Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Design Automation in Quantum Error Correction

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This survey chapter argues that design automation—automated synthesis, transpilation, layout, and verification of error-corrected circuits—is critical for fault-tolerant quantum computing because it reduces qubit footprints and pushes…

desk verdict A useful but flawed survey of QEC design automation: the framing and structure are solid, but the background sections contain factual errors and the case-study numbers are too self-referential to support the comparative claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12253 v1 pith:2OM7A4OE submitted 2025-07-16 quant-ph

Archisman Ghosh , Avimita Chatterjee , Swaroop Ghosh This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881P70 PACS 03.67.Pp03.67.Lx
keywords quantumerrorcorrectiondesignautomationfault-tolerantcomputingsurfacecodesT-depthoptimizationmagicstatedistillationmachine-learningdecodersformalverification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Quantum error correction protects logical qubits by spreading them across many physical qubits, but the resulting overhead in data qubits, ancillas, magic-state factories, and routing is severe. This chapter argues that design automation—automated synthesis, transpilation, layout, and verification of error-corrected circuits—is the critical missing layer that makes fault-tolerant quantum computing practical, since it can shrink qubit footprints and push fault-tolerance margins. To support that claim it lays out the QEC design flow and surveys case studies reporting large gains: $T$-depth cuts of roughly 79%, a 25% total-qubit reduction from ancilla reuse, a 6.42x reduction in physical qubits for a heterogeneous architecture, and a 51.11% reduction in logical error rate for a resource-optimized layout. The takeaway claim is that automation is a prerequisite, not a convenience, for scaling error-corrected quantum computation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the QEC design flow, the multi-stage pipeline that turns a logical algorithm into a fault-tolerant physical layout. Its load-bearing elements are the Pauli product rotation formalism (every gate written as $\exp(-i\varphi P)$ for a Pauli product $P$), Clifford commutation into a canonical Clifford+$T$ form, the $T$-count and $T$-depth metrics that size magic-state distillation factories, the space-time volume $V=A\times T$ used to compare factory and layout options, and the syndrome-to-correction decoding loop. The chapter uses this pipeline as its organizing skeleton: each optimization technique is assigned to a stage, and each case study reports gains in the same currencies of qubit footprint, depth, logical error rate, or verification cost.

What would settle it

Re-running the cited case studies on identical benchmarks would settle the claim: if the matroid-partition and genetic-algorithm tools do not reproduce roughly 79% $T$-depth reductions, if HetEC does not reproduce its 6.42x physical-qubit reduction, or if SPARO does not reproduce the 51.11% logical-error reduction on the 433-qubit adder under a stated noise model, the survey's comparative conclusions would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The chapter's central claim is that the route to practical fault-tolerant quantum computing runs through design automation at every stage of the quantum error correction workflow. It presents the QEC design flow as a pipeline: logical circuits are synthesized into Pauli product rotations, Clifford gates are commuted to the end, non-Clifford $T$ gates are isolated and supplied by magic-state distillation, decoders map syndrome measurements to corrections, and the resulting patches are placed, routed, and verified on a two-dimensional lattice. Each stage carries overhead measured in $T$-count, $T$-depth, physical qubits, and space-time volume, and the surveyed tools are meant to show that each source of overhead can be attacked automatically. The closing architectures, HetEC and SPARO, serve as evidence that automated compilation and resource allocation can integrate the pieces end to end.

Load-bearing premise

The survey's headline performance numbers—79% $T$-depth reduction, 6.42x qubit reduction, 51.11% logical-error reduction, and the other case-study results—are repeated from the cited papers without source code, datasets, or independent reimplementation, so the comparative conclusions rest entirely on those original results being accurate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • To the extent the central claim holds, design automation is a prerequisite for fault-tolerant quantum computing: manual synthesis, placement, routing, and decoding will not scale to the required code distances.
  • Automated optimization can materially shrink qubit footprints: ancilla reuse reports a 25% total-qubit reduction, and the heterogeneous HetEC architecture claims up to 6.42x fewer physical qubits at the cost of 3.43x slower logical-clock depth.
  • Automated $T$-gate optimization attacks the dominant non-Clifford overhead: matroid-partition and genetic-algorithm methods report $T$-depth reductions around 79% and 79.2%, directly shrinking magic-state factory requirements.
  • Machine-learned decoders can match matching-based thresholds at roughly constant-time inference per cycle, which is fast enough to fit inside a hardware error-correction window.
  • Protocol-aware resource allocation and stabilizer-based formal verification are tractable at scale: workload-matched distillation protocols give order-of-magnitude space-time savings, and verification of distance-$d$ surface-code routines scales as $O(d^3)$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the headline case-study numbers are taken on faith from the cited papers, since the chapter supplies no source code, datasets, error bars, or independent reimplementations; the comparative conclusions should be treated as provisional until those results are reproduced.
  • Beyond the paper: the case studies use different noise models, code distances, and hardware assumptions, so the percentages are not directly comparable; a standardized QEC benchmark suite would be needed to turn this survey into a reliable ranking.
  • Beyond the paper: if this trend continues, QEC toolchains should converge toward a classical-EDA-like discipline with standardized synthesis, placement, routing, and verification passes sharing one cost model.
  • Beyond the paper: the reported ML-decoder performance depends on training and deployment sharing the same noise model; an immediate testable extension is to retrain the decoders on biased or correlated noise and measure threshold degradation.
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 is a survey chapter on design automation for quantum error correction. It reviews the stabilizer formalism, surface codes, and lattice surgery; outlines a QEC design flow spanning logical synthesis, magic-state distillation, and decoding; surveys optimization techniques for T-gate reduction, surface-code layout, machine-learning decoders, and formal verification; and closes with two near-term FTQC architecture case studies, HetEC and SPARO. The central claim is that automated synthesis, transpilation, layout, and verification are critical for reducing qubit overhead and practical fault tolerance.

Significance. The chapter covers a broad and useful span and provides a readable taxonomy of design-automation methods in QEC, especially the T-count/T-depth optimization landscape and the staged QEC design flow. As a survey, it does not claim new theorems, and it ships no code or data; its value is in synthesis and in framing automation as a bottleneck for FTQC. The main risks to its usefulness are correctness of the introductory formalism and the traceability of the headline quantitative claims, several of which come from the authors' own prior work and lack independent verification in the chapter.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 1.2] The Pauli group P_n is defined with phase factors {±1, ±i}, i.e., i^α for α ∈ {0,1,2,3}; with four phase choices and 4^n Pauli tensor products, the cardinality is 4^(n+1), not 2·4^n as stated. Since this is a foundational definition in the stabilizer formalism, it should be corrected; if the authors intend a version without ±i phases, the definition and the cardinality statement must be made consistent.
  2. [Section 1.3] The error-detection condition is written as [S,E] = SE + ES = 0. The expression SE + ES = 0 is the anticommutator, conventionally denoted {S,E}; using the commutator bracket [S,E] here conflates the two notions. The same section and Section 2.3 later use the standard convention (commutator for commuting, anticommutator for anticommuting), so this is an internal inconsistency in a central definition that should be fixed.
  3. [Sections 3.2.4, 4.1, and 4.2] The central argument that design automation is critical is supported by quantitative case-study claims that are not independently checkable as presented. For instance, Section 3.2.4 reports a 79.2% T-depth reduction and a ~2.6× improvement over lookahead heuristics; Section 4.1 reports HetEC's 6.42× physical-qubit reduction; Section 4.2 reports SPARO's 51.11% logical-error reduction. The chapter gives no benchmark definitions, noise models, stopping criteria, error bars, or artifact locations for these numbers, and several are drawn from the authors' own prior work ([80], [81], [92], [103], [104]). The authors should either add a reproducibility appendix that states the source and experimental conditions for each headline number, or explicitly weaken the comparative conclusions so they do not exceed what a survey can verify.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 4 and Section 1.4] The caption and the accompanying text say the generalized stabilizer circuit 'encodes k physical qubits with n logical qubits'; this swaps the roles and should read 'encodes k logical qubits into n physical qubits.'
  2. [Section 1.1] There is a typo: 'H being the the Hilbert space' should be 'H being the Hilbert space.'
  3. [Section 3.4.2] The sentence 'On training on Stim [97] and experimental data' is ungrammatical; it should read 'Trained on Stim [97] and experimental data...'.
  4. [Section 3.2.2] The claim that PyZX 'matches or improves ... on approximately 72% of reversible-arithmetic benchmarks' would benefit from naming the specific benchmark version and the Tpar/TODD configuration used for comparison.
  5. [Section 3.3.1] In the protocol-selection table, the reader should be told explicitly that the cost entries are multiples of d^3 and for which physical error rate p the comparison is made; the text mentions p = 10^-4 but the table does not restate it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation-to-input circularity: this is a survey whose case-study numbers are external benchmark claims, not constructed predictions; the score only reflects minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The chapter is a survey/position piece, not a derivation, so the main circularity failure modes do not apply. Its central claim that design automation is critical in the QEC flow is supported by a synthesis of independent literature (Litinski's lattice surgery and magic-state work, Tpar, TODD, PyZX, TRASYN, Surf-Deformer, HetEC, SPARO, QECV, and the Chen et al. verification framework) rather than by a chain in which an output is identified with an input by construction. The manuscript does cite the authors' own prior work ([1], [34], [80], [81], [92]) for tutorial background and for three case studies, and it reports those papers' performance numbers (e.g., 79.2% T-depth reduction, 6.42x qubit reduction, 51.11% logical-error reduction) without source code, error bars, or independent re-runs. That is a verifiability/reproducibility weakness, not circularity: those numbers come from prior papers, not from assumptions stated in this chapter, and the survey's comparative conclusions also rest on independently authored systems. No equation in the chapter reduces to its own input, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing premise is secured only by the authors' own prior work. The score of 2 reflects the presence of several non-load-bearing self-citations; no actual circular step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The chapter is an expository survey and introduces no new free parameters, invented entities, or ad hoc assumptions. Its central claims rest on the standard stabilizer formalism and on the trustworthiness of the performance numbers reported in the cited case studies.

assumptions (3)
  • standard math The stabilizer formalism correctly describes quantum error correction.
    The chapter relies on this standard formalism without proving it, which is normal background for a QEC review.
  • domain assumption The performance numbers quoted in the case studies are accurate representations of the cited papers.
    The survey's value depends on the correctness of these numbers, but the chapter provides no independent verification, data, or error bars.
  • domain assumption Surface code thresholds and overhead scalings quoted in Sections 1.6 and 3.1 are correct as summarized.
    The chapter cites these numbers as facts but does not derive them, and they are load-bearing for the argument that surface codes are the leading candidate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Design Automation in Quantum Error Correction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2OM7A4OE

@misc{pith2026250712253,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Design Automation in Quantum Error Correction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2OM7A4OE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12253}
}
abstract

Quantum error correction (QEC) underpins practical fault-tolerant quantum computing (FTQC) by addressing the fragility of quantum states and mitigating decoherence-induced errors. As quantum devices scale, integrating robust QEC protocols is imperative to suppress logical error rates below threshold and ensure reliable operation, though current frameworks suffer from substantial qubit overheads and hardware inefficiencies. Design automation in the QEC flow is thus critical, enabling automated synthesis, transpilation, layout, and verification of error-corrected circuits to reduce qubit footprints and push fault-tolerance margins. This chapter presents a comprehensive treatment of design automation in QEC, structured into four main sections. The first section delves into the theoretical aspects of QEC, covering logical versus physical qubit representations, stabilizer code construction, and error syndrome extraction mechanisms. In the second section, we outline the QEC design flow, detailing the areas highlighting the need for design automation. The third section surveys recent advancements in design automation techniques, including algorithmic $T$-gate optimization, modified surface code architecture to incorporate lesser qubit overhead, and machine-learning-based decoder automation. The final section examines near-term FTQC architectures, integrating automated QEC pipelines into scalable hardware platforms and discussing end-to-end verification methodologies. Each section is complemented by case studies of recent research works, illustrating practical implementations and performance trade-offs. Collectively, this chapter aims to equip readers with a holistic understanding of design automation in QEC system design in the fault-tolerant landscape of quantum computing.

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.

  1. Toward designing workload-aware Surface Code Architectures

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A workload-aware surface-code architecture with ancilla-centric patches and T-gate-based floorplanning reduces required data tiles by up to 21% while maintaining near-optimal cycles per instruction and reaching 90% ef...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [80]

    Survival of the optimized: An evolutionary approach to t-depth reduction,

    A. Ghosh, A. Chatterjee, and S. Ghosh, “Survival of the optimized: An evolutionary approach to t-depth reduction,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.09391

    arXiv 2025

  2. [81]

    Quantum prometheus: Defying overhead with recycled ancillas in quantum error correction,

    A. Chatterjee, A. Ghosh, and S. Ghosh, “Quantum prometheus: Defying overhead with recycled ancillas in quantum error correction,” in 2025 26th International Symposium on Quality Electronic Design (ISQED), 2025, pp. 1–7

    2025

  3. [92]

    The q-spellbook: Crafting surface code layouts and magic state protocols for large-scale quantum computing,

    A. Chatterjee, A. Ghosh, and S. Ghosh, “The q-spellbook: Crafting surface code layouts and magic state protocols for large-scale quantum computing,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11253

    arXiv 2025

  4. [103]

    Sparo: Surface-code pauli-based architectural resource optimization for fault-tolerant quantum computing,

    S. Kan, Z. Du, C. Liu, M. Wang, Y. Ding, A. Li, Y. Mao, and S. Stein, “Sparo: Surface-code pauli-based architectural resource optimization for fault-tolerant quantum computing,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.21854

    arXiv 2025

  5. [104]

    Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator,

    C. Gidney, “Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator,” Quantum, vol. 5, p. 497, Jul. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-07-06-497

    doi:10.22331/q-2021-07-06-497 2021

  6. [1]

    Quantum error correction for dummies,

    A. Chatterjee, K. Phalak, and S. Ghosh, “Quantum error correction for dummies,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , vol. 01, 2023, pp. 70–81

    2023

  7. [2]

    Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification,

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification,”Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 82, pp. 1155–1208, Apr 2010. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.82.1155

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.82.1155 2010

  8. [3]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,

    J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, Aug

Show all 111 references
  1. [4]

    Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction,

    D. Gottesman, “Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction,” 1997. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9705052

    1997 arXiv

  2. [5]

    Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation,

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, “Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation,” Physical Review A , vol. 86, no. 3, Sep. 2012. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.86.032324

    2012 doi

  3. [6]

    A single quantum cannot be cloned,

    W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek, “A single quantum cannot be cloned,” Nature, vol. 299, no. 5886, pp. 802–803, 1982. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/299802a0

    1982 doi

  4. [7]

    Error detecting and error correcting codes,

    R. W. Hamming, “Error detecting and error correcting codes,”Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 147–160, April 1950

    1950

  5. [8]

    On a class of error correcting binary group codes,

    R. Bose and D. Ray-Chaudhuri, “On a class of error correcting binary group codes,” Information and Control , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 68–79, 1960. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019995860902874

    1960

  6. [9]

    Polynomial codes over certain finite fields,

    I. S. Reed and G. Solomon, “Polynomial codes over certain finite fields,” Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 300–304, 1960. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1137/0108018

    1960 doi

  7. [10]

    A stronger no-cloning theorem,

    R. Jozsa, “A stronger no-cloning theorem,” 2002. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0204153

    2002 arXiv

  8. [11]

    von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: New Edition

    J. von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: New Edition. Prince- ton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018, vol. 53

    2018

  9. [12]

    Stabilizer formalism for operator algebra quantum error correction,

    G. Dauphinais, D. W. Kribs, and M. Vasmer, “Stabilizer formalism for operator algebra quantum error correction,” Quantum, vol. 8, p. 1261, Feb. 2024. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2024-02-21-1261

    2024 doi

  10. [13]

    Realization of three-qubit quantum error correction with superconducting circuits,

    M. D. Reed, L. DiCarlo, S. E. Nigg, L. Sun, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Realization of three-qubit quantum error correction with superconducting circuits,” Nature, vol. 482, no. 7385, p. 382–385, Feb. 2012. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/na...

    2012 doi

  11. [14]

    Concatenated quantum codes,

    E. Knill and R. Laflamme, “Concatenated quantum codes,” 1996. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9608012

    1996 arXiv

  12. [15]

    Pasting quantum codes,

    D. Gottesman, “Pasting quantum codes,” 1996. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9607027

    1996 arXiv

  13. [16]

    Generalized concatenated quantum codes,

    M. Grassl, P. Shor, G. Smith, J. Smolin, and B. Zeng, “Generalized concatenated quantum codes,” Physical Review A , vol. 79, no. 5, May 2009. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.79.050306

    2009 doi

  14. [17]

    Simple quantum error-correcting codes,

    A. M. Steane, “Simple quantum error-correcting codes,” Physical Review A, vol. 54, no. 6, p. 4741–4751, Dec. 1996. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.54.4741

    1996 doi

  15. [18]

    An introduction to topological quantum codes,

    H. Bombin, “An introduction to topological quantum codes,” 2013. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.0277 46 Archisman Ghosh, Avimita Chatterjee and Swaroop Ghosh

    2013 arXiv

  16. [19]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons,

    A. Kitaev, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons,”Annals of Physics, vol. 303, no. 1, p. 2–30, Jan. 2003. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4916(02)00018-0

    2003 doi

  17. [20]

    Projective plane and planar quantum codes,

    M. H. Freedman and D. A. Meyer, “Projective plane and planar quantum codes,” 1998. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810055

    1998 arXiv

  18. [21]

    Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold,

    R. Acharya et al., “Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold,” Nature, vol. 638, no. 8052, p. 920–926, Dec. 2024. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586- 024-08449-y

    2024 doi

  19. [22]

    Subsystem codes,

    S. A. Aly, A. Klappenecker, and P. K. Sarvepalli, “Subsystem codes,” 2006. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0610153

    2006 arXiv

  20. [23]

    Stabilizer formalism for operator quantum error correction,

    D. Poulin, “Stabilizer formalism for operator quantum error correction,” Phys- ical Review Letters , vol. 95, no. 23, Dec. 2005. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.230504

    2005 doi

  21. [24]

    Operator quantum error-correcting subsystems for self-correcting quantum memories,

    D. Bacon, “Operator quantum error-correcting subsystems for self-correcting quantum memories,” Physical Review A , vol. 73, no. 1, Jan. 2006. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.73.012340

    2006 doi

  22. [25]

    Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer mem- ory,

    P. W. Shor, “Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer mem- ory,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 52, pp. R2493–R2496, Oct 1995. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.52.R2493

    1995 doi

  23. [26]

    Decoherence, control, and symmetry in quantum computers,

    D. Bacon, “Decoherence, control, and symmetry in quantum computers,” 2003. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0305025

    2003 arXiv

  24. [27]

    Quantum computing with rotation-symmetric bosonic codes,

    A. L. Grimsmo, J. Combes, and B. Q. Baragiola, “Quantum computing with rotation-symmetric bosonic codes,” Physical Review X, vol. 10, no. 1, Mar. 2020. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.10.011058

    2020 doi

  25. [28]

    The fabulous world of gkp codes,

    J. Conrad, “The fabulous world of gkp codes,” Ph.D. dissertation, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/45792

    2024

  26. [29]

    Gottesman-kitaev-preskill codes: A lattice perspective,

    J. Conrad, J. Eisert, and F. Arzani, “Gottesman-kitaev-preskill codes: A lattice perspective,” Quantum, vol. 6, p. 648, Feb. 2022. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2022- 02-10-648

    2022 doi

  27. [30]

    Even and odd coherent states and excitations of a singular oscillator,

    V. Dodonov, I. Malkin, and V. Man’ko, “Even and odd coherent states and excitations of a singular oscillator,” Physica, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 597–615, 1974. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031891474902158

    1974

  28. [31]

    Crystallized schr¨odinger cat states,

    O. Casta ˜nos, R. L´opez-Pe˜na, and V. I. Man’ko, “Crystallized schr¨odinger cat states,”Journal of Russian Laser Research, vol. 16, pp. 477–525, 1995

    1995

  29. [32]

    Performance and structure of single-mode bosonic codes,

    V. V. Albert, K. Noh, K. Duivenvoorden, D. J. Young, R. T. Brierley, P. Reinhold, C. Vuillot, L. Li, C. Shen, S. M. Girvin, B. M. Terhal, and L. Jiang, “Performance and structure of single-mode bosonic codes,” Physical Review A , vol. 97, no. 3, Mar. 2018. [Online]. Available:...

    2018 doi

  30. [33]

    Creating large fock states and massively squeezed states in optics using systems with nonlinear bound states in the continuum,

    N. Rivera, J. Sloan, Y. Salamin, J. D. Joannopoulos, and M. Solja ˇci´c, “Creating large fock states and massively squeezed states in optics using systems with nonlinear bound states in the continuum,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 120, no. 9, Feb

  31. [34]

    Lattice surgery for dummies,

    A. Chatterjee, S. Das, and S. Ghosh, “Lattice surgery for dummies,” Sensors, vol. 25, no. 6, p. 1854, Mar. 2025. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s25061854

    2025 doi

  32. [35]

    Lego: Qec decoding system architecture for dynamic circuits,

    Y. Wu, N. Liyanage, and L. Zhong, “Lego: Qec decoding system architecture for dynamic circuits,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.03073

    2024 arXiv

  33. [36]

    Fusion blossom: Fast mwpm decoders for qec,

    Y. Wu and L. Zhong, “Fusion blossom: Fast mwpm decoders for qec,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.08307

    2023 arXiv

  34. [37]

    Transformer-qec: Quantum error correction code decoding with transferable transformers,

    H. Wang, P. Liu, K. Shao, D. Li, J. Gu, D. Z. Pan, Y. Ding, and S. Han, “Transformer-qec: Quantum error correction code decoding with transferable transformers,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.16082

    2023 arXiv

  35. [38]

    Restrictions on transversal encoded quantum gate sets,

    B. Eastin and E. Knill, “Restrictions on transversal encoded quantum gate sets,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 102, no. 11, Mar. 2009. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.110502 Design Automation in Quantum Error Correction 47

    2009 doi

  36. [39]

    Clifford-deformed surface codes,

    A. Dua, A. Kubica, L. Jiang, S. T. Flammia, and M. J. Gullans, “Clifford-deformed surface codes,” PRX Quantum , vol. 5, no. 1, Mar. 2024. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.010347

    2024 doi

  37. [40]

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

    D. Litinski, “A game of surface codes: Large-scale quantum computing with lattice surgery,” Quantum, vol. 3, p. 128, Mar. 2019. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2019- 03-05-128

    2019 doi

  38. [41]

    Optimal resources for topological two-dimensional stabilizer codes: Comparative study,

    H. Bombin and M. A. Martin-Delgado, “Optimal resources for topological two-dimensional stabilizer codes: Comparative study,” Physical Review A, vol. 76, no. 1, Jul. 2007. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.76.012305

    2007 doi

  39. [42]

    Homological stabilizer codes,

    J. T. Anderson, “Homological stabilizer codes,” 2011. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1107.3502

    2011 arXiv

  40. [43]

    Quantum orders in an exact soluble model,

    X.-G. Wen, “Quantum orders in an exact soluble model,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 90, no. 1, Jan. 2003. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.016803

    2003 doi

  41. [44]

    The xzzx surface code,

    J. P. Bonilla Ataides, D. K. Tuckett, S. D. Bartlett, S. T. Flammia, and B. J. Brown, “The xzzx surface code,” Nature Communications, vol. 12, no. 1, Apr. 2021. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22274-1

    2021 doi

  42. [45]

    Design of additive quantum codes via the code-word-stabilized framework,

    A. A. Kovalev, I. Dumer, and L. P. Pryadko, “Design of additive quantum codes via the code-word-stabilized framework,” Physical Review A , vol. 84, no. 6, Dec. 2011. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.062319

    2011 doi

  43. [46]

    Surface code error correction on a defective lattice,

    S. Nagayama, A. G. Fowler, D. Horsman, S. J. Devitt, and R. V. Meter, “Surface code error correction on a defective lattice,” New Journal of Physics , vol. 19, no. 2, p. 023050, Feb

  44. [47]

    Poking holes and cutting corners to achieve clifford gates with the surface code,

    B. J. Brown, K. Laubscher, M. S. Kesselring, and J. R. Wootton, “Poking holes and cutting corners to achieve clifford gates with the surface code,” Physical Review X , vol. 7, no. 2, May 2017. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.7.021029

    2017 doi

  45. [48]

    Lattice surgery with a twist: Simplifying clifford gates of surface codes,

    D. Litinski and F. v. Oppen, “Lattice surgery with a twist: Simplifying clifford gates of surface codes,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 62, May 2018. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2018-05-04-62

    2018 doi

  46. [49]

    Surface code quantum computing by lattice surgery,

    D. Horsman, A. G. Fowler, S. Devitt, and R. V. Meter, “Surface code quantum computing by lattice surgery,” New Journal of Physics , vol. 14, no. 12, p. 123011, Dec. 2012. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/14/12/123011

    2012 doi

  47. [50]

    Learning quantum circuits of some t gates,

    C.-Y. Lai and H.-C. Cheng, “Learning quantum circuits of some t gates,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 68, no. 6, p. 3951–3964, Jun. 2022. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2022.3151760

    2022

  48. [51]

    Zx-rules for 2-qubit clifford+t quantum circuits,

    B. Coecke and Q. Wang, “Zx-rules for 2-qubit clifford+t quantum circuits,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.05356

    2018 arXiv

  49. [52]

    Decomposition of clifford gates,

    T. Pllaha, K. Volanto, and O. Tirkkonen, “Decomposition of clifford gates,” in 2021 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM). IEEE, Dec. 2021, p. 01–06. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/GLOBECOM46510.2021.9685501

    2021

  50. [53]

    Efficient synthesis of linear reversible circuits,

    K. N. Patel, I. L. Markov, and J. P. Hayes, “Efficient synthesis of linear reversible circuits,”

  51. [54]

    Magic state distillation: Not as costly as you think,

    D. Litinski, “Magic state distillation: Not as costly as you think,” Quantum, vol. 3, p. 205, Dec. 2019. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2019-12-02-205

    2019 doi

  52. [55]

    The solovay-kitaev algorithm,

    C. M. Dawson and M. A. Nielsen, “The solovay-kitaev algorithm,” 2005. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0505030

    2005 arXiv

  53. [56]

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

    N. J. Ross and P. Selinger, “Optimal ancilla-free clifford+t approximation of z-rotations,”

  54. [58]

    Roads towards fault-tolerant universal quantum computation,

    E. T. Campbell, B. M. Terhal, and C. Vuillot, “Roads towards fault-tolerant universal quantum computation,” Nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, p. 172–179, Sep. 2017. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature23460 48 Archisman Ghosh, Avimita Chatterjee and Swaroop Ghosh

    2017 doi

  55. [59]

    Contextuality supplies the ‘magic’ for quantum computation,

    M. Howard, J. Wallman, V. Veitch, and J. Emerson, “Contextuality supplies the ‘magic’ for quantum computation,” Nature, vol. 510, no. 7505, p. 351–355, Jun. 2014. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13460

    2014 doi

  56. [60]

    Fault-tolerant postselected quantum computation: Schemes,

    E. Knill, “Fault-tolerant postselected quantum computation: Schemes,” 2004. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402171

    2004 arXiv

  57. [61]

    Magic-state distillation with low overhead,

    S. Bravyi and J. Haah, “Magic-state distillation with low overhead,” Physical Review A , vol. 86, no. 5, Nov. 2012. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.86.052329

    2012 doi

  58. [62]

    Universal quantum computation with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas,

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, “Universal quantum computation with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas,” Physical Review A , vol. 71, no. 2, Feb. 2005. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.71.022316

    2005 doi

  59. [63]

    Powered by magic,

    S. D. Bartlett, “Powered by magic,” Nature, vol. 510, no. 7505, pp. 345–347, Jun. 2014. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13504

    2014 doi

  60. [64]

    Efficiently list-decodable punctured reed-muller codes,

    V. Guruswami, L. Jin, and C. Xing, “Efficiently list-decodable punctured reed-muller codes,”

  61. [65]

    Enhancing quantum memory lifetime with measurement-free local error correction and reinforcement learning,

    M. Park, N. Maskara, M. Kalinowski, and M. D. Lukin, “Enhancing quantum memory lifetime with measurement-free local error correction and reinforcement learning,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 111, p. 012419, Jan 2025. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.111.012419

    2025 doi

  62. [66]

    Reliable storage of information in a system of unreliable components with local interactions,

    B. S. Cirel’son, “Reliable storage of information in a system of unreliable components with local interactions,” in Locally Interacting Systems and Their Application in Biology , ser. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, R. L. Dobrushin, V. I. Kryukov, and A. L. Toom, Eds. Springer, ...

    1978

  63. [68]

    Color code decoder with improved scaling for correcting circuit-level noise,

    S.-H. Lee, A. Li, and S. D. Bartlett, “Color code decoder with improved scaling for correcting circuit-level noise,” Quantum, vol. 9, p. 1609, Jan. 2025. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2025-01-27-1609

    2025 doi

  64. [69]

    Encoding subsystem codes,

    P. K. Sarvepalli and A. Klappenecker, “Encoding subsystem codes,” 2008. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4954

    2008 arXiv

  65. [70]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.00603

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.00603

    arXiv

  66. [71]

    Actis: A strictly local union–find decoder,

    T. Chan and S. C. Benjamin, “Actis: A strictly local union–find decoder,” Quantum, vol. 7, p. 1183, Nov. 2023. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-11-14-1183

    2023 doi

  67. [72]

    Union-find quantum decoding without union- find,

    S. J. Griffiths and D. E. Browne, “Union-find quantum decoding without union- find,” Physical Review Research , vol. 6, no. 1, Feb. 2024. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.013154

    2024 doi

  68. [73]

    Quekuf: an fpga union find decoder for quantum error correction on the toric code,

    F. Valentino, B. Branchini, D. Conficconi, D. Sciuto, and M. D. Santambrogio, “Quekuf: an fpga union find decoder for quantum error correction on the toric code,” ACM Trans. Reconfigurable Technol. Syst. , Apr. 2025, just Accepted. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3733239

    2025 doi

  69. [74]

    Belief propagation decoding of quantum ldpc codes with guided decimation,

    H. Yao, W. A. Laban, C. H ¨ager, A. G. i Amat, and H. D. Pfister, “Belief propagation decoding of quantum ldpc codes with guided decimation,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10950

    2024 arXiv

  70. [75]

    Fault-tolerant belief propagation for practical quantum memory,

    K.-Y. Kuo and C.-Y. Lai, “Fault-tolerant belief propagation for practical quantum memory,”

  71. [76]

    Lilliput: A lightweight low-latency lookup-table based decoder for near-term quantum error correction,

    P. Das, A. Locharla, and C. Jones, “Lilliput: A lightweight low-latency lookup-table based decoder for near-term quantum error correction,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.06569

    2021 arXiv

  72. [77]

    An industrial view of electronic design automation,

    D. MacMillen, R. Camposano, D. Hill, and T. Williams, “An industrial view of electronic design automation,” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 1428–1448, 2000

    2000

  73. [78]

    A survey of research in large language models for electronic design automation,

    J. Pan, G. Zhou, C.-C. Chang, I. Jacobson, J. Hu, and Y. Chen, “A survey of research in large language models for electronic design automation,”ACM Trans. Des. Autom. Electron. Syst., vol. 30, no. 3, Feb. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3715324

    2025 doi

  74. [79]

    Large circuit models: opportunities and challenges,

    L. Chen et al. , “Large circuit models: opportunities and challenges,” Science China Information Sciences , vol. 67, no. 10, Sep. 2024. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11432-024-4155-7

    2024 doi

  75. [82]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation,

    P. W. Shor, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation,” 1997. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9605011

    1997 arXiv

  76. [83]

    Machine learning for electronic design automation: A survey,

    G. Huang, J. Hu, Y. He, J. Liu, M. Ma, Z. Shen, J. Wu, Y. Xu, H. Zhang, K. Zhong, X. Ning, Y. Ma, H. Yang, B. Yu, H. Yang, and Y. Wang, “Machine learning for electronic design automation: A survey,” ACM Trans. Des. Autom. Electron. Syst. , vol. 26, no. 5, Jun. 2021. [Online]. ...

    2021 doi

  77. [84]

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

    K. Yin, X. Fang, Y. Shi, T. Humble, A. Li, and Y. Ding, “Surf-deformer: Mitigating dynamic defects on surface code via adaptive deformation,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.06941

    2024 arXiv

  78. [85]

    Q3de: A fault-tolerant quantum computer architecture for multi-bit burst errors by cosmic rays,

    Y. Suzuki, T. Sugiyama, T. Arai, W. Liao, K. Inoue, and T. Tanimoto, “Q3de: A fault-tolerant quantum computer architecture for multi-bit burst errors by cosmic rays,” in 2022 55th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO). IEEE, Oct. 2022, p. 1110–1125. [On...

    2022

  79. [86]

    Polynomial-time t-depth optimization of clifford+t circuits via matroid partitioning,

    M. Amy, D. Maslov, and M. Mosca, “Polynomial-time t-depth optimization of clifford+t circuits via matroid partitioning,” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems , vol. 33, no. 10, p. 1476–1489, Oct. 2014. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi...

    2014

  80. [87]

    Lower 𝑡-count with faster algorithms,

    V. Vandaele, “Lower 𝑡-count with faster algorithms,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.08695

    2024

  81. [88]

    An efficient quantum compiler that reduces 𝑡 count,

    L. Heyfron and E. T. Campbell, “An efficient quantum compiler that reduces 𝑡 count,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.01557

    2018 arXiv

  82. [89]

    Reducing the number of non-clifford gates in quantum circuits,

    A. Kissinger and J. van de Wetering, “Reducing the number of non-clifford gates in quantum circuits,” Physical Review A , vol. 102, no. 2, Aug. 2020. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.102.022406

    2020 doi

  83. [90]

    Adaptive surface code for quantum error correction in the presence of temporary or permanent defects,

    A. Siegel, A. Strikis, T. Flatters, and S. Benjamin, “Adaptive surface code for quantum error correction in the presence of temporary or permanent defects,” Quantum, vol. 7, p. 1065, Jul. 2023. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-07-25-1065

    2023 doi

  84. [91]

    Reducing t gates with unitary synthesis,

    T. Hao, A. Xu, and S. Tannu, “Reducing t gates with unitary synthesis,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.15843

    2025

  85. [93]

    Machine learning based decoding of heavy hexagonal qecc for asymmetric quantum noise,

    D. Bhoumik, R. Majumdar, D. Madan, and S. Sur-Kolay, “Machine learning based decoding of heavy hexagonal qecc for asymmetric quantum noise,” in 2024 IEEE Computer Society Annual Symposium on VLSI (ISVLSI), 2024, pp. 246–251

    2024

  86. [94]

    Artificial intelligence for quantum error correction: A comprehensive review,

    Z. Wang and H. Tang, “Artificial intelligence for quantum error correction: A comprehensive review,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.20380

    2024 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Neural-network decoders for quantum error correction using surface codes: A space exploration of the hardware cost-performance tradeoffs,

    R. W. J. Overwater, M. Babaie, and F. Sebastiano, “Neural-network decoders for quantum error correction using surface codes: A space exploration of the hardware cost-performance tradeoffs,” IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering , vol. 3, p. 1–19, 2022. [Online]. Available: ...

    2022

  88. [96]

    Graph neural networks for enhanced decoding of quantum ldpc codes,

    A. Gong, S. Cammerer, and J. M. Renes, “Graph neural networks for enhanced decoding of quantum ldpc codes,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.17758

    2023 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Interacting quantum observables,

    B. Coecke and R. Duncan, “Interacting quantum observables,” in Automata, Languages and Programming, L. Aceto, I. Damg˚ard, L. A. Goldberg, M. M. Halld´orsson, A. Ing´olfsd´ottir, and I. Walukiewicz, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 298–310

    2008

  90. [98]

    Efficient formal verification of quantum error correcting programs,

    Q. Huang, L. Zhou, W. Fang, M. Zhao, and M. Ying, “Efficient formal verification of quantum error correcting programs,” Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages , vol. 9, no. PLDI, p. 1068–1093, Jun. 2025. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3729293

    2025 doi

  91. [99]

    Qecv: Quantum error correction verification,

    A. Wu, G. Li, H. Zhang, G. G. Guerreschi, Y. Xie, and Y. Ding, “Qecv: Quantum error correction verification,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.13728

    2021 arXiv

  92. [100]

    An axiomatic basis for computer programming,

    C. A. R. Hoare, “An axiomatic basis for computer programming,” Commun. ACM, vol. 12, no. 10, p. 576–580, Oct. 1969. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/363235.363259

    1969

  93. [101]

    Fifty years of hoare’s logic,

    K. R. Apt and E.-R. Olderog, “Fifty years of hoare’s logic,”Form. Asp. Comput., vol. 31, no. 6, p. 751–807, Dec. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-019-00501-3

    2019 doi

  94. [102]

    Verifying fault-tolerance of quantum error correction codes,

    K. Chen, Y. Liu, W. Fang, J. Paykin, X.-C. Wu, A. Schmitz, S. Zdancewic, and G. Li, “Verifying fault-tolerance of quantum error correction codes,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.14380

    2025

  95. [105]

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

    S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, “High-threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory,” Nature, vol. 627, no. 8005, p. 778–782, Mar. 2024. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07107-7

    2024 doi

  96. [106]

    Extractors: Qldpc architectures for efficient pauli-based computation,

    Z. He, A. Cowtan, D. J. Williamson, and T. J. Yoder, “Extractors: Qldpc architectures for efficient pauli-based computation,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.10390

    2025

  97. [111]

    Hetec: Architectures for heterogeneous quantum error correction codes,

    S. Stein, S. Xu, A. W. Cross, T. J. Yoder, A. Javadi-Abhari, C. Liu, K. Liu, Z. Zhou, C. Guinn, Y. Ding, Y. Ding, and A. Li, “Hetec: Architectures for heterogeneous quantum error correction codes,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Architectural Suppor...

    2025

  98. [2003]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0302002

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0302002

    arXiv

  99. [2016]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.2975

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.2975

    arXiv

  100. [2017]

    Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/aa5918

    [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/aa5918

    doi

  101. [2018]

    Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79

    [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79

    2018 doi

  102. [2023]

    Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2219208120

    [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2219208120

    doi

  103. [2024]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.18689

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.18689

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.