code quantum computing by lattice surgery, New J. Phys. 14, 123011 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Erhard, H

    A. Erhard, H. P. Nautrup, M. Meth, L. Postler, R. Stricker, M. Ringbauer, P. Schindler, H. J. Briegel, R. Blatt, N. Friis, and T. Monz, Entangling logical qubits with lattice surgery, Nature (London) 589, 220 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Bombin, Topological Order with a Twist: Ising Anyons from an Abelian Model, Phys

    H. Bombin, Topological Order with a Twist: Ising Anyons from an Abelian Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 030403 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    B. J. Brown, K. Laubscher, M. S. Kesselring, and J. R. Wootton, Poking Holes and Cutting Corners to Achieve Clifford Gates with the Surface Code, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021029 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    T. J. Yoder and I. H. Kim, The surface code with a twist, Quan- tum 1, 2 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Gottesman, The Heisenberg Representation of Quantum Computers, arXiv:quant-ph/9807006 (1998)

    D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg Representation of Quantum Computers, arXiv:quant-ph/9807006 (1998)

    1998 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Bu and D

    K. Bu and D. E. Koh, Efficient Classical Simulation of Clifford Circuits with Nonstabilizer Input States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 170502 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Bravyi and J

    S. Bravyi and J. Haah, Magic-state distillation with low over- head, Phys. Rev. A 86, 052329 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    Litinski, Magic State Distillation: Not as Costly as You Think, Quantum 3, 205 (2019)

    D. Litinski, Magic State Distillation: Not as Costly as You Think, Quantum 3, 205 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    I. D. Kivlichan, C. Gidney, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, J. McClean, W. Sun, Z. Jiang, N. Rubin, A. Fowler, A. Aspuru-Guzik, H. Neven, and R. Babbush, Improved fault-tolerant quantum sim- ulation of condensed-phase correlated electrons via Trotteriza- tion, Quantum 4, 296 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Rendon, J

    G. Rendon, J. Watkins, and N. Wiebe, Improved Accuracy for Trotter Simulations Using Chebyshev Interpolation, Quantum 8, 1266 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Tilly, H

    J. Tilly, H. Chen, S. Cao, D. Picozzi, K. Setia, Y . Li, E. Grant, L. Wossnig, I. Rungger, G. H. Booth, and J. Tennyson, The Vari- ational Quantum Eigensolver: A review of methods and best practices, Phys. Rep. 986, 1 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Dalton, C

    K. Dalton, C. K. Long, Y . S. Yordanov, C. G. Smith, C. H. W. Barnes, N. Mertig, and D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, Quantify- ing the effect of gate errors on variational quantum eigensolvers for quantum chemistry, npj Quantum Inf. 10, 1 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 10th anniversary ed (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge; New York, 2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    Akahoshi, K

    Y . Akahoshi, K. Maruyama, H. Oshima, S. Sato, and K. Fu- jii, Partially fault-tolerant quantum computing architecture with error-corrected Clifford gates and space-time efficient analog rotations, PRX Quantum 5, 010337 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Li, A magic state’s fidelity can be superior to the operations that created it, New J

    Y . Li, A magic state’s fidelity can be superior to the operations that created it, New J. Phys. 17, 023037 (2015)

    2015

  39. [47]

    Y . Ye, T. He, H.-L. Huang, Z. Wei, Y . Zhang, Y . Zhao, D. Wu, Q. Zhu, H. Guan, S. Cao, et al., Logical Magic State Prepara- tion with Fidelity beyond the Distillation Threshold on a Super- conducting Quantum Processor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 210603 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Gavriel, D

    J. Gavriel, D. Herr, A. Shaw, M. J. Bremner, A. Paler, and S. J. Devitt, Transversal injection for direct encoding of ancilla states for non-Clifford gates using stabilizer codes, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033019 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    H. Choi, F. T. Chong, D. Englund, and Y . Ding, Fault toler- ant non-Clifford state preparation for arbitrary rotations, arXiv: 2303.17380 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Toshio, Y

    R. Toshio, Y . Akahoshi, J. Fujisaki, H. Oshima, S. Sato, and K. Fujii, Practical quantum advantage on partially fault-tolerant quantum computer, arXiv: 2408.14848

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Akahoshi, R

    Y . Akahoshi, R. Toshio, J. Fujisaki, H. Oshima, S. Sato, and K. Fujii, Compilation of Trotter-based time evolution for par- tially fault-tolerant quantum computing architecture, arXiv: 2408.14929

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Z. Li, P. Liu, P Zhao, Z. Mi, H. Xu, X. Liang, T. Su, W. Sun, G. Xue, J.-N. Zhang, W. Liu, Y . Jin, and H. Yu, Error per single- qubit gate below10−4 in a superconducting qubit, npj Quantum Inf. 9, 111 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Quantum error cor- rection below the surface code threshold, Nature (2024), doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08449-y

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    Aleksandrowicz et al., Qiskit: An Open-source Frame-work for Quantum Computing (2019), doi:10.5281/zenodo.2562110

    G. Aleksandrowicz et al., Qiskit: An Open-source Frame-work for Quantum Computing (2019), doi:10.5281/zenodo.2562110

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.