Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Drift-resilient mid-circuit measurement and state preparation error mitigation for dynamic circuits

T0 review · 2 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 This paper establishes that the parity of $2j+1$ repeated, twirled measurements of a qubit equals $M^{2j+1}q$, so Taylor post-processing mitigates readout, preparation, and mid-circuit measurement errors with no calibration and full drift…

desk verdict Parity-based drift-resilient readout mitigation is a real step forward; the i.i.d. assumption is explicit and untested, but the experiments make it plausible. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11270 v2 pith:HCFTDCNH submitted 2025-06-12 quant-ph

Jader P. Santos , Raam Uzdin This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P68
keywords quantumerrormitigationmid-circuitmeasurementreadoutSPAMerrorsdynamiccircuitsdriftresilienceparityKIKmethod
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

Dynamic circuits—quantum programs with mid-circuit measurements and feedforward—are bottlenecked by measurement errors that standard readout mitigation cannot handle when noise drifts over time. This paper claims that measuring a qubit $2j+1$ times in a single shot and recording the classical parity (XOR) of the outcomes produces a distribution identical to $M^{2j+1}q$, where $M$ is the twirled assignment matrix, so Richardson–Taylor coefficients cancel readout noise without ever learning $M$. Because the protocol is characterization-free, it stays unbiased under temporal drift and permits pooling data from different times or processors. For qubit decay during the measurement sequence, the paper adds dummy measurements or a weighted-parity function; for platforms with destructive measurements and high-quality reset, a reset-based variant achieves the same $M^{2j+1}$ amplification. The experimental demonstrations on superconducting and trapped-ion hardware, including a twenty-qubit readout-mitigation test and a five-qubit dynamic-circuit GHZ state, support the claim's practical reach.

What carries the argument

The central object is the parity of $2j+1$ consecutive twirled measurements of a qubit string: for each qubit, XOR the $2j+1$ readout bits from one shot. After twirling, the assignment matrix is a classical bit-flip channel, and commutativity of XOR with bit flips makes the parity distribution equal to $M^{2j+1}q$; Richardson–Taylor coefficients $\sum_j a_j^{(m)} M^{2j+1} = I + O(\epsilon^{m+1})$ then cancel readout noise to order $m$. To handle qubit population decay during the sequence, dummy measurements (with posterior dummies) and a weighted-parity function restore the $2j+1$ noise scaling that Taylor mitigation requires, while the reset-based scheme directly imprints the noisy outcome onto the qubit, realizing $M^{2j+1}$ for arbitrary, not only twirled, assignment matrices.

What would settle it

Prepare a fixed input state and repeatedly measure a single qubit $2j+1$ times per shot with a detector whose single-shot assignment matrix $M$ is known but whose errors are deliberately correlated across consecutive measurements, for example by adding a controlled memory or heating with a known time constant. If the empirical parity frequencies deviate from $M^{2j+1}q$ beyond statistical error, the central identity fails and Taylor mitigation will not reach its predicted order.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that noise in preparation, mid-circuit, and terminating measurements can be amplified in a controlled way without any noise characterization, by taking the parity of $2j+1$ consecutive twirled measurements of each qubit within one shot. After twirling, the readout assignment matrix $M$ becomes a classical bit-flip channel, and since XOR commutes with bit flips, the parity outcome of the $2j+1$ measurements is distributed exactly as $M^{2j+1}q$ for any number of qubits and any spatial correlations in readout error. Combining the parity distributions at different $j$ with Taylor coefficients $a_j^{(m)}$ satisfies $\sum_{j=0}^m a_j^{(m)} M^{2j+1} = I + O(\epsilon^{m+1})$, so readout error is cancelled to order $m$ with no calibration. The paper further shows that qubit decay or bit-flip noise during the repeated measurements breaks the simple parity identity, and that dummy measurements or a state-dependent weighted parity restore the $2j+1$ scaling that Taylor cancellation requires; the reset-based variant works for platforms where measurement destroys the state but a high-fidelity reset exists. On this basis the paper claims drift-resilient, end-to-end mitigation for dynamic circuits when combined with gate-error mitigation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that repeated measurements of the same qubit in one shot are statistically independent and share one twirled assignment matrix; the paper does not directly test this assumption on hardware, and correlated readout errors would break the parity identity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mid-circuit and terminating readout mitigation no longer needs repeated calibration; the same experimental data remain unbiased even when noise parameters drift, so shots from different times, qubit sets, or processors can be pooled.
  • Because the delay experienced by the measured and spectator qubits also scales as $2j+1$, Markovian decay and bit-flip noise during measurement are cancelled along with the readout error.
  • Conditional-reset preparation errors are mitigated with the same parity machinery, and a unified SPAM protocol can fold preparation-error mitigation into the terminating readout without extra sampling overhead.
  • Combined with Layered-KIK gate mitigation and twirling, the scheme gives end-to-end drift-resilient mitigation for dynamic circuits, including quantum error correction circuits.
  • The repeated measurements double as a zero-overhead real-time diagnostic for qubit quality, and the approach offers a faster alternative to gate-set tomography.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the independence assumption fails—for example, if detector memory or heating correlates consecutive readouts—the parity distribution will differ from $M^{2j+1}q$, and the residual bias should scale with the correlation strength; injecting known correlations in a test would map the boundary of the method.
  • The weighted-parity weights are not unique; optimizing them for asymmetric readout and decay rates could lower the sampling overhead below the paper's simple choice.
  • Because archived parity data are raw and calibration-free, they can be re-analyzed later with higher mitigation orders or improved coefficients, turning each job into a reusable dataset.
  • Closing the loop on the paper's diagnostic tool—automatically discarding or re-weighting time windows where the in-sequence decay curves flag a defective qubit—could make drift resilience even stronger than the protocol alone.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces parity-based noise amplification for readout error mitigation in dynamic circuits. By computing the XOR of 2j+1 consecutive measurements of the same qubit, the authors show that, under measurement twirling and the assumption of statistically independent measurements, the parity distribution equals the distribution obtained from the amplified assignment matrix M^{2j+1}. This enables characterization-free, drift-resilient mitigation of measurement and state-preparation errors using the Taylor (KIK) coefficients. The paper also introduces dummy-measurement and weighted-parity variants to remove first-order qubit-decay bias, a reset-based scheme for platforms with high-fidelity reset, a unified SPAM mitigation protocol, and integration with Layered-KIK gate mitigation. The claims are supported by experiments on IBMQ and Quantinuum hardware, including a twenty-qubit readout mitigation experiment and a ten-qubit trapped-ion reset experiment.

Significance. If the central identity holds, this is a substantial advance: it provides a calibration-free, drift-resilient method for mitigating mid-circuit and terminating measurement errors and preparation errors in dynamic circuits, a regime where existing readout mitigation relies on repeated characterization. The analytic proof of Eq. (16) under twirling is clean, and the paper correctly identifies the first-order decay bias and proposes two fixes (dummy and weighted parity). The experimental effort is extensive and appropriate: five-day data collection with a fixed approximate inverse demonstrates drift resilience, the twenty-qubit experiment compares several variants, and the trapped-ion reset experiment tests the alternative scheme. The paper also responsibly notes the statistical-independence assumption, but it does not test temporal correlations or within-shot stationarity, which is the main load-bearing gap in the general claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IIC, Eq. (16)] The identity {spar(2j+1)} = {sM^{2j+1}} requires that the 2j+1 noise strings k_i are independent and identically distributed draws from the same twirled channel α. The manuscript states this as an assumption in Sec. IIB ('The measurements are assumed to be statistically independent') but provides no hardware test of temporal independence or of stationarity of M over the 2j+1 measurements in a shot. On platforms with detector memory, heating, leakage, or residual resonator ringdown, the joint distribution of k_i is not a product, Eq. (16) fails, and the Taylor cancellation in Eq. (3) no longer suppresses the readout bias. The dummy, weighted-parity, and reset schemes of Secs. IIIB, IIID, and IV all compose M through repeated measurements and inherit this condition. The decay curves in Appendix IV monitor population dynamics but do not test temporal correlations of the noise strings. Please add a direct test (for example, comparing the measured two-measurement joint distribution with the product of single-measurement distributions, or reporting lagged correlation diagnostics) or explicitly restrict the protocol's scope to platforms on which the i.i.d. assumption has been validated. As written, the general claim in the abstract is broader than what is established.
  2. [Secs. I A and VII] The drift-resilience claim should be qualified by the time-scale on which the assignment matrix is assumed constant. The parity identity requires M to be the same for all 2j+1 measurements in a shot, and the time-bin argument in Sec. I A addresses drifts between circuits or jobs, not drifts within a single measurement sequence. If M changes on a time scale comparable to the measurement sequence, the parity distribution is governed by a product of distinct assignment matrices rather than M^{2j+1}, and the Taylor cancellation does not apply. The experiments demonstrate drift resilience over days and between jobs, but they do not test within-sequence drift. The paper should state this time-scale hierarchy explicitly and, if the protocol is claimed to be drift-resilient on all relevant time scales, provide an argument or experimental evidence for within-sequence stationarity.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IIID, Eq. (34)] The weight function W(s) is defined only for single-qubit measurement sequences. In the multi-qubit experiments, s_i^{(2j+1)} is a sequence of n-bit outcomes, and it is not specified whether W is applied per qubit and multiplied, or applied to the global string; please state the tensor-product definition explicitly.
  2. [Sec. IIIA, Table II] The probability entry for the 000 outcome reads '(1−γ↓)^3ϵ^3 + γ↓(1−ϵ)^3 +γ↓', which appears to contain a duplicated γ term; please correct this typo.
  3. [Sec. IIIE] The word 'seemd' should be 'seemed'.
  4. [Secs. VIIA and VIIC] 'show in Fig. 5' and 'show in Fig. 7' should be 'shown'; in addition, the GHZ inset reports fidelity without explicit confidence intervals in the main text, while the text says 'within experimental uncertainty' — please provide the uncertainty in the figure or caption.
  5. [Appendix II] The expression 'x = ϵ10 = 0.05' appears to be a typo for ϵ_{1→0} = 0.05; please correct the notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the parity-to-M^{2j+1} identity is derived from stated assumptions, and the Taylor coefficients are explicit and self-contained.

full rationale

The central derivation, Eqs. (12)-(16), shows that the parity of 2j+1 twirled measurements samples the distribution M^{2j+1}q directly from the string representation of the assignment matrix and the XOR convolution of independent noise strings; this is a mathematical construction, not a quantity fitted to the target result. The Taylor/Richardson coefficients in Eq. (1) are stated explicitly, and the cancellation property is verified in-line by expanding M=e^{\epsilon A}, so the appeal to the authors' prior KIK papers [28,34] is a reference to an explicit standard formula rather than a load-bearing self-citation. The dummy-measurement and weighted-parity schemes are introduced as designed estimators, with the paper explicitly noting that the weight choice is not unique, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The reset scheme is proved by the same composition argument. Experimental validation on IBMQ and Quantinuum provides external evidence for the protocol. The i.i.d. assumption for repeated measurements is an explicit modeling assumption; whether it holds on a given platform is a correctness risk, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The protocol has no fitted free parameters: the Taylor coefficients are fixed constants, and the weighted-parity weights are chosen combinatorially. The central claims rest on the domain assumptions listed above, chiefly the stochastic-matrix model of readout noise, the independence of repeated measurements within a shot, and first-order Markovian decay. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Readout noise is accurately described by a stochastic assignment matrix M; after twirling, M becomes a classical bit-flip channel.
    Stated in Sec. IA and used throughout; the parity proof in Sec. IIC relies on the twirled M having only sigma_0 and sigma_x components.
  • domain assumption Repeated measurements of the same qubit in a single shot are statistically independent and experience the same M.
    Explicitly stated in Sec. IIB ('The measurements are assumed to be statistically independent'); without it, parity does not yield M^{2j+1}.
  • domain assumption Qubit decay during the measurement sequence can be modeled as a probability gamma before each measurement, with O(gamma^2, gamma*epsilon) neglected.
    Assumed in Sec. IIIA; dummy/weighted parity are designed to cancel first-order gamma.
  • standard math The Taylor/Richardson coefficients a_j^{(m)} from prior KIK work correctly cancel odd-power noise amplification.
    Used in Sec. IIA; the coefficients are derived from the identity sum a_j (2j+1)^l = 0 for l=1..m, which is standard Richardson extrapolation.
  • domain assumption For the reset-based scheme, a high-fidelity reset operation is available and the feedforward can be executed within the coherence time.
    Stated in Sec. IV; the scheme is only applicable to platforms with high-quality reset (e.g., trapped ions).
  • domain assumption Noise drifts are slow compared with the time bin of one amplification circuit, so the drift-resilient execution order from [28] applies.
    Used in Sec. VI and experiments; this is the standard KIK drift-resilience assumption from the authors' prior work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Drift-resilient mid-circuit measurement and state preparation error mitigation for dynamic circuits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HCFTDCNH

@misc{pith2026250611270,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Drift-resilient mid-circuit measurement and state preparation error mitigation for dynamic circuits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HCFTDCNH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11270}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum error mitigation (QEM) for dynamic circuits, i.e., those incorporating mid-circuit measurements and feedforward, is important for two key reasons. First, quantum error correction (QEC) circuits are instances of dynamic circuits, and therefore a dynamic circuit-compatible QEM can extend circuit depth and address errors that QEC struggles with. Second, recent studies show that dynamic circuits can significantly outperform purely unitary ones. However, mid-circuit measurement errors remain a major bottleneck. Current solutions rely on readout noise characterization that is vulnerable to temporal noise drifts. To the best of our knowledge, no readout mitigation schemes are resilient to temporal noise drifts. By introducing parity-based noise amplification in repeated measurements, we derive and experimentally demonstrate a drift-resilient protocol for addressing preparation, mid-circuit, and terminating measurement errors without requiring calibration or characterization. Drift resilience increases the longest possible execution time (in terms of shots) and enables flexibility by combining data from non-consecutive times. For platforms such as trapped ions, where the measurements are highly disruptive, we provide an alternative reset-based mitigation scheme. We demonstrate our methods experimentally on IBMQ and Quantinuum hardware. Combined with the Layered-KIK gate error mitigation protocol, the presented readout mitigation approach enables "End-to-end" mitigation for dynamic circuits, that can improve the outcomes of QEC experiments, and that covers the widest range of errors to the best of our knowledge. Other applications of the presented methods include a faster alternative to gate-set tomography and diagnostics of defective qubits during the execution of the target algorithm.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11270 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) A schematic description of the parity-based readout noise amplification. In each shot, each qubit ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. To account for the decay and depolarization of the qubit during the parity sequence, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Reset scheme: an alternative to the parity protocol for platforms with high-fidelity reset, e.g., trapped ions. (top) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Treating the conditional reset element as a dynamic circuit, the readout error can be amplified using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: End-to-end mitigation of a GHZ preparation using a dynamic circuit. Weighted parity is used for mitigating the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A Twenty-qubit readout mitigation experiment carried out on the IBMQ backend Fez. Measurements are twirled so [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Reset-based ten-qubit readout error mitigation experiment in the H1 trapped ion quantum computer of Quantinuum. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Single qubit experiments on the IBMQ backends Torino (a) and Nazca (b). In all the backends we checked (including [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Real-times diagnostics of qubits in ibm_brisbane during the execution of a target circuit. The parity scheme [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The data in the GHZ experiment in the main text was collected in ten sequential jobs. The subplots show the decay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The data in the twenty-qubit experiment in the main text was collected in ten non-sequential experiments over five [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. False Positives Raised by Quantum Readout Error Mitigation

    quant-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Readout-error-mitigation matrices calibrated with imperfect state initialization systematically amplify initialization errors, causing exponentially growing fidelity overestimates for large entangled states.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [28]

    Aharonov, O

    D. Aharonov, O. Alberton, I. Arad, Y. Atia, E. Bairey, Z. Brakerski, I. Cohen, O. Golan, I. Gurwich, O. Kenneth,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.17243 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  2. [34]

    Temme, S

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Physical review letters119, 180509 (2017)

    2017

  3. [1]

    While the input state is, in general, not known, it is possible to post-select the states that start with'1' in a given qubit and monitor the decay of this subset of states

    If the noise channel on the qubit (e.g., decay) isK, we expect that the average population after j measurements will be 1 M Kj 0 , so the population dynamics as a function ofj should be a mixture of exponentials. While the input state is, in general, not known, it is possible to post-select the states that start with'1' in a given qubit and monitor the de...

    work page

  4. [2]

    In this experiment, we used two hundred twirling realizations, with one thousand shots per realization

    Applying KIK gate mitigation to the preparation circuit. In this experiment, we used two hundred twirling realizations, with one thousand shots per realization. The qubits used in the experiment are qubits 0-19 of the ibm_fez backend. C. Reset-based ten-qubit mitigation in trapped ions In the next experiment, show in Fig. 7, we tested the reset scheme des...

    work page

  5. [3]

    Y. Song, L. Beltrán, I. Besedin, M. Kerschbaum, M. Pechal, F. Swiadek, C. Hellings, D. C. Zanuz, A. Flasby, J.-C. Besse, and A. Wallraff, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06989 (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [4]

    Bäumer, V

    E. Bäumer, V. Tripathi, D. S. Wang, P. Rall, E. H. Chen, S. Majumder, A. Seif, and Z. K. Minev, PRX Quantum5, 030339 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [5]

    Piroli, G

    L. Piroli, G. Styliaris, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 230401 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [6]

    Buhrman, M

    H. Buhrman, M. Folkertsma, B. Loff, and N. M. P. Neumann, Quantum8, 1552 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 59 references
  1. [7]

    J. Yu, S. R. Muleady, Y.-X. Wang, N. Schine, A. V. Gorshkov, and A. M. Childs, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03428 (2024)

    2024

  2. [8]

    Piroli, G

    L. Piroli, G. Styliaris, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 220503 (2021)

    2021

  3. [9]

    Bäumer, V

    E. Bäumer, V. Tripathi, A. Seif, D. Lidar, and D. S. Wang, Physical Review Letters133, 150602 (2024)

    2024

  4. [10]

    Deshpande, M

    A. Deshpande, M. Hinsche, S. Najafi, K. Sharma, R. Sweke, and C. Zoufal, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.05760 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Xie, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.05249 (2025)

    Y. Xie, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.05249 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Foss-Feig, A

    M. Foss-Feig, A. Tikku, T.-C. Lu, K. Mayer, M. Iqbal, T. M. Gatterman, J. A. Gerber, K. Gilmore, D. Gresh, A. Hankin, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03029 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Shirizly, L

    L. Shirizly, L. C. G. Govia, and D. C. McKay, Phys. Rev. A111, 012611 (2025)

    2025

  8. [14]

    W. J. Huggins, S. McArdle, T. E. O’Brien, J. Lee, N. C. Rubin, S. Boixo, K. B. Whaley, R. Babbush, and J. R. McClean, Physical Review X11, 041036 (2021)

    2021

  9. [15]

    Y. Kim, C. Wood, T. Yoder, S. Merkel, J. Gambetta, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.09197 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Kandala, K

    A. Kandala, K. Temme, A. D. Corcoles, A. Mezzacapo, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Nature567, 491 (2019)

    2019

  11. [17]

    C. Song, J. Cui, H. Wang, J. Hao, H. Feng, and Y. Li, Science advances5, eaaw5686 (2019)

    2019

  12. [18]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, and et al., Science369, 1084 (2020)

    2020

  13. [19]

    Urbanek, B

    M. Urbanek, B. Nachman, V. R. Pascuzzi, A. He, C. W. Bauer, and W. A. de Jong, Physical Review Letters127, 270502 (2021)

    2021

  14. [20]

    Zhang, Y

    S. Zhang, Y. Lu, K. Zhang, W. Chen, Y. Li, J.-N. Zhang, and K. Kim, Nature communications11, 1 (2020)

    2020

  15. [21]

    Sagastizabal, X

    R. Sagastizabal, X. Bonet-Monroig, M. Singh, M. A. Rol, C. Bultink, and et al., Physical Review A100, 010302 (2019)

    2019

  16. [22]

    Haghshenas, E

    R. Haghshenas, E. Chertkov, M. Mills, W. Kadow, S.-H. Lin, Y.-H. Chen, C. Cade, I. Niesen, T. Begušić, M. S. Rudolph, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20870 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. Van Den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, et al., Nature618, 500 (2023)

    2023

  18. [24]

    Y. Kim, L. C. Govia, A. Dane, E. v. d. Berg, D. M. Zajac, B. Mitchell, Y. Liu, K. Balakrishnan, G. Keefe, A. Stabile, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02467 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Suzuki, S

    Y. Suzuki, S. Endo, K. Fujii, and Y. Tokunaga, PRX Quantum3, 010345 (2022)

    2022

  20. [26]

    Piveteau, D

    C. Piveteau, D. Sutter, S. Bravyi, J. M. Gambetta, and K. Temme, Physical review letters127, 200505 (2021)

    2021

  21. [27]

    Lostaglio and A

    M. Lostaglio and A. Ciani, Physical review letters127, 200506 (2021). 24

    2021

  22. [29]

    M. A. Wahl, A. Mari, N. Shammah, W. J. Zeng, and G. S. Ravi, in2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , Vol. 1 (IEEE, 2023) pp. 888–897

    2023

  23. [30]

    B. Bar, J. P. Santos, and R. Uzdin, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12457 (2025)

    2025

  24. [31]

    Hashim, A

    A. Hashim, A. Carignan-Dugas, L. Chen, C. Jünger, N. Fruitwala, Y. Xu, G. Huang, J. J. Wallman, and I. Siddiqi, PRX Quantum 6, 010307 (2025)

    2025

  25. [32]

    J. M. Koh, D. E. Koh, and J. Thompson, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07611 (2024)

    2024

  26. [33]

    R. S. Gupta, E. Van Den Berg, M. Takita, D. Riste, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Physical Review A109, 062617 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Koczor, Physical Review X11, 031057 (2021)

    B. Koczor, Physical Review X11, 031057 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Henao, J

    I. Henao, J. P. Santos, and R. Uzdin, npj Quantum Information9, 120 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    F. B. Maciejewski, Z. Zimborás, and M. Oszmaniec, Quantum4, 257 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    P. D. Nation, H. Kang, N. Sundaresan, and J. M. Gambetta, PRX Quantum2, 040326 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Van Den Berg, Z

    E. Van Den Berg, Z. K. Minev, and K. Temme, Physical Review A105, 032620 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Funcke, T

    L. Funcke, T. Hartung, K. Jansen, S. Kühn, P. Stornati, and X. Wang, Physical Review A105, 062404 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    S.Tannu, P.Das, R.Ayanzadeh, andM.Qureshi,in Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (2022) pp. 529–540

    2022

  34. [42]

    Stein, N

    S. Stein, N. Wiebe, Y. Ding, J. Ang, and A. Li, inProceedings of the 50th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture(2023) pp. 1–13

    2023

  35. [43]

    A. W. Smith, K. E. Khosla, C. N. Self, and M. Kim, Science advances7, eabi8009 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    J. Kim, B. Oh, Y. Chong, E. Hwang, and D. K. Park, New Journal of Physics24, 073009 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Hicks, C

    R. Hicks, C. W. Bauer, and B. Nachman, Phys. Rev. A103, 022407 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Wang, Y.-A

    K. Wang, Y.-A. Chen, and X. Wang, Science China Information Sciences66, 180508 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Li and S

    Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, Phys. Rev. X7, 021050 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    Peters, A

    E. Peters, A. C. Y. Li, and G. N. Perdue, Phys. Rev. A107, 062426 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    J. M. Günther, F. Tacchino, J. R. Wootton, I. Tavernelli, and P. K. Barkoutsos, Quantum Science and Technology7, 015009 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Shirizly, D

    L. Shirizly, D. Meirom, M. Carroll, and H. Landa, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13083 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    Baron, H

    D. Baron, H. P. Patil, and H. Zhou, in2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 1 (IEEE, 2024) pp. 124–133

    2024

  44. [52]

    Chandramouli, K

    K. Chandramouli, K. M. Allen, C. Mori, D. Baron, and M. A. Figueiredo, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.00683 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  45. [53]

    J. J. Wallman and J. Emerson, Physical Review A94, 052325 (2016)

    2016

  46. [54]

    S. J. Beale and J. J. Wallman, arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.06599 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Hazra, W

    S. Hazra, W. Dai, T. Connolly, P. D. Kurilovich, Z. Wang, L. Frunzio, and M. H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 100601 (2025)

    2025

  48. [56]

    J. A. Gyamfi, European Journal of Physics41, 063002 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    C. J. Haupt, A. C. Vazquez, L. E. Fischer, S. Woerner, and D. J. Egger, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09145 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Vezvaee, V

    A. Vezvaee, V. Tripathi, D. Kowsari, E. Levenson-Falk, and D. A. Lidar, PRX Quantum6, 020348 (2025)

    2025

  51. [59]

    J. P. Santos, B. Bar, and R. Uzdin, npj Quantum Information10, 100 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

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