Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

A Unitary Encoder for Surface Codes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper's central claim is that a depth-four unitary circuit grows a rotated surface code to double distance, cutting preparation depth to $4\log_2 d + O(1)$ steps.

desk verdict A genuinely new depth-4 surface-code growth step with an explicit proof, but the numerical advantage rests on a decoder condition that is only numerically verified. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04084 v1 pith:APD2LZNH submitted 2025-06-04 quant-ph

Pei-Kai Tsai , Shruti Puri This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P7081P68 PACS 03.67.Pp03.67.Lx
keywords surfacecoderotatedregularconversionunitaryencoderlogicalstatepreparationminimum-weightmatchingfaultdistance
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 proposes a non-local unitary encoder that grows a rotated surface code Rot($d$) into a rotated surface code Rot($2d-1$) in only four time steps, by converting it first to a regular surface code Reg($d$) and then back to a rotated code of doubled size. Iterating this growth starting from a constant-size Rot(3) prepares Rot($d$) in $4\log_2 d + O(1)$ steps, about four-sevenths of the depth of the previous fastest non-local encoders. The authors prove the conversion by tracking stabilizers and logical operators, and they show numerically that despite long-range error propagation, every error mechanism still triggers at most two detection events, so standard minimum-weight matching decoders apply. For preparing the Pauli $Y$ eigenstate under circuit-level noise, the encoder yields lower logical error rates and faster generation than both a local unitary encoder and the conventional stabilizer-measurement method at distances through 17. The practical upshot is that logical states that are hard to prepare transversally, such as $Y$ and Clifford eigenstates and magic states, could be produced more efficiently on platforms with non-local interactions such as neutral atoms and trapped ions.

What carries the argument

The central object is a four-step code-conversion circuit built from face qubits and two-layer rounds of controlled-$X$ gates. Rot($d$) is the rotated planar surface code on $d^2$ data qubits, while Reg($d$) is the regular surface code variant with $d^2+(d-1)^2$ data qubits and three-body boundary stabilizers. Stage 1 converts Rot($d$) into Reg($d$) by inserting one fresh qubit per stabilizer face and applying two parallel layers of controlled-$X$ gates; Stage 2 converts Reg($d$) into Rot($2d-1$) by repeating the same pattern on the larger lattice. The proof tracks how each stabilizer and its associated face qubit evolve into two smaller stabilizers, which halves the face size and doubles the code distance each round, and the same tracking covers boundary stabilizers and logical operators.

What would settle it

Enumerate every possible single-qubit and two-qubit depolarizing error at every gate and reset location in one growth round, and count how many syndrome bits each error flips; finding any error that flips three or more syndrome bits and cannot be decomposed into edge-like components would invalidate the matching-decoder claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a depth-four unitary circuit that converts a rotated surface code of distance $d$ into a rotated surface code of distance $2d-1$. In the first two steps, fresh face qubits are placed on every stabilizer face of Rot($d$), and two layers of controlled-$X$ gates entangle them so that the whole system becomes a regular surface code Reg($d$); this is exactly the first half of a standard stabilizer-measurement cycle. The next two steps repeat the same construction on Reg($d$), adding another layer of face qubits and two more controlled-$X$ layers, and the stabilizer-tracking proof shows the result is Rot($2d-1$). Because each growth round takes four steps, iterating from Rot(3) gives a unitary encoder of depth $4\log_2 d + O(1)$, reaching the logarithmic lower bound while using roughly four-sevenths of the depth of previous non-local encoders. The paper also argues that the fault distance of the process stays fixed at the initial code distance, so the encoder's main use is preparing states that cannot be accessed transversally, such as the Pauli $Y$ eigenstate, Clifford eigenstates, and magic states. Numerical simulations at circuit-level depolarizing noise show that the non-local encoder can be decoded with ordinary matching decoders and outperforms a local unitary encoder and stabilizer-measurement preparation for the $Y$ eigenstate at distances up to 17.

Load-bearing premise

The central load-bearing premise is that every single physical error in the non-local encoder produces at most two changed stabilizer readings, or decomposes into such pieces, and this property is checked by simulation rather than proved analytically.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Repeated application prepares a Rot($d$) surface code unitarily from Rot(3) in $4\log_2 d + O(1)$ time steps, roughly 43 percent fewer than the previous fastest non-local encoders.
  • The total number of controlled-$X$ gates is the same as for the local unitary encoder, $2D^2 - 2D - 12$ for final distance $D$, so the large depth reduction does not come at the cost of extra gates.
  • Ordinary minimum-weight perfect matching decoders can be used on the non-local encoder, because propagated errors still trigger at most two detection events even though the circuit is non-local.
  • For Pauli $Y$-eigenstate preparation under circuit-level noise with $p_2 = p_m = 5p_1 = 0.5\%$, the non-local encoder gives the lowest logical error rate at distances 5, 9, and 17 and is faster than both a local unitary encoder and stabilizer-measurement preparation for final distances up to about 17.
  • The encoder is especially natural for neutral-atom and trapped-ion platforms with non-local interactions, since its two stages match the first half of a stabilizer-measurement cycle and can bypass slow measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the at-most-two-detection-events property can be proved analytically rather than only checked by simulation, the non-local encoder would become a fully certified alternative to measurement-based preparation and could be extended to larger distances and other noise models.
  • Editorial inference: because Stage 1 is literally half of a standard stabilizer-measurement cycle, neutral-atom hardware already optimized for surface-code stabilizer measurements may implement the encoder with minimal additional overhead; the paper notes compatibility but leaves a detailed atom-movement and noise accounting to future work.
  • Editorial inference: the same code-conversion pattern may transfer to color codes through known local unitary conversions between color and surface codes, which would give a logarithmic-depth unitary encoder for another topological code family.
  • Editorial inference: the time advantage of the non-local encoder should widen on hardware where measurements are even slower relative to two-qubit gates than the factor-of-ten assumed here, making the unitary approach attractive for magic-state cultivation and distillation.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a non-local unitary encoder that converts a rotated surface code Rot(d) into a larger rotated surface code Rot(2d-1) in four parallelized time steps. The conversion proceeds in two stages: Stage 1 maps Rot(d) to a regular surface code Reg(d) by adding one face qubit per bulk stabilizer face and applying two layers of CNOT gates, and Stage 2 maps Reg(d) to Rot(2d-1) by the same pattern on the regular lattice. Repeating the expansion gives a unitary preparation depth of 4 log2 d + O(1) for an initial Rot(3), compared with 7 log2 d for MERA-based encoders. The paper also presents numerical simulations with a depolarizing circuit-level noise model and Stim/PyMatching, claiming that the non-local encoder can be decoded with minimum-weight perfect matching and can achieve lower logical error rates and shorter preparation times than a local unitary encoder and a stabilizer-measurement encoder for the |+i> state at distances up to 17.

Significance. The theoretical construction is interesting and largely self-contained: the stabilizer-tracking proof in Sec. IV B is explicit for the bulk, the boundary analysis is provided in Appendix B, and Appendix E gives a verified gate-count identity. The numerical study directly addresses the natural concern that non-local error propagation may complicate decoding, and it provides falsifiable predictions for a concrete noise model. If the decoder-matchability condition is confirmed, the depth reduction from 7 log2 d to 4 log2 d, together with the simulated advantage at small distances, would be a useful step for logical state preparation in platforms with long-range interactions. The authors are also appropriately careful in stating that the fault distance of the unitary process remains fixed by the initial code and that the practical advantage is platform-dependent.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V A and Appendix D] The numerical superiority of the non-local encoder in Figs. 6 and 7 is carried by the claim that conventional MWPM decoding remains valid for this circuit, i.e., that every circuit-level error mechanism triggers at most two detection events or decomposes into such components. Appendix D states that this condition is verified numerically but provides no analytical proof, no description of the verification procedure (which distances, whether all error locations and Pauli errors were enumerated exhaustively or sampled, how hyperedge decomposition was checked), and no simulation code or data. This matters because the non-local encoder has fan-out across growth rounds: a fault on a face qubit can be copied to multiple data qubits in later rounds, so the at-most-two-detector property is not inherited from the local circuit analysis. Without a reproducible verification, the logical error rates in Figs. 6 and 7 could reflect decoder limitations rather than encoder properties, especially at the largest simulated distance and for other noise parameters. Please provide the missing details or, preferably, an analytical proof of the matchability condition for the constructed circuits.
  2. [Abstract, Sec. I, and Appendix E] The abstract states that the encoder 'halves the gate count of the fastest encoder known previously' and Sec. I says it 'reduces the overhead almost by a factor of two compared to previous approaches.' However, Appendix E derives N_nonloc = N_loc = 2D^2 - 2D - 12, showing that the non-local encoder uses the same total number of CNOT gates as the local encoder, and no gate-count comparison with the MERA construction is given. The factor of two in the manuscript is a reduction in circuit depth (4 log2 d versus 7 log2 d), not in gate count. The abstract and introduction should be corrected to avoid this unsupported claim.
  3. [Appendix B and Sec. IV B] The boundary stabilizer tracking in Appendix B is presented through figures and descriptive text rather than through the explicit operator transformations used for the bulk in Sec. IV B. Since the conversion claim Rot(d) to Reg(d) to Rot(2d-1) depends on the correct treatment of all four boundary types and of the logical operators, the paper would be easier to verify if Appendix B listed the explicit stabilizer maps for each boundary type and for the logical operators, even in a short algebraic table. The current presentation is checkable but less transparent than the bulk proof.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV A] The text 'for d = 2k + 1 (k in N)' should read 'for d = 2^k + 1 (k in N)', matching the sequence 3, 5, 9, 17, ... and the formula 4(log2(d-1) - 1). The same typo appears in Sec. V B where the non-local encoder is claimed to reach distances df = 2m + 1; for the non-local growth the correct form is df = 2^m + 1.
  2. [Appendix A] The 'HYZ gate' in Fig. 8 is not defined in the text or caption; please specify whether it is a composite of H and a YZ rotation or a standard named gate, so that the circuit is reproducible.
  3. [Sec. V C] The notation 'Tm/10 = T2q = 1' is awkward; writing Tm = 10 T2q would make the assumed measurement-to-gate time ratio immediately clear.
  4. [Fig. 6 and Fig. 7] The simulation plots do not report statistical uncertainties or the number of shots used per logical error rate. Adding error bars or a statement of the sampling error would strengthen the quantitative comparison.
  5. [Sec. III C] The fault-distance concept is introduced through an example rather than a formal definition; a concise definition of fault distance for a code operation would make the limitation of unitary encoders more precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

The encoder derivation is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs; the only notable caveat is an unproved decoder-matchability condition, which is a correctness risk rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The central construction is re-derived in the paper rather than assumed. Section IV B tracks the evolution of stabilizers and logical operators through the four gate layers, and Appendix B extends the tracking to boundary stabilizers and logical operators. The Stage 1 rotated-to-regular conversion, originally from McEwen et al. [16], is re-proved in Section IV B and Appendix B instead of being imported as an unexamined premise. Stage 2 is new and is justified by the same stabilizer-evolution argument after a 45-degree rotation, not by citing the result it is meant to establish. No parameters are fitted to the target logical error rates: the depth claim (4 log_2 d + O(1)) follows from the four-step recursion Rot(d) to Rot(2d-1) and the constant-depth Rot(3) seed in Appendix A. The numerical comparisons use independently implemented MWPM decoding (PyMatching) and Stim simulations, with noise parameters chosen from hardware references rather than from the quantities being predicted. The one load-bearing caveat is in Appendix D: the condition that each circuit-level error mechanism triggers at most two detection events is verified numerically and not proven analytically. This is a genuine limitation that could affect the numerical advantage if it fails at larger distances or under other noise models, but it is not circular: the code-conversion derivation does not depend on that condition, and the numerical check is an external falsifiable benchmark, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. There are no self-citations that carry the argument; [27] is an announced future work and [25] is an experimental noise reference. Accordingly, no circularity step is identified.

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

The circuit construction itself has no free parameters and rests on standard stabilizer algebra. The numerical performance comparison depends on chosen noise parameters and on numerically verified matchability; these are modeling assumptions rather than fitted quantities.

free parameters (2)
  • Noise model rates (p1, p2, pm) = p1=0.1%, p2=0.5%, pm=0.5% in end-to-end; p2=0.5% in ideal-initial simulations
    Chosen to reflect experimentally relevant regimes; the claimed performance advantage is conditional on these settings and on the ratio p1/p2.
  • Measurement-to-gate time ratio Tm/T2q = 10
    Assumed consistent with experimental platforms; affects the time-overhead advantage shown in Fig. 7(b).
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard stabilizer formalism and surface code stabilizer structure are correctly mapped under Clifford gates.
    Used throughout Sec. IV B to track stabilizer evolution.
  • domain assumption Every error mechanism in the non-local encoder triggers at most two detection events or decomposes into such components under circuit-level depolarizing noise.
    Verified numerically in Appendix D; no analytical proof provided. The MWPM decoding claim depends on it.
  • domain assumption Noise channels are independent depolarizing channels with the stated strengths; idle, initialization, and measurement errors follow the modeled distributions.
    Numerical simulations use this model; performance comparisons are relative to this noise model.
  • domain assumption Physical platforms can implement arbitrary long-range CX gates in a single time step without additional overhead.
    Non-local encoder assumes non-local interactions can be applied in parallel; the paper discusses neutral atoms and trapped ions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Unitary Encoder for Surface Codes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/APD2LZNH

@misc{pith2026250604084,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Unitary Encoder for Surface Codes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/APD2LZNH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04084}
}
read the original abstract

The surface code is a promising candidate for fault-tolerant quantum computation and has been implemented in many quantum hardware platforms. In this work, we propose a new non-local unitary circuit to encode a surface code state based on a code conversion between rotated and regular surface codes, which halves the gate count of the fastest encoder known previously. While the unitary encoders can be used to increase the code distance, the fault-distance remains fixed. Nonetheless, they can be used for space-time efficient realization of eigenstates of the surface code operators that can't be easily accessed transversally such as the Pauli Y-eignestate and Clifford eigenstates. It may be expected that error propagation in the non-local circuit will make decoding more challenging compared to local unitary encoding circuits. However, we find this not to be the case and that conventional matching decoders can be effectively used. Furthermore, we perform numerical simulations to benchmark the performance of our encoder against a previous local unitary encoder and the conventional stabilizer-measurement based encoder for preparing the Pauli Y-eigenstate and find that our encoder can outperform these in experimentally relevant noise regimes. Therefore, our encoder provides practical advantage in platforms where non-local interactions are available such as neutral atoms and trapped ions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04084 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Layout of a regular surface code. (b) Layout of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The gate sequence for the local encoder from a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. The evolution of rotated code stabilizers in Stage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: illustrates the growth process described above. Let a denote the side length of an X-stabilizer in the Rot(d) code shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of logical error rates for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. An end-to-end comparison of non-local unitary, local [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. A unitary encoding circuit for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Proof of code conversion for stabilizers on the bound [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The initial qubit state for injecting an arbitrary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Error propagation in a single round of expansion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dennis, A

    E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Topological quantum memory, Journal of Mathematical Physics 43, 4452 (2002), publisher: American Institute of Physics

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  3. [3]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation, Physical Review A 86, 032324 (2012), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Google Quantum AI, Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, Nature 614, 676 (2023), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kali- nowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Logical quantum processor based on recon- figurable atom arrays, Nature 626...

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Berthusen, J

    N. Berthusen, J. Dreiling, C. Foltz, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatterman, D. Gresh, N. Hewitt, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, B. Neyenhuis, P. Siegfried, and D. Hayes, Experiments with the four-dimensional surface code on a quantum charge-coupled device quantum computer, Physical Re- view A 110, 062413 (2024), publisher: American Physi- cal Society

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Gottesman, Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Cor- rection (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052

    D. Gottesman, Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Cor- rection (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052

    arXiv 1997

  8. [8]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computa- tion with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Physical Review A 71, 022316 (2005), publisher: American Phys- ical Society

    work page 2005

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Bravyi, M

    S. Bravyi, M. B. Hastings, and F. Verstraete, Lieb- Robinson Bounds and the Generation of Correlations and Topological Quantum Order, Physical Review Letters97, 050401 (2006)

    2006

  2. [10]

    Higgott, M

    O. Higgott, M. Wilson, J. Hefford, J. Dborin, F. Hanif, S. Burton, and D. E. Browne, Optimal local unitary en- coding circuits for the surface code, Quantum 5, 517 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    P. Chen, B. Yan, and S. X. Cui, Quantum circuits for toric code and X-cube fracton model, Quantum 8, 1276 (2024), publisher: Verein zur F¨ orderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften

    2024

  4. [12]

    Aguado and G

    M. Aguado and G. Vidal, Entanglement Renormaliza- tion and Topological Order, Physical Review Letters100, 070404 (2008)

    2008

  5. [13]

    Vidal, A class of quantum many-body states that can be efficiently simulated, Physical Review Letters 101, 110501 (2008), arXiv:quant-ph/0610099

    G. Vidal, A class of quantum many-body states that can be efficiently simulated, Physical Review Letters 101, 110501 (2008), arXiv:quant-ph/0610099

    2008 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Liao and D

    P. Liao and D. L. Feder, Graph-state representation of the toric code, Physical Review A 104, 012432 (2021), publisher: American Physical Society. 10

    2021

  7. [15]

    Aharonov and Y

    D. Aharonov and Y. Touati, Quantum Circuit Depth Lower Bounds For Homological Codes (2018), arXiv:1810.03912 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    McEwen, D

    M. McEwen, D. Bacon, and C. Gidney, Relaxing Hard- ware Requirements for Surface Code Circuits using Time- dynamics, Quantum 7, 1172 (2023), arXiv:2302.02192 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    S.-K. Chu, G. Zhu, and A. V. Gorshkov, Entanglement Renormalization Circuits for Chiral Topological Order (2023), arXiv:2304.13748 [cond-mat, physics:quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    (see Appendix C). To extract the logical error rate for the unitary en- coders in numerical simulations, we perform one round of perfect syndrome measurements and use PyMatch- ing [22] to implement a minimum-weight perfect match- ing (MWPM) decoder on the resulting syndromes. ...

  11. [19]

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

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

    2015

  12. [20]

    Lao and B

    L. Lao and B. Criger, Magic state injection on the ro- tated surface code, in Proceedings of the 19th ACM In- ternational Conference on Computing Frontiers(ACM, Turin Italy, 2022) pp. 113–120

    2022

  13. [21]

    Gidney, N

    C. Gidney, N. Shutty, and C. Jones, Magic state cultiva- tion: growing T states as cheap as CNOT gates (2024), arXiv:2409.17595

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Tomita and K

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

    2014

  15. [23]

    Higgott and C

    O. Higgott and C. Gidney, Sparse Blossom: correcting a million errors per core second with minimum-weight matching (2023), arXiv:2303.15933 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Gidney, Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator, Quan- tum 5, 497 (2021), publisher: Verein zur F¨ orderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften

    C. Gidney, Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator, Quan- tum 5, 497 (2021), publisher: Verein zur F¨ orderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften

    2021

  17. [25]

    S. Ma, A. P. Burgers, G. Liu, J. Wilson, B. Zhang, and J. D. Thompson, Universal Gate Operations on Nuclear Spin Qubits in an Optical Tweezer Array of $ˆ{171}\mathrm{Yb}$ Atoms, Physical Review X 12, 021028 (2022), publisher: American Physical Society

    2022

  18. [26]

    S. Ma, G. Liu, P. Peng, B. Zhang, S. Jandura, J. Claes, A. P. Burgers, G. Pupillo, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, High-fidelity gates and mid-circuit erasure conversion in an atomic qubit, Nature 622, 279 (2023), publisher: Na- ture Publishing Group

    2023

  19. [27]

    Bluvstein, H

    D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, A quantum processor based on coherent transport of en- tangled atom arrays, Nature 604, 451 (2022), publisher: Nature Pub...

    2022

  20. [28]

    Tsai, et al., (to be published)

    P.-K. Tsai, et al., (to be published)

  21. [29]

    Kubica, B

    A. Kubica, B. Yoshida, and F. Pastawski, Unfolding the color code, New Journal of Physics 17, 083026 (2015), publisher: IOP Publishing

    2015

  22. [30]

    Ding and L

    Z. Ding and L. Lin, Even Shorter Quantum Circuit for Phase Estimation on Early Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computers with Applications to Ground-State Energy Estimation, PRX Quantum 4, 020331 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    H. Ni, H. Li, and L. Ying, On low-depth algorithms for quantum phase estimation, Quantum 7, 1165 (2023), arXiv:2302.02454 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    G. Wang, D. S. Fran¸ ca, R. Zhang, S. Zhu, and P. D. Johnson, Quantum algorithm for ground state energy es- timation using circuit depth with exponentially improved dependence on precision, Quantum 7, 1167 (2023), arXiv:2209.06811 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.