Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Flexion: Adaptive In-Situ Encoding for On-Demand QEC in Ion Trap Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Selective encoding—bare qubits for 1Q gates, surface-code patches for 2Q gates—cuts early fault-tolerance overhead on trapped-ion systems.

desk verdict Flexion has a genuinely interesting selective-QEC idea and a coherent compiler/protocol stack, but the headline 15.5x-vs-FTQC number does not survive scrutiny because the large-scale baseline is charged a magic-state factory it does not need. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16303 v1 pith:YUOHXRC6 submitted 2025-04-22 quant-ph

Keyi Yin , Xiang Fang , Zhuo Chen , Ang Li , David Hayes , Eneet Kaur , Reza Nejabati , Hartmut Haeffner
show 5 more authors
Wes Campbell Eric Hudson Jens Palsberg Travis Humble Yufei Ding
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords selectivequantumerrorcorrectionhybridbare-logicalencodingsurfacecodestrapped-ionQCCDarchitecturegaugefixingearlyfaulttolerancevariationalalgorithmsmagicstatedistillationavoidance
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

The paper argues that early fault-tolerant quantum computing does not need to encode every qubit all the time. It proposes Flexion, a hybrid scheme for trapped-ion QCCD systems where single-qubit gates run directly on bare physical qubits—whose $\sim 10^{-6}$ error already meets the EFT target—and two-qubit CNOTs are executed on surface-code logical qubits, whose error is suppressed below $10^{-6}$. A runtime protocol converts any bare qubit state into a logical patch and back in place, using gauge fixing and center injection with conversion error independent of code distance. A hybrid instruction set and compiler decide when to encode and how to route patches. On VQA benchmarks the paper reports 8.0x improvement over NISQ execution and 15.5x improvement over standard full fault tolerance under the same qubit budget, because non-Clifford gates avoid gate synthesis, teleportation, and magic state distillation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the in-situ encoding-switch protocol built on gauge fixing: it initializes ancillas around a central bare qubit so that the largest possible number of stabilizers are deterministic (+1), measures the remaining random stabilizers and tracks them as gauge, then runs $d$ rounds of QEC to produce a distance-$d$ logical patch; shrinking measures the ancillas along $X_L$ and $Z_L$ and applies a single-qubit correction. This conversion makes the hybrid ISA possible, with Encode_Boundary and Shrink_Boundary restricted to a boundary region, LogicMove instructions shuttling entire patches across the 2D grid, and transversal physical CNOTs between co-located patches. The compiler treats logical patches as a register file and bare qubits as memory, using a greedy linear-scan allocation for encoding conversions and a SABRE-style routing pass for patch movement, minimizing conversion count because each conversion costs roughly $4\times$ a 2Q gate error.

What would settle it

Run the same VQA benchmarks with a noise model that includes per-junction ion-shuttling error and parallel-gate crosstalk, and compare final VQA energies; if moving a distance-9 logical patch through a 4-way junction adds error comparable to a 2Q gate or time comparable to a QEC cycle, the reported 8.0x and 15.5x gaps shrink or disappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Flexion's central claim is that selective QEC—bare qubits for 1Q gates, logical patches for 2Q gates—is enough to meet early fault tolerance LER targets while eliminating the three dominant overheads of standard FTQC: full encoding, T-gate synthesis, and magic state distillation. The paper's runtime encoding switch treats a bare qubit as a degenerate encoding and grows a full surface-code patch around it by initializing ancillas in a gauge-aware pattern, measuring stabilizers, and running $d$ QEC cycles; the reverse shrinks the patch by measuring ancillas along the logical operators. The protocol is designed so that conversion-induced logical error is independent of code distance, set by a few critical qubit locations, and the paper estimates conversion error $p_c \approx 4 \, p_2$ (about $4.3 \times 10^{-3}$ at a 2Q error of $10^{-3}$), giving a net gain whenever the CNOT count exceeds the conversion count by more than about 4. Flexion then claims 8.0x energy-gap improvement over bare NISQ execution and 15.5x improvement over an MSD-based fully logical baseline under equal qubit budgets.

Load-bearing premise

The architecture assumes whole logical surface-code patches can be shuttled across the QCCD junction grid and aligned for transversal CNOTs with negligible additional error and time, while the evaluation noise model omits shuttling, movement, and parallel-gate crosstalk.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On circuits whose two-qubit gate count exceeds the conversion count by roughly $4\times$ or more, Flexion's selective encoding beats fully bare NISQ execution; VQE and fermionic simulation circuits satisfy this condition.
  • Because non-Clifford 1Q rotations execute directly on bare qubits, Flexion avoids the Clifford+T depth blowup (measured average 14.9x) and the idling and memory error of waiting for distilled magic states.
  • Under an equal physical qubit budget, a full-FT baseline must reserve thousands of qubits for T factories, forcing lower-distance encoding for program qubits; Flexion instead uses the budget for program qubits, yielding lower logical error and better VQA energy.
  • Conversion error is independent of surface-code distance, so raising $d$ to lower the logical error rate does not make switches more expensive, only the QEC rounds after conversion.
  • The scheme targets the megaquop regime directly: roughly $20$–$50$ logical qubits and $10^4$–$10^6$ gates, where full FTQC overhead is prohibitive but selective QEC fits within thousands of physical qubits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If shuttling noise is added to the evaluation model, the optimal encoding ratio could drop and LogicMove cost would become a first-class objective; a natural test is to recompute the 8.0x and 15.5x numbers with per-junction error rates from ion-transport measurements.
  • The same bare/logical split should transfer to other platforms with very high 1Q fidelity and modular 2D connectivity, such as neutral-atom arrays, as long as whole logical patches can be moved and aligned; the conversion protocol itself is platform-neutral.
  • The gauge-fixing switch could be generalized from bare-to-logical to distance $d_1$-to-$d_2$ switching, letting a program raise protection only for critical subcircuits—an adaptive-QEC knob the paper does not explore.
  • Because only about four qubit locations are critical during a switch, choosing which qubit carries the bare state could be folded into scheduling as a first-class fidelity decision, reducing conversion error further than the compiler currently does.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Flexion, a hybrid encoding architecture for trapped-ion QCCD systems in which qubits remain bare for single-qubit operations and are dynamically encoded into surface-code patches only for two-qubit gates. It contributes an in-situ bare-to-logical conversion protocol inspired by gauge fixing, a hybrid ISA with bare, logical, and boundary regions plus LogicMove/Encode_Boundary instructions, and a compiler that schedules encoding conversions and routing. Evaluation uses VQA/UCCSD benchmarks with density-matrix simulation up to 10 qubits and Clifford-restricted Stim simulation for 20-30 qubits, together with Stim+Pymatching surface-code LER estimation. The paper reports an 8.0x improvement over NISQ-Bare execution and a 15.5x improvement over a fully logical MSD-Logical baseline under the same qubit budget.

Significance. The central idea of selective spatial and temporal QEC, with bare qubits for high-fidelity 1Q gates and encoded qubits only for noisy 2Q gates, is timely and potentially valuable for early fault tolerance on trapped-ion hardware. The paper contains several strong components: an in-situ conversion protocol that avoids post-selection, a concrete hybrid ISA, a compiler formulation as register allocation, and an end-to-end simulation pipeline using Stim and Pymatching. If the quantitative claims held, the paper would make a significant systems contribution. However, the headline comparison against standard FTQC is undermined by a baseline mismatch: the large-scale benchmarks are Clifford-only, yet the MSD-Logical baseline is charged a full magic-state factory. Omissions of shuttling and patch-movement errors, an optimistic SPAM rate, and an under-supported distance-independence claim for conversion error further reduce confidence in the reported numbers. The core idea remains defensible, but the evidence as presented does not yet support the central claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VII-A and Sec. VII-B] The headline comparison against MSD-Logical is not supported by the reported experiments. Section VII-A states that for circuits above 10 qubits the ansatz is restricted to Clifford circuits so that Stim can be used. A Clifford circuit contains no non-Clifford RZ(theta) rotations and hence no T gates, so the MSD-Logical baseline needs no magic-state factory. Nevertheless, Section VII-B computes the qubit budget as 30 x 2d^2 with d=9, subtracts a 2,594-qubit factory, and then gives MSD-Logical only distance-6 encoding of the 30 program qubits, while Flexion is effectively charged distance-9 patches. The reported 7.16x energy improvement for Heisenberg n=30 and the abstract's 15.5x improvement over standard FTQC are therefore largely artifacts of reserving factory qubits for a workload that, as restricted, contains no T gates. Figure 10(c)'s depth-overhead metric from Clifford+T decomposition is likewise inapplicable if the large-scale workloads are Clifford-only. Please rerun the comparison with MSD-Logical allowed to use all 4,860 qubits for distance-9 logical encoding (or an equivalently fairly resourced baseline), and report the resulting ratios and the aggregation rule behind the 15.5x number.
  2. [Sec. II-C, Sec. V-B, Sec. VII-A] The end-to-end evaluation omits the very operations that make the architecture distinctive. The ISA relies on LogicMove_Vertical and LogicMove_Horizontal instructions that move entire distance-9 surface-code patches across a junction grid, and transversal CNOTs require aligning patches in shared traps. Section II-C asserts that ion shuttling has negligible decoherence, but Section VII-A's noise model contains only 1Q, 2Q, and measurement/reset error terms; no shuttling time, junction-crossing error, or parallel-gate crosstalk is simulated. If moving a distance-9 patch through a 4-way junction is not effectively noiseless, then the conversion counts, routing schedules, and the Flexion-vs-NISQ comparison all change. Please add a sensitivity analysis with nonzero shuttling/junction errors, or justify quantitatively why these terms can be dropped at the reported accuracy.
  3. [Sec. II-C and Sec. VII-A] The SPAM assumption in the noise model is inconsistent with the hardware numbers cited in the paper. Section II-C reports SPAM fidelities exceeding 99.99%, i.e., an error rate around 1e-4, while Section VII-A sets measurement and reset error rates at order 1e-6. The encoding-shrink step in Section IV-A consists of single-qubit measurements, so the SPAM rate directly enters the conversion error pc used throughout the analysis. Please either use SPAM = 1e-4, or explicitly justify the 1e-6 choice and report how the results shift under 1e-4 SPAM.
  4. [Sec. IV-B and Sec. IV-C] The claim that conversion-induced logical error is independent of code distance is load-bearing and currently under-supported. Section IV-B states that only a constant number of critical qubit locations cause logical failure, so pc does not decrease with d, and Section IV-C uses a single measured ratio pc/p2 approximately 4 in the analytic comparison. The comparison is not circular, because the threshold pc/p2 < n2/nc is derived and then confirmed by compiler counts, but the numerical value of pc requires broader validation. If distance-independence fails, larger patches reduce conversion error and the trade-off between Flexion and full encoding shifts. Please provide the syndrome-level argument for distance independence in full, or a quantitative decoder simulation across d = 3,5,7,9 and at several physical error rates, rather than relying on Fig. 11 as the sole evidence.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 9] The legend lists 'iSwitch' alongside 'NISQ-Bare' and 'Ideal', but 'iSwitch' is never defined in the text; please clarify whether it denotes Flexion and distinguish it from the NISQ-Bare curve.
  2. [Sec. VI-B] The text describes Swap_Intra and Swap_Inter instructions, but Table I and the surrounding text define BareMove_Vertical and BareMove_Horizontal; please reconcile the naming.
  3. [Sec. II-C] Reference [81] is cited twice in the same sentence, and the Fig. 7 caption says '(1) Mapping surface codes...' while the subfigures are labeled (a)-(d); please fix the numbering.
  4. [Sec. IV-C] The ratio pc/p2 approximately 4 is stated without reporting the underlying measured values or simulation conditions; please add the numerical pc and p2 used.
  5. [Sec. VII-A] The text says the ansatz is restricted to Clifford circuits above 10 qubits, yet the benchmarks are described as approximating ground-state energies of non-Clifford Hamiltonians; please state explicitly that the reported energies are for the Clifford-restricted ansatz and may not correspond to the true ground state.
  6. [Sec. VII-B] The derivation of the aggregate 15.5x improvement over standard FTQC is not shown; please define how the per-benchmark ratios are aggregated into a single number.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The analytic selective-QEC threshold is self-contained, but the 15.5x-vs-FTQC headline is forced by charging the Clifford-only baseline a magic-state factory it cannot need.

  1. other [Sec. VII-A (Experiment Setup) and Sec. VII-B (Flexion vs. MSD-Logical), Fig. 10]
    "To enable scalable evaluation, we restrict the ansatz to Clifford circuits, which can be efficiently simulated [101] while still approximating ground-state energies in many practical settings [102], [103]. ... Assuming a T-factory of size 2594 as derived in Sec. IV-C, the remaining qubits can only encode surface codes with distance 6 for MSD-Logical."

    For the large-scale benchmarks the paper itself restricts the ansatz to Clifford circuits, which by definition contain no RZ(theta) or T gates. A standard FTQC baseline for those circuits therefore needs no magic-state factory. Nevertheless, MSD-Logical is charged a 2,594-physical-qubit factory, leaving only enough qubits for distance-6 encoding of the 30 program qubits, while Flexion is effectively modeled with distance-9 patches under the same 4,860-qubit budget. The reported 7.16x energy improvement on Heisenberg n=30, and the aggregate 15.5x improvement over standard FTQC, are thus manufactured by the baseline's resource allocation rather than derived from workload properties.

full rationale

The paper's core analytic claim is not circular: the condition pc/p2 < n2/nc follows algebraically from pConv ~ n2*pL + nc*pc versus pNISQ ~ n2*p2, with pc measured from the authors' own conversion simulation and pL obtained from Stim/Pymatching. The compiler's conversion counts are then checked against this threshold, so the advantage is not assumed as an input. Self-citations, notably to code-deformation work [55] and SABRE [97], are peripheral; the encoding protocol rests on independent gauge-fixing literature and is separately benchmarked. However, the headline comparison against MSD-Logical contains a by-construction element: the large-scale evaluation uses Clifford-only circuits, for which no T-factory is needed, yet the baseline is allocated a 2,594-qubit factory. This forces MSD-Logical to distance-6 encoding while Flexion uses distance-9 patches, making the reported 7.16x / 15.5x improvements largely an artifact of the baseline setup. This is a partial circularity in a central quantitative claim, though the underlying selective-QEC derivation retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on one measured simulation parameter (pc), four domain assumptions about QEC and hardware, and two proposed architectural abstractions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Conversion error pc = ~4.3e-3 (pc/p2 ≈ 4)
    Measured from the authors' Stim/Pymatching simulation of the encoding switch (Sec. VII-C) and used in Sec. IV-C to derive the condition pc/p2 < n2/nc for Flexion to beat NISQ. It is an output of the authors' simulation, not independently verified.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Gauge-fixing theory guarantees state-preserving transfer from a bare qubit to the surface code patch (Sec. IV-A, Step 1).
    Relies on stabilizer formalism and the Poulin/Vuillot results; the paper applies it without proof.
  • ad hoc to paper The number of critical, syndrome-ambiguous qubit locations in the encoding switch is constant as code distance grows (Sec. IV-B).
    Argued from the d=5 example and partly checked for d=3,5,7 in Fig. 11(b), but no proof is given for general d.
  • domain assumption QCCD shuttling of ions, including whole logical patches, has negligible decoherence and negligible time cost for the results (Sec. II-C, Sec. V-B).
    Cites [87],[88], but the evaluation model omits shuttling and transport errors entirely.
  • domain assumption 1Q gate fidelity of 1e-6 and SPAM error rate of 1e-6 are maintained for bare qubits in the operational settings of the EFT workloads (Sec. II-C, Sec. VII-A).
    Taken from high-fidelity demonstrations; the paper assumes these rates apply throughout the workload.
invented entities (2)
  • Bare-logical boundary region
    purpose: Reconfigurable interface where Encode_Boundary and Shrink_Boundary conversions are performed.
    Proposed architectural abstraction in Sec. V-A; no independent experimental evidence.
  • Encode_Boundary and Shrink_Boundary instructions
    purpose: ISA instructions to convert between bare and logical encodings.
    Part of the proposed hybrid ISA in Table I.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flexion: Adaptive In-Situ Encoding for On-Demand QEC in Ion Trap Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YUOHXRC6

@misc{pith2026250416303,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flexion: Adaptive In-Situ Encoding for On-Demand QEC in Ion Trap Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YUOHXRC6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16303}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in quantum hardware and quantum error correction (QEC) have set the stage for early demonstrations of fault-tolerant quantum computing (FTQC). A key near-term goal is to build a system capable of executing millions of logical operations reliably -- referred to as a megaquop quantum computer (MQC). In this work, we propose a novel system architecture targeting MQC on trapped-ion quantum computers (TIQC), leveraging their ultra-high-fidelity single-qubit gates (1Q) and efficient two-qubit (2Q) logical CNOT gates enabled by the quantum charge-coupled device (QCCD) architecture with the ion shuttling feature. We propose Flexion, a hybrid encoding scheme that uses bare qubits for 1Q gates and QEC-encoded logical qubits for 2Q gates. This approach avoids fully encoding all qubits, eliminating the overhead of gate synthesis, teleportation, and magic state distillation for non-Clifford gates. To support this, we design (1) a low-noise conversion protocol between bare and logical qubits, (2) a bare-logical hybrid instruction set architecture tailored for 2D grid-based TIQC, and (3) a compiler that minimizes conversion cost and optimizes the scheduling efficiency. We evaluate our approach on VQA and small-scale FTQC benchmarks, showing that it achieves superior performance improvements with significantly reduced resource overhead, offering a practical path toward early FTQC on TIQC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16303 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. From NISQ to FTQC. TIQC’s hardware capability is promising for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Surface code. (b) Gate Teleportation for T gate. (c) Magic state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) QCCD architecture of TIQC, which connects 1D traps with 4-way [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of Flexion Flexion Module I: Runtime Encoding Protocol (Sec. IV). This module addresses the core technical challenge of how to convert a bare qubit into a logical qubit—and vice versa—at runtime, without relying on post-selection or known initial states. This …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Encoding transition from a bare qubit to a logical qubit under different initialization configurations. The reverse process—from logical to bare—is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Optimized runtime encoding protocol that maximize the number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (1) Mapping surface codes to TIQC. (b-d) Transversal logical CNOT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example of switch between bare (P1) and logical qubits (Q2,3). In our framework, the logical patch region acts as a finite register file, while the bare region serves as main memory. Program operations fall into two categories: (1) High-fidelity, 1Q non-Clifford gates …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: VQA energy comparison of Flexion and NISQ-Bare across benchmarks. Ideal denotes noiseless VQA circuit. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison between Flexion and MSD-Logical. (a) Energy approximation. (b) Qubit resource. (c) Depth overhead. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Ablation study. (a) LER of encoding switch vs Physical error rate (2Q gate). (b) Comparing LER of enlarging and shrinking. (c) Impact of encoding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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.

  2. Quantum Compiler Design for Qubit Mapping and Routing: A Cross-Architectural Survey of Superconducting, Trapped-Ion, and Neutral Atom Systems

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A cross-architectural survey that categorizes qubit mapping and routing compilers for superconducting, trapped-ion, and neutral atom quantum hardware.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond

    John Preskill. Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond. Quantum, 2:79, 2018. 12

    2018

  2. [2]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor

    Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando GSL Brandao, David A Buell, et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature, 574(7779):505–510, 2019

    2019

  3. [3]

    Super- conducting quantum computing: a review

    He-Liang Huang, Dachao Wu, Daojin Fan, and Xiaobo Zhu. Super- conducting quantum computing: a review. Science China Information Sciences, 63:1–32, 2020

    2020

  4. [4]

    The future of quantum computing with superconducting qubits

    Sergey Bravyi, Oliver Dial, Jay M Gambetta, Dar ´ıo Gil, and Zaira Nazario. The future of quantum computing with superconducting qubits. Journal of Applied Physics , 132(16), 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    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 reviews , 6(2), 2019

    2019

  6. [6]

    Benchmarking a trapped-ion quantum computer with 29 algorithmic qubits

    Jwo-Sy Chen, Erik Nielsen, Matthew Ebert, V olkan Inlek, Kenneth Wright, Vandiver Chaplin, Andrii Maksymov, Eduardo P ´aez, Amrit Poudel, Peter Maunz, et al. Benchmarking a trapped-ion quantum computer with 29 algorithmic qubits. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.05071 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Aquila: Quera’s 256-qubit neutral-atom quantum computer

    Jonathan Wurtz, Alexei Bylinskii, Boris Braverman, Jesse Amato-Grill, Sergio H Cantu, Florian Huber, Alexander Lukin, Fangli Liu, Phillip Weinberg, John Long, et al. Aquila: Quera’s 256-qubit neutral-atom quantum computer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11727 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Variational quantum algorithms

    Marco Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jarrod R McClean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, et al. Variational quantum algorithms. Nature Reviews Physics, 3(9):625–644, 2021

    2021

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor

    Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man-Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Peter J Love, Al ´an Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L O’brien. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nature communications, 5(1):4213, 2014

    2014

  2. [10]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Good quantum error-correcting codes exist

    A Robert Calderbank and Peter W Shor. Good quantum error-correcting codes exist. Physical Review A , 54(2):1098, 1996

    1996

  4. [12]

    Topological quantum distillation

    Hector Bombin and Miguel Angel Martin-Delgado. Topological quantum distillation. Physical review letters, 97(18):180501, 2006

    2006

  5. [13]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons

    A Yu Kitaev. Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons. Annals of physics, 303(1):2–30, 2003

    2003

  6. [14]

    Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum compu- tation

    Austin G Fowler, Matteo Mariantoni, John M Martinis, and Andrew N Cleland. Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum compu- tation. Physical Review A , 86(3):032324, 2012

    2012

  7. [15]

    High-threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory

    Sergey Bravyi, Andrew W Cross, Jay M Gambetta, Dmitri Maslov, Patrick Rall, and Theodore J Yoder. High-threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory. Nature, 627(8005):778–782, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Quantum computation and quantum information

    Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang. Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press, 2010

    2010

  9. [17]

    Theory of fault-tolerant quantum computation

    Daniel Gottesman. Theory of fault-tolerant quantum computation. Physical Review A , 57(1):127, 1998

    1998

  10. [18]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation

    Peter W Shor. Fault-tolerant quantum computation. In Proceedings of 37th conference on foundations of computer science , pages 56–65. IEEE, 1996

    1996

  11. [19]

    Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer

    Peter W Shor. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM review, 41(2):303– 332, 1999

    1999

  12. [20]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search

    Lov K Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing , pages 212–219, 1996

    1996

  13. [21]

    Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing

    Yudong Cao, Jonathan Romero, Jonathan P Olson, Matthias Degroote, Peter D Johnson, M ´aria Kieferov´a, Ian D Kivlichan, Tim Menke, Borja Peropadre, Nicolas PD Sawaya, et al. Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing. Chemical reviews, 119(19):10856–10915, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation

    Andrew J Daley, Immanuel Bloch, Christian Kokail, Stuart Flannigan, Natalie Pearson, Matthias Troyer, and Peter Zoller. Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation. Nature, 607(7920):667–676, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary

    Sergey B Bravyi and A Yu Kitaev. Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary. arXiv preprint quant-ph/9811052 , 1998

    1998 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Topological quantum memory

    Eric Dennis, Alexei Kitaev, Andrew Landahl, and John Preskill. Topological quantum memory. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 43(9):4452–4505, 2002

    2002

  17. [25]

    A game of surface codes: Large-scale quantum computing with lattice surgery

    Daniel Litinski. A game of surface codes: Large-scale quantum computing with lattice surgery. Quantum, 3:128, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Surface code compilation via edge-disjoint paths

    Michael Beverland, Vadym Kliuchnikov, and Eddie Schoute. Surface code compilation via edge-disjoint paths. PRX Quantum, 3(2):020342, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    An- dersen, Markus Ansmann, Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Abraham Asfaw, Nikita Astrakhantsev, Juan Atalaya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Brian Ballard, Joseph C

    Rajeev Acharya, Laleh Aghababaie-Beni, Igor Aleiner, Trond I. An- dersen, Markus Ansmann, Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Abraham Asfaw, Nikita Astrakhantsev, Juan Atalaya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Brian Ballard, Joseph C. Bardin, Johannes Bausch, Andreas Bengtsson, Alexander Bilmes...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Nature, 614(7949):676–681, 2023

    Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit. Nature, 614(7949):676–681, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Realization of an error-correcting surface code with superconducting qubits

    Youwei Zhao, Yangsen Ye, He-Liang Huang, Yiming Zhang, Dachao Wu, Huijie Guan, Qingling Zhu, Zuolin Wei, Tan He, Sirui Cao, Fusheng Chen, Tung-Hsun Chung, Hui Deng, Daojin Fan, Ming Gong, Cheng Guo, Shaojun Guo, Lianchen Han, Na Li, Shaowei Li, Yuan Li, Futian Liang, Jin Lin, ...

    2022

  22. [30]

    Evered, Alexandra A

    Dolev Bluvstein, Simon J. Evered, Alexandra A. Geim, Sophie H. Li, Hengyun Zhou, Tom Manovitz, Sepehr Ebadi, Madelyn Cain, Marcin Kalinowski, Dominik Hangleiter, J. Pablo Bonilla Ataides, Nishad Maskara, Iris Cong, Xun Gao, Pedro Sales Rodriguez, Thomas Karolyshyn, Giulia Seme...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Variational quan- tum algorithms in the era of early fault tolerance

    Siddharth Dangwal, Suhas Vittal, Lennart Maximillian Seifert, Fred- eric T Chong, and Gokul Subramanian Ravi. Variational quan- tum algorithms in the era of early fault tolerance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20963, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Early fault-tolerant quantum computing

    Amara Katabarwa, Katerina Gratsea, Athena Caesura, and Peter D Johnson. Early fault-tolerant quantum computing. PRX quantum , 5(2):020101, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Beyond nisq: The megaquop machine, 2025

    John Preskill. Beyond nisq: The megaquop machine, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Performance of quantum approximate optimization with quantum error detection

    Zichang He, David Amaro, Ruslan Shaydulin, and Marco Pistoia. Performance of quantum approximate optimization with quantum error detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12104 , 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Limitations of optimiza- tion algorithms on noisy quantum devices

    Daniel Stilck Fran c ¸a and Raul Garcia-Patron. Limitations of optimiza- tion algorithms on noisy quantum devices. Nature Physics, 17(11):1221– 1227, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Limitations of variational quantum algorithms: a quantum optimal transport approach

    Giacomo De Palma, Milad Marvian, Cambyse Rouz ´e, and Daniel Stilck Franc ¸a. Limitations of variational quantum algorithms: a quantum optimal transport approach. PRX Quantum, 4(1):010309, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Simulating Many-Body Quantum Systems: Quantum Algorithms and Experimental Realisation

    Natalie J Pearson. Simulating Many-Body Quantum Systems: Quantum Algorithms and Experimental Realisation . PhD thesis, ETH Zurich, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum materials science

    Bela Bauer, Sergey Bravyi, Mario Motta, and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan. Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum materials science. Chemical reviews, 120(22):12685–12717, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Assessing requirements to scale to practical quantum advantage

    Michael E Beverland, Prakash Murali, Matthias Troyer, Krysta M Svore, Torsten Hoefler, Vadym Kliuchnikov, Guang Hao Low, Mathias Soeken, Aarthi Sundaram, and Alexander Vaschillo. Assessing requirements to scale to practical quantum advantage. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.07629, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Optimal ancilla-free clifford+ t approximation of z-rotations

    Neil J Ross and Peter Selinger. Optimal ancilla-free clifford+ t approximation of z-rotations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1403.2975 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    The heisenberg representation of quantum computers

    Daniel Gottesman. The heisenberg representation of quantum computers. arXiv preprint quant-ph/9807006 , 1998

    1998 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Both toffoli and controlled-not need little help to do universal quantum computation

    Yaoyun Shi. Both toffoli and controlled-not need little help to do universal quantum computation. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0205115 , 2002

    2002 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Universal quantum computation with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas

    Sergey Bravyi and Alexei Kitaev. Universal quantum computation with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , 71(2):022316, 2005

    2005

  36. [44]

    Magic-state distillation with low overhead

    Sergey Bravyi and Jeongwan Haah. Magic-state distillation with low overhead. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , 86(5):052329, 2012

    2012

  37. [45]

    Codes and protocols for distilling t, controlled-s, and toffoli gates

    Jeongwan Haah and Matthew B Hastings. Codes and protocols for distilling t, controlled-s, and toffoli gates. Quantum, 2:71, 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    Ion-based quantum computing hardware: Performance and end-user perspective

    Thomas Strohm, Karen Wintersperger, Florian Dommert, Daniel Basile- witsch, Georg Reuber, Andrey Hoursanov, Thomas Ehmer, Davide V odola, and Sebastian Luber. Ion-based quantum computing hardware: Performance and end-user perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.11450, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    A race-track trapped-ion quantum processor

    Steven A Moses, Charles H Baldwin, Michael S Allman, R Ancona, L Ascarrunz, C Barnes, J Bartolotta, B Bjork, P Blanchard, M Bohn, et al. A race-track trapped-ion quantum processor. Physical Review X , 13(4):041052, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    High-fidelity preparation, gates, memory, and readout of a trapped-ion quantum bit

    TP Harty, DTC Allcock, C J Ballance, L Guidoni, HA Janacek, NM Linke, DN Stacey, and DM Lucas. High-fidelity preparation, gates, memory, and readout of a trapped-ion quantum bit. Physical review letters, 113(22):220501, 2014

    2014

  41. [49]

    Demonstration of the trapped-ion quantum ccd computer architecture

    Juan M Pino, Jennifer M Dreiling, Caroline Figgatt, John P Gaebler, Steven A Moses, MS Allman, CH Baldwin, Michael Foss-Feig, David Hayes, Karl Mayer, et al. Demonstration of the trapped-ion quantum ccd computer architecture. Nature, 592(7853):209–213, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    Scalable, high-fidelity all-electronic control of trapped-ion qubits

    CM L ¨oschnauer, J Mosca Toba, AC Hughes, SA King, MA Weber, R Srinivas, R Matt, R Nourshargh, DTC Allcock, CJ Ballance, et al. Scalable, high-fidelity all-electronic control of trapped-ion qubits. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07694, 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Scalable multispecies ion transport in a grid-based surface-electrode trap

    Robert D Delaney, Lucas R Sletten, Matthew J Cich, Brian Estey, Maya I Fabrikant, David Hayes, Ian M Hoffman, James Hostetter, Christopher Langer, Steven A Moses, et al. Scalable multispecies ion transport in a grid-based surface-electrode trap. Physical Review X , 14(4):041028, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Tiscc: A surface code compiler and resource estimator for trapped-ion processors

    Tyler LeBlond, Ryan S Bennink, Justin G Lietz, and Christopher M Seck. Tiscc: A surface code compiler and resource estimator for trapped-ion processors. In Proceedings of the SC’23 Workshops of The International Conference on High Performance Computing, Network, Storage, and A...

    2023

  45. [53]

    Quantum mea- surements and gates by code deformation

    H´ector Bomb ´ın and Miguel Angel Martin-Delgado. Quantum mea- surements and gates by code deformation. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 42(9):095302, 2009

    2009

  46. [54]

    Code deformation and lattice surgery are gauge fixing

    Christophe Vuillot, Lingling Lao, Ben Criger, Carmen Garc ´ıa Al- mud´ever, Koen Bertels, and Barbara M Terhal. Code deformation and lattice surgery are gauge fixing. New Journal of Physics , 21(3):033028, 2019

    2019

  47. [55]

    Surf-deformer: Mitigating dynamic defects on surface code via adaptive deformation

    Keyi Yin, Xiang Fang, Travis S Humble, Ang Li, Yunong Shi, and Yufei Ding. Surf-deformer: Mitigating dynamic defects on surface code via adaptive deformation. 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    Stabilizer formalism for operator quantum error correction

    David Poulin. Stabilizer formalism for operator quantum error correction. Physical review letters, 95(23):230504, 2005

    2005

  49. [57]

    Magic state cultivation: growing t states as cheap as cnot gates

    Craig Gidney, Noah Shutty, and Cody Jones. Magic state cultivation: growing t states as cheap as cnot gates. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17595, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Logical computation demonstrated with a neutral atom quantum processor

    Ben W Reichardt, Adam Paetznick, David Aasen, Ivan Basov, Juan M Bello-Rivas, Parsa Bonderson, Rui Chao, Wim van Dam, Matthew B Hastings, Andres Paz, et al. Logical computation demonstrated with a neutral atom quantum processor. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.11822 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Demonstration of fault-tolerant universal quantum gate operations

    Lukas Postler, Sascha Heuβen, Ivan Pogorelov, Manuel Rispler, Thomas Feldker, Michael Meth, Christian D Marciniak, Roman Stricker, Martin Ringbauer, Rainer Blatt, et al. Demonstration of fault-tolerant universal quantum gate operations. Nature, 605(7911):675–680, 2022

    2022

  52. [60]

    Demonstration of quantum computation and error correction with a tesseract code

    Ben W Reichardt, David Aasen, Rui Chao, Alex Chernoguzov, Wim van Dam, John P Gaebler, Dan Gresh, Dominic Lucchetti, Michael Mills, Steven A Moses, et al. Demonstration of quantum computation and error correction with a tesseract code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04628, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Quantum error correction with metastable states of trapped ions using erasure conversion

    Mingyu Kang, Wesley C Campbell, and Kenneth R Brown. Quantum error correction with metastable states of trapped ions using erasure conversion. PRX Quantum, 4(2):020358, 2023

    2023

  54. [62]

    Experimental demonstration of logical magic state distillation

    Pedro Sales Rodriguez, John M Robinson, Paul Niklas Jepsen, Zhiyang He, Casey Duckering, Chen Zhao, Kai-Hsin Wu, Joseph Campo, Kevin Bagnall, Minho Kwon, et al. Experimental demonstration of logical magic state distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15165 , 2024

    2024

  55. [63]

    Evidence of scaling advantage for the quantum approximate optimization algorithm on a classically intractable problem

    Ruslan Shaydulin, Changhao Li, Shouvanik Chakrabarti, Matthew DeCross, Dylan Herman, Niraj Kumar, Jeffrey Larson, Danylo Lykov, Pierre Minssen, Yue Sun, et al. Evidence of scaling advantage for the quantum approximate optimization algorithm on a classically intractable problem...

    2024

  56. [64]

    Solving boolean satisfiability problems with the quantum approximate optimization algorithm

    Sami Boulebnane and Ashley Montanaro. Solving boolean satisfiability problems with the quantum approximate optimization algorithm. PRX Quantum, 5(3):030348, 2024

    2024

  57. [65]

    Threshold for fault- tolerant quantum advantage with the quantum approximate optimization algorithm

    Sivaprasad Omanakuttan, Zichang He, Zhiwei Zhang, Tianyi Hao, Arman Babakhani, Sami Boulebnane, Shouvanik Chakrabarti, Dylan Herman, Joseph Sullivan, Michael A Perlin, et al. Threshold for fault- tolerant quantum advantage with the quantum approximate optimization algorithm. a...

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    End-to-end protocol for high-quality qaoa parameters with few shots

    Tianyi Hao, Zichang He, Ruslan Shaydulin, Jeffrey Larson, and Marco Pistoia. End-to-end protocol for high-quality qaoa parameters with few shots. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00557 , 2024

    2024

  59. [67]

    Alignment between initial state and mixer improves qaoa performance for constrained optimization

    Zichang He, Ruslan Shaydulin, Shouvanik Chakrabarti, Dylan Herman, Changhao Li, Yue Sun, and Marco Pistoia. Alignment between initial state and mixer improves qaoa performance for constrained optimization. npj Quantum Information , 9(1):121, 2023

    2023

  60. [68]

    Vqe using qiskit

    Ketan More. Vqe using qiskit. https://github.com/ketan-more-github/ VQE-Using-Qiskit, 2021. Accessed: 2025-04-09

    2021

  61. [69]

    The ising model: Brief introduction and its application

    Satya Pal Singh. The ising model: Brief introduction and its application. In Solid state physics-metastable, spintronics materials and mechanics of deformable bodies-recent progress . IntechOpen, 2020

    2020

  62. [70]

    Heisenberg xxz model and quantum galilei group

    F Bonechi, E Celeghini, Riccardo Giachetti, E Sorace, and M Tarlini. Heisenberg xxz model and quantum galilei group. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General , 25(15):L939, 1992. 14

    1992

  63. [71]

    Surface code quantum computing by lattice surgery

    Dominic Horsman, Austin G Fowler, Simon Devitt, and Rodney Van Meter. Surface code quantum computing by lattice surgery. New Journal of Physics , 14(12):123011, 2012

    2012

  64. [72]

    Pymatching: A python package for decoding quantum codes with minimum-weight perfect matching

    Oscar Higgott. Pymatching: A python package for decoding quantum codes with minimum-weight perfect matching. ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 3(3):1–16, 2022

    2022

  65. [73]

    Low overhead quantum computation using lattice surgery

    Austin G Fowler and Craig Gidney. Low overhead quantum computation using lattice surgery. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.06709 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Fault-tolerant postselected quantum computation: Threshold analysis

    Emanuel Knill. Fault-tolerant postselected quantum computation: Threshold analysis. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0404104 , 2004

    2004 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Magic state injection on the rotated surface code

    Lingling Lao and Ben Criger. Magic state injection on the rotated surface code. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers, pages 113–120, 2022

    2022

  68. [76]

    A magic state’s fidelity can be superior to the operations that created it

    Ying Li. A magic state’s fidelity can be superior to the operations that created it. New Journal of Physics , 17(2):023037, 2015

    2015

  69. [77]

    Magic state distillation: Not as costly as you think

    Daniel Litinski. Magic state distillation: Not as costly as you think. Quantum, 3:205, 2019

    2019

  70. [78]

    Quantum computations with cold trapped ions

    Juan I Cirac and Peter Zoller. Quantum computations with cold trapped ions. Physical review letters, 74(20):4091, 1995

    1995

  71. [79]

    Electromagnetic traps for charged and neutral particles

    Wolfgang Paul. Electromagnetic traps for charged and neutral particles. Reviews of modern physics , 62(3):531, 1990

    1990

  72. [80]

    Scalable loading of a two-dimensional trapped-ion array

    Colin D Bruzewicz, Robert McConnell, John Chiaverini, and Jeremy M Sage. Scalable loading of a two-dimensional trapped-ion array. Nature communications, 7(1):13005, 2016

    2016

  73. [81]

    Multiparticle entanglement of hot trapped ions

    Klaus Mølmer and Anders Sørensen. Multiparticle entanglement of hot trapped ions. Physical Review Letters , 82(9):1835, 1999

    1999

  74. [82]

    Robust m {\o} lmer-s{\o} rensen gate against symmetric and asymmetric errors

    Wenhao Zhang, Gaoxiang Tang, Kecheng Liu, Xiao Yuan, Yangchao Shen, Yukai Wu, and Xiao-Ming Zhang. Robust m {\o} lmer-s{\o} rensen gate against symmetric and asymmetric errors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.02847, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  75. [83]

    High-fidelity two- qubit quantum logic gates using trapped calcium-43 ions

    CJ Ballance, TP Harty, NM Linke, and DM Lucas. High-fidelity two- qubit quantum logic gates using trapped calcium-43 ions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5473, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Nature, 597(7875):209–213, 2021

    Raghavendra Srinivas, SC Burd, HM Knaack, RT Sutherland, Alex Kwiatkowski, Scott Glancy, Emanuel Knill, DJ Wineland, Dietrich Leibfried, Andrew C Wilson, et al. Nature, 597(7875):209–213, 2021

    2021

  77. [85]

    High-fidelity bell- state preparation with ca+ 40 optical qubits

    Craig R Clark, Holly N Tinkey, Brian C Sawyer, Adam M Meier, Karl A Burkhardt, Christopher M Seck, Christopher M Shappert, Nicholas D Guise, Curtis E V olin, Spencer D Fallek, et al. High-fidelity bell- state preparation with ca+ 40 optical qubits. Physical Review Letters , 12...

    2021

  78. [86]

    High-fidelity readout of trapped-ion qubits

    AH Myerson, DJ Szwer, SC Webster, DTC Allcock, MJ Curtis, G Imreh, JA Sherman, DN Stacey, AM Steane, and DM Lucas. High-fidelity readout of trapped-ion qubits. Physical Review Letters, 100(20):200502, 2008

    2008

  79. [87]

    Experimental issues in coherent quantum-state manipulation of trapped atomic ions

    David J Wineland, Christopher Monroe, Wayne M Itano, Dietrich Leibfried, Brian E King, and Dawn M Meekhof. Experimental issues in coherent quantum-state manipulation of trapped atomic ions. Journal of research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology , 103(3):259, 1998

    1998

  80. [88]

    Architecture for a large-scale ion-trap quantum computer

    David Kielpinski, Chris Monroe, and David J Wineland. Architecture for a large-scale ion-trap quantum computer. Nature, 417(6890):709–711, 2002

    2002

  81. [89]

    Entangled states of trapped atomic ions

    Rainer Blatt and David Wineland. Entangled states of trapped atomic ions. Nature, 453(7198):1008–1015, 2008

    2008

  82. [90]

    Architecting noisy intermediate-scale trapped ion quantum computers

    Prakash Murali, Dripto M Debroy, Kenneth R Brown, and Margaret Martonosi. Architecting noisy intermediate-scale trapped ion quantum computers. In 2020 ACM/IEEE 47th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA) , pages 529–542. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  83. [91]

    Scaling and assigning resources on ion trap qccd architectures

    Anabel Ovide, Daniele Cuomo, and Carmen G Almudever. Scaling and assigning resources on ion trap qccd architectures. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), volume 1, pages 959–970. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  84. [92]

    Progress in trapped-ion quantum simulation

    Michael Foss-Feig, Guido Pagano, Andrew C Potter, and Norman Y Yao. Progress in trapped-ion quantum simulation. Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics , 16, 2024

    2024

  85. [93]

    Quantinuum accelerates the path to Universal Fully Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing. 2024

    2024

  86. [94]

    Fault tolerant non-clifford state preparation for arbitrary rotations

    Hyeongrak Choi, Frederic T Chong, Dirk Englund, and Yongshan Ding. Fault tolerant non-clifford state preparation for arbitrary rotations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17380, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Subsystem codes with high thresholds by gauge fixing and reduced qubit overhead

    Oscar Higgott and Nikolas P Breuckmann. Subsystem codes with high thresholds by gauge fixing and reduced qubit overhead. Physical Review X, 11(3):031039, 2021

    2021

  88. [96]

    Decoding algorithms for surface codes

    Antonio deMarti iOlius, Patricio Fuentes, Rom ´an Or´us, Pedro M Crespo, and Josu Etxezarreta Martinez. Decoding algorithms for surface codes. Quantum, 8:1498, 2024

    2024

  89. [97]

    Tackling the qubit mapping prob- lem for nisq-era quantum devices

    Gushu Li, Yufei Ding, and Yuan Xie. Tackling the qubit mapping prob- lem for nisq-era quantum devices. In Proceedings of the twenty-fourth international conference on architectural support for programming languages and operating systems , pages 1001–1014, 2019

    2019

  90. [98]

    A modular quantum-classical framework for simulating chemical reaction pathways accurately

    Shampa Sarkar, Manoj Nambiar, Sriram Goverapet Srinivasan, et al. A modular quantum-classical framework for simulating chemical reaction pathways accurately. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.08930 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Qiskit aer: High performance simulator for quantum circuits, 2025

    Qiskit Development Team. Qiskit aer: High performance simulator for quantum circuits, 2025. Accessed: 2025-02-25

    2025

  92. [100]

    A simplex method for function minimization

    John A Nelder and Roger Mead. A simplex method for function minimization. The computer journal , 7(4):308–313, 1965

    1965

  93. [101]

    Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits

    Scott Aaronson and Daniel Gottesman. Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , 70(5):052328, 2004

    2004

  94. [102]

    Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance

    Youngseok Kim, Andrew Eddins, Sajant Anand, Ken Xuan Wei, Ewout Van Den Berg, Sami Rosenblatt, Hasan Nayfeh, Yantao Wu, Michael Zaletel, Kristan Temme, et al. Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance. Nature, 618(7965):500–505, 2023

    2023

  95. [103]

    Clapton: Clifford-assisted problem transformation for error mitigation in variational quantum algorithms

    Lennart Maximilian Seifert, Siddharth Dangwal, Frederic T Chong, and Gokul Subramanian Ravi. Clapton: Clifford-assisted problem transformation for error mitigation in variational quantum algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15721 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator

    Craig Gidney. Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator. Quantum, 5:497, 2021

    2021

  97. [105]

    The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms

    Jarrod R McClean, Jonathan Romero, Ryan Babbush, and Al ´an Aspuru- Guzik. The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms. New Journal of Physics , 18(2):023023, 2016. 15

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.