Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

VideoEraser: Concept Erasure in Text-to-Video Diffusion Models

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read VideoEraser claims a training-free, plug-and-play method that stops text-to-video diffusion models from rendering unwanted concepts, even when the concept is explicitly named in the prompt.

desk verdict The full text is a different paper (fermionic LDPC codes), so VideoEraser's 46% claim is unsupported by any inspectable methodology—deal with the submission defect before review. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.15314 v2 pith:D6WWMESG submitted 2025-08-21 cs.CV cs.AIcs.CR

Naen Xu , Jinghuai Zhang , Changjiang Li , Zhi Chen , Chunyi Zhou , Qingming Li , Tianyu Du , Shouling Ji This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.CR
keywords text-to-videogenerationconcepterasurediffusionmodelspromptembeddingadjustmentnoiseguidancecontentsafetytraining-free
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 is trying to establish that undesirable content in generated video can be suppressed at inference time, without retraining or fine-tuning the generative model. It proposes a two-stage intervention: Selective Prompt Embedding Adjustment (SPEA), which edits only the embeddings tied to the unwanted concept, and Adversarial-Resilient Noise Guidance (ARNG), which steers the denoising trajectory away from that concept even under direct prompting. The authors report that this reduces unwanted content by 46% on average across object, artistic-style, celebrity, and explicit-content erasure tasks, while claiming to preserve generation integrity, fidelity, robustness, and generalizability. If correct, this would give video model operators a lightweight safety layer for privacy, copyright, and content moderation.

What carries the argument

The two-stage mechanism is Selective Prompt Embedding Adjustment (SPEA) and Adversarial-Resilient Noise Guidance (ARNG). SPEA modifies only the prompt-embedding directions associated with the unwanted concept, preserving the rest of the prompt; ARNG adds guidance to the sampling process that keeps the model from drifting back toward the erased concept, even when the prompt explicitly requests it. Together they are meant to separate erasure from content degradation.

What would settle it

Generate a video from a prompt that explicitly names a supposedly erased concept; if the concept still appears in the output, the central claim fails. Separately, run the method on unrelated prompts and check whether video quality or semantic alignment drops materially compared with no erasure, which would expose the underlying separation assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that concept erasure in text-to-video diffusion models can be achieved as a purely inference-time, plug-and-play mechanism. The method first identifies and selectively adjusts the prompt-embedding components responsible for the undesirable concept, leaving unrelated semantic content intact, then applies noise guidance during sampling that remains effective even when the model is explicitly prompted with the banned concept. Evaluated across four erasure tasks, the approach is said to outperform prior baselines in suppressing unwanted content, with an average reduction of 46%, while also maintaining output quality and transfer across representative text-to-video backbones.

Load-bearing premise

Removing a concept by adjusting prompt embeddings and noise guidance can suppress it without materially degrading the generated video, and this separation holds across different text-to-video backbones.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Video models could be made safer post-hoc, without retraining, by adding a plug-in erasure module during inference.
  • Explicitly prompting an erased concept would still fail to produce it, giving users a direct safeguard for privacy, copyright, and explicit content.
  • The same two-stage method, if it generalizes, could be applied to new undesirable concepts without touching the base model weights.
  • Across the four evaluated tasks, unwanted-content rates would drop by 46% on average relative to existing baselines.
  • Erasure would preserve semantic integrity, temporal fidelity, and robustness across different text-to-video backbones.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The full text attached to this submission is a different paper about fermionic quantum error-correcting codes, so the VideoEraser empirical claims, including the 46% figure, currently rest only on the abstract and cannot be checked against methods, ablations, or failure cases.
  • A natural test the authors do not describe is whether erasure survives paraphrased or adversarially constructed prompts; the name suggests intent, but the abstract alone does not demonstrate it.
  • A practical follow-up metric is side-effect measurement: unrelated prompts should show no drop in frame quality or semantic alignment when a concept is erased, which would confirm that erasure and quality are truly separable at inference time.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript's abstract describes VideoEraser, a training-free two-stage framework (Selective Prompt Embedding Adjustment, SPEA, and Adversarial-Resilient Noise Guidance, ARNG) for suppressing undesirable concepts in text-to-video diffusion models, reporting a 46% average reduction across object, art-style, celebrity, and explicit-content erasure tasks while preserving integrity, fidelity, robustness, and generalizability. The full text supplied for review is not this paper; it is arXiv:2508.15323v4, 'Fermion-to-Fermion Low-Density Parity-Check Codes,' a quantum-error-correction manuscript by different authors. Consequently, the submitted document contains no methodology, evaluation protocol, baselines, or results for VideoEraser.

Significance. If the claimed results were backed by a complete description, training-free concept erasure at inference time would be practically valuable for content safety. However, as submitted, the claim is unverifiable. The paper provides no equations for SPEA/ARNG, no metric definitions, no baseline identities, no ablations, and no code. The reader cannot distinguish genuine concept erasure from mere output degradation, nor assess circularity between the erasure objective and evaluation similarity. The result may be interesting, but the submitted manuscript furnishes no evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Full Text] The supplied full text is the arXiv paper 'Fermion-to-Fermion Low-Density Parity-Check Codes' (arXiv:2508.15323v4), not the VideoEraser manuscript. Therefore every substantive claim in the abstract—mechanism, experiments, 46% reduction—is unsupported by any inspectable text. This is a load-bearing defect: the referee cannot evaluate method soundness, metric validity, or empirical support.
  2. [Abstract] The central quantitative claim ('reducing it by 46% on average across four tasks compared to baselines') lacks the definitions needed for verification. No evaluation metric is specified; no baselines are named; no error bars or statistical protocol are given. The claim is therefore not falsifiable from the submitted document.
  3. [Abstract / missing methodology] The two-stage method (SPEA and ARNG) is never described in the submitted text. Without a specification of the embedding adjustment strength, noise-guidance step count, or adversarial-iteration budget, there is no way to check for the classic failure mode in which erasure is achieved by degrading the output. The manuscript needs ablations separating suppression efficacy from fidelity/integrity/robustness.
  4. [Evaluation (unspecified)] There is a circularity risk: if SPEA modifies prompt embeddings and the evaluation suppresses content via embedding similarity, measured reductions may partly reflect a metric/test overlap rather than genuine semantic erasure. The paper must state the evaluation protocol, use independent classifiers/human raters, and report per-task and per-backbone results. Currently none of this is present.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] 'Prevents' is overclaimed; even strong erasure methods typically reduce generation likelihood rather than provide a hard guarantee. Rephrase to 'reduces' or provide evidence of zero generation across many seeds.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'state-of-the-art' requires explicit baseline identities and versions (e.g., specific prior erasure methods) to be meaningful.
  3. [Full Text] The reference list and author names do not match the abstract's topic, confirming the mismatch; the document needs to be replaced with the correct VideoEraser full text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity can be identified: the VideoEraser abstract cannot be checked because the supplied full text is a different paper, and the actual full text (fermionic LDPC codes) contains no input-output reductions or fitted predictions.

full rationale

The abstract claims a training-free T2V erasure framework (SPEA + ARNG) with a 46% average suppression improvement, but the body of this submission is 'Fermion-to-Fermion Low-Density Parity-Check Codes' (arXiv:2508.15323v4). None of the VideoEraser equations, metrics, baselines, or ablations are present, so there is no derivation chain whose output can be shown to equal its input by construction. That is a missing-evidence concern, not a circularity reduction. Reading the actual full text on its own, the fermionic LDPC construction is built from external weakly-self-dual CSS codes (MacKay et al., Aly, Farinholt) and standard Majorana stabilizer formalism; the logical-operator identification is an explicit F2 Gram-Schmidt algorithm; and the lattice-surgery proof is a subsystem-code distance argument. Simulations compare error-corrected logical dynamics to noiseless reference dynamics using two independent decoders. The power-law fits pL ~ p^alpha are descriptive and are not used as predictions. The only self-citations (Ref. [49] for stacked/double-chain bicycle code examples, Ref. [69] for skin-state dynamics) supply construction examples or background, not the load-bearing result. In neither the abstract nor the actual full text is there a quoted equation or fitted parameter that is renamed as an output. Therefore no significant circularity is evidenced, and under the stated rules the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

Because the full text does not match the declared paper, the ledger is reconstructed from the abstract alone. No free parameter values, equations, or evaluation details are available to audit. The entries above are the assumptions a reader must accept for the 46% claim to be meaningful. Any additional ad hoc assumptions, if present, are hidden in the missing manuscript.

free parameters (1)
  • SPEA and ARNG hyperparameters (embedding adjustment strength, noise-guidance step count, adversarial iteration budget)
    Not named in the abstract. Two-stage guidance methods of this kind almost always carry such tuning parameters, and the 46% figure depends on their settings. Their audit requires the missing full text.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Text-to-video diffusion models are steerable at inference time through prompt-embedding adjustments and noise guidance, without retraining.
    The entire 'training-free, plug-and-play' design presupposes that concept presence can be controlled in embedding and guidance space. Implicit in the abstract's two-stage description.
  • domain assumption Concept suppression and output quality are separable: erasing a target concept does not materially degrade video integrity, fidelity, motion, or generalizability.
    The abstract simultaneously claims gains in efficacy, integrity, fidelity, robustness, and generalizability. This is the standard tension in erasure methods and is never stated as a limitation.
  • domain assumption Undesirable-content suppression is measurable in a way that makes '46% average reduction across four tasks' a meaningful, comparable quantity.
    The evaluation construct (metric, baselines, prompt set, sample size) is not defined in the abstract. The headline number's validity rests entirely on this construct.
invented entities (1)
  • VideoEraser module (SPEA and ARNG stages)
    purpose: Software module claimed to block specific concepts from being generated by text-to-video diffusion models at inference time.
    This is a proposed software component, not a physical entity. The abstract provides no external falsifiable handle such as a benchmark leaderboard or an independent evaluation protocol beyond the authors' own four-task evaluation, and the full text was not supplied.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VideoEraser: Concept Erasure in Text-to-Video Diffusion Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D6WWMESG

@misc{pith2026250815314,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VideoEraser: Concept Erasure in Text-to-Video Diffusion Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D6WWMESG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.15314}
}
read the original abstract

The rapid growth of text-to-video (T2V) diffusion models has raised concerns about privacy, copyright, and safety due to their potential misuse in generating harmful or misleading content. These models are often trained on numerous datasets, including unauthorized personal identities, artistic creations, and harmful materials, which can lead to uncontrolled production and distribution of such content. To address this, we propose VideoEraser, a training-free framework that prevents T2V diffusion models from generating videos with undesirable concepts, even when explicitly prompted with those concepts. Designed as a plug-and-play module, VideoEraser can seamlessly integrate with representative T2V diffusion models via a two-stage process: Selective Prompt Embedding Adjustment (SPEA) and Adversarial-Resilient Noise Guidance (ARNG). We conduct extensive evaluations across four tasks, including object erasure, artistic style erasure, celebrity erasure, and explicit content erasure. Experimental results show that VideoEraser consistently outperforms prior methods regarding efficacy, integrity, fidelity, robustness, and generalizability. Notably, VideoEraser achieves state-of-the-art performance in suppressing undesirable content during T2V generation, reducing it by 46% on average across four tasks compared to baselines.

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. CGCE: Classifier-Guided Concept Erasure in Generative Models

    cs.CV 2025-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A classifier on text embeddings detects unsafe prompts and uses gradient descent to steer the embedding to a safe region, achieving state-of-the-art concept erasure without changing the generative model's weights.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , γa,(dA−1), γ′ a,(dA−1) and γb,1, γ′ b,1,

    In this example, we align the support of the log- ical operator γA and γB and introduce a setQ C of 4(dA −1)ancilla Majorana operators (corresponding to 2(dA −1)complex fermion modes) between these two codes, labeled asγ a,1, γ′ a,1, . . . , γa,(dA−1), γ′ a,(dA−1) and γb,1, γ′ b,1, . . . , γb,(dA−1), γ′ b,(dA−1). Theoriginalγ-typesta- bilizergeneratorsatt...

  2. [2]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, A. B. Balantekin, T. Bhat- tacharya, M. Carena, W. A. De Jong, P. Draper, A. El- Khadra, N. Gemelke, M. Hanada,et al., PRX quantum �, 027001 (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    Bauer, S

    B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and G. K.-L. Chan, Chem. Rev.���, 12685 (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    McArdle, S

    S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Rev. Mod. Phys.��, 015003 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    Berges, M

    J. Berges, M. P. Heller, A. Mazeliauskas, and R. Venu- gopalan, Rev. Mod. Phys.��, 035003 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    C. M. Varma, Rev. Mod. Phys.��, 031001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Troyer and U.-J

    M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. Lett.��, 170201 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    R. P. Feynman, Int. J. Theor. Phys.��, 467 (1982)

    work page 1982

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett.��, 2586 (1997)

    1997

  2. [10]

    Ortiz, J

    G. Ortiz, J. E. Gubernatis, E. Knill, and R. Laflamme, Phys. Rev. A��, 022319 (2001)

    2001

  3. [11]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Ann. Phys.���, 210 (2002)

    2002

  4. [12]

    R. C. Ball, Phys. Rev. Lett.��, 176407 (2005)

    2005

  5. [13]

    Verstraete and J

    F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. ����(09), P09012

  6. [14]

    J. D. Whitfield, V. c. v. Havlíček, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. A��, 030301 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    González-Cuadra, D

    D. González-Cuadra, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, R. Kaubruegger, N. Maskara, P. Naldesi, T. V. Zache, A. M. Kaufman, M. D. Lukin, H. Pichler,et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.���, e2304294120 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Schuckert, E

    A. Schuckert, E. Crane, A. V. Gorshkov, M. Hafezi, and M. J. Gullans, arXiv:2411.08955 10.48550/arXiv.2411.08955 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    R. Ott, D. González-Cuadra, T. V. Zache, P. Zoller, A. M. Kaufman, and H. Pichler, Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 090601 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Tillich and G

    J.-P. Tillich and G. Zémor, IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory��, 1193 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    Gottesman, Quantum Information and Computation ��, 1338 (2013)

    D. Gottesman, Quantum Information and Computation ��, 1338 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    A. A. Kovalev and L. P. Pryadko, Phys. Rev. A��, 012311 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    N. P. Breuckmann and B. M. Terhal, IEEE transactions on Information Theory��, 3731 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    Panteleev and G

    P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, Quantum�, 585 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, IEEE Transac- tions on Information Theory��, 6653 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Krishna and D

    A. Krishna and D. Poulin, Phys. Rev. X��, 011023 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Higgott and N

    O. Higgott and N. P. Breuckmann, Phys. Rev. X��, 031039 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, PRX quantum �, 040101 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Panteleev and G

    P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, IEEE Transactions on In- formation Theory��, 213 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Delfosse, M

    N. Delfosse, M. E. Beverland, and M. A. Tremblay, arXiv:2109.14599 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Baspin and A

    N. Baspin and A. Krishna, Quantum�, 711 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Baspin and A

    N. Baspin and A. Krishna, Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 050505 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    M. A. Tremblay, N. Delfosse, and M. E. Beverland, Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 050504 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    L. Z. Cohen, I. H. Kim, S. D. Bartlett, and B. J. Brown, Sci. Adv.�, eabn1717 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Panteleev and G

    P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, inProceedings of the 54th annual ACM SIGACT symposium on theory of comput- ing(2022) pp. 375–388

    2022

  26. [34]

    Leverrier and G

    A. Leverrier and G. Zémor, in2022 IEEE 63rd An- nual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)(IEEE, 2022) pp. 872–883

    2022

  27. [35]

    Strikis and L

    A. Strikis and L. Berent, PRX Quantum�, 020321 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    A. O. Quintavalle, P. Webster, and M. Vasmer, Quantum �, 1153 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Lin and L

    H.-K. Lin and L. P. Pryadko, Phys. Rev. A���, 022407 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Q. Xu, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, C. A. Pattison, N. Raveen- dran, D. Bluvstein, J. Wurtz, B. Vasić, M. D. Lukin, L. Jiang, and H. Zhou, Nat. Phys.��, 1084 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, 6 P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, Nature���, 778 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Zhang and Y

    G. Zhang and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 070602 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Li, Phys

    Y. Li, Phys. Rev. Res.�, 013115 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Bluvstein, H

    D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner,et al., Nature���, 451 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter,et al., Nature���, 58 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    J.-S. Chen, E. Nielsen, M. Ebert, V. Inlek, K. Wright, V.Chaplin, A.Maksymov, E.Páez, A.Poudel, P.Maunz, et al., Quantum�, 1516 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    K. Wang, Z. Lu, C. Zhang, G. Liu, J. Chen, Y. Wang, Y. Wu, S. Xu, X. Zhu, F. Jin,et al., Nat. Phys.��, 308 (2026)

    2026

  38. [46]

    D. J. C. MacKay, G. Mitchison, and P. L. McFad- den, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory��, 2315 (2004)

    2004

  39. [47]

    D. Cao, Y. L. Song, and S. M. Zhao, J. Electronics��, 1 (2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

    S. A. Aly, inIEEE GLOBECOM 2008-2008 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference(IEEE, 2008) pp. 1–5

    2008

  41. [49]

    Farinholt, arXiv:1207.0732 (2012)

    J. Farinholt, arXiv:1207.0732 (2012)

    2012 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Liu, C.-Y

    Z.-C. Liu, C.-Y. Xu, and Y. Xu, Self-dual stacked quantum low-density parity-check codes (2026), arXiv:2602.15372

    2026

  43. [51]

    Kitaev, Ann

    A. Kitaev, Ann. Phys.���, 2 (2006)

    2006

  44. [52]

    Bravyi, B

    S. Bravyi, B. M. Terhal, and B. Leemhuis, New J. Phys. ��, 083039 (2010)

    2010

  45. [53]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information(Cambridge university press, 2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    Bombin and M

    H. Bombin and M. A. Martin-Delgado, J. Math. Phys. ��, 052105 (2007)

    2007

  47. [55]

    Aghababaie Beni, O

    L. Aghababaie Beni, O. Higgott, and N. Shutty, Tesser- act: A search-based decoder for quantum error correction (2025), arXiv:2503.10988

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Liang, Q

    J. Liang, Q. Wang, L. Li, L. Song, and X. Ma, The Eu- ropean Physical Journal Special Topics , 1 (2025)

    2025

  49. [57]

    Roffe, D

    J. Roffe, D. R. White, S. Burton, and E. Campbell, Phys. Rev. Res.�, 043423 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    Litinski and F

    D. Litinski and F. von Oppen, Phys. Rev. B��, 205404 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    Vijay, T

    S. Vijay, T. H. Hsieh, and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. X�, 041038 (2015)

    2015

  52. [60]

    McLauchlan and B

    C. McLauchlan and B. Béri, Quantum�, 1400 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    Prasetia, R

    Y. Prasetia, R. Kurnia, A. Andriko, and P. Astuti, Inter- national Electronic Journal of Algebra , 1 (2025)

    2025

  54. [62]

    Vasic, V

    B. Vasic, V. Savin, M. Pacenti, S. Borah, and N. Raveen- dran, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.14090 (2025)

    2025

  55. [63]

    Horsman, A

    D. Horsman, A. G. Fowler, S. Devitt, and R. Van Meter, New J. Phys.��, 123011 (2012)

    2012

  56. [64]

    A. G. Fowler and C. Gidney, arXiv:1808.06709 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Poulsen Nautrup, N

    H. Poulsen Nautrup, N. Friis, and H. J. Briegel, Nat. Commun.�, 1321 (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    Vuillot, L

    C. Vuillot, L. Lao, B. Criger, C. G. Almudéver, K. Ber- tels, and B. M. Terhal, New J. Phys.��, 033028 (2019)

    2019

  59. [67]

    S. A. Aly, A. Klappenecker, and P. K. Sarvepalli, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0610153 (2006)

    2006 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Y.-P. Wang, C. Fang, and J. Ren, Phys. Rev. B���, 035113 (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

    X. Feng, S. Liu, S. Chen, and W. Guo, Phys. Rev. B���, 094309 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    Z.-C. Liu, K. Li, and Y. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 090401 (2024)

    2024

  63. [71]

    Mudassar, A

    M. Mudassar, A. Schuckert, and D. Gottesman, arXiv:2508.09928 (2025)

    2025

  64. [72]

    Storme, inHandbook of combinatorial designs(Chap- man and Hall/CRC, 2006) pp

    L. Storme, inHandbook of combinatorial designs(Chap- man and Hall/CRC, 2006) pp. 728–754

    2006

  65. [73]

    A. A. Albert and R. Sandler,An introduction to finite projective planes(Courier Corporation, 2015)

    2015

  66. [74]

    Roffe, Contemporary Physics��, 226 (2019)

    J. Roffe, Contemporary Physics��, 226 (2019)

    2019

  67. [75]

    Tansuwannont, Y

    T. Tansuwannont, Y. Takada, and K. Fujii, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19790 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  68. [76]

    J. L. Gross, J. Yellen, and M. Anderson,Graph theory and its applications(Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2018)

    2018

  69. [77]

    A. G. Fowler, A. M. Stephens, and P. Groszkowski, Phys- ical Review A��, 052312 (2009)

    2009

  70. [78]

    Roffe, LDPC: Python tools for low density parity check codes (2022)

    J. Roffe, LDPC: Python tools for low density parity check codes (2022)

    2022

  71. [79]

    Gidney, Quantum�, 497 (2021)

    C. Gidney, Quantum�, 497 (2021). ��� ������ In the End Matter, we will provide the guidelines for introducing ancilla Majorana operators and constructing stabilizer generators for fermionic lattice surgery. For clarity, we use the following terminology: addi- tional Majorana o...

    2021

  72. [80]

    Any two distinct points determine a unique line

  73. [81]

    Any two distinct lines intersect at a unique point

  74. [82]

    There exist four points, no three of which are collinear

  75. [83]

    Each line containsq+ 1points

  76. [84]

    Each point lies onq+ 1lines

  77. [85]

    We depict PG(2,2)as an example in Fig

    There are exactlyq2 +q+ 1points and lines [72]. We depict PG(2,2)as an example in Fig. S1(d). The points can be represented by the equivalence classes of[x, y, z]≡ {[cx, cy, cz]|[x, y, z]̸= [0,0,0], c∈F\ {0}}. We note that there are(q3 −1)/(q−1) =q 2 +q+ 1such equivalence clas...

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.