Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 40 references

The paper claims that the Gaussian stabilizer group of any GKP lattice is finitely generated, with explicit generators, and that compiling Clifford circuits through these stabilizers extends qubit lifetime under photon loss.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 16:37 UTC pith:YJJDHF6W

load-bearing objection A useful compiler and a plausible generator set for GKP Gaussian stabilizers, but the completeness claim in Sect. 3.2 is not proved and the 'optimal' language overstates a greedy heuristic. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2509.12502 v3 pith:YJJDHF6W submitted 2025-09-15 quant-ph

Enlarging the GKP stabilizer group for enhanced noise protection

Jonathan Pelletier , Baptiste Royer This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P7081P68 PACS 03.67.Pp03.67.Lx
keywords GKP codesGaussian stabilizer groupnon-abelian stabilizersClifford compilationbosonic losslogical randomized benchmarkingfinite-energy GKPsymplectic lattices
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that GKP codes—bosonic quantum error correction codes that encode qubits in oscillator grids—have a much larger set of symmetries than the translations that define the code. It identifies the full group of Gaussian unitary operations that act trivially on the encoded logical space, gives explicit generators for this 'Gaussian stabilizer group' for any GKP lattice, and uses these generators to build a compiler that rewrites Clifford circuits so that intermediate states stay near the phase-space origin with minimal squeezing. Because photon loss and dephasing act more strongly on displaced and squeezed states, this recompilation reduces the logical error rate. Numerical logical randomized benchmarking shows that the compiler extends the lifetime of square-GKP qubits, and that the gain increases as loss becomes weaker.

Core claim

For a GKP lattice with symplectic Gram matrix A, the paper solves the integer matrix equation X A X^T − (X − X^T) = 0; each solution X gives a symplectic M = S^T (XA + I) S^{-T} that acts trivially on every Pauli subgrid. The solutions yield 2N^2 + m generators (m counts diagonal entries of the canonical form D equal to 1 or 2). For square GKP these are squares of logical Cliffords: H^2, Q^2, P^2 and, for multiple modes, squares of two-qubit controlled-Pauli gates. On finite-energy GKP states these stabilizers change only the Gaussian envelope; a compiler that picks the stabilizer minimizing envelope displacement and squeezing implements the same Clifford circuit with a state less affected b

What carries the argument

The central object is the Gaussian stabilizer group S_G: all Gaussian unitaries that act trivially on the GKP code space. The argument rests on the integer quadratic matrix equation X A X^T − (X − X^T) = 0; each solution X gives a symplectic M = S^T (XA + I) S^{-T}, and solutions compose as X ◦ Y = X + Y + X A Y. The paper solves this by testing symmetric F_{j,k} and skew-symmetric G_{j,k} basis elements of sp(2N,R), obtaining 2N^2 + m generators (H^2, Q^2, P^2 and squares of two-qubit controlled-Pauli gates for square GKP). The resulting Cayley graph of S_G has walks that represent all logically equivalent implementations of a Clifford gate, so a compiler can pick the walk that keeps the en

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that testing single symmetric and skew-symmetric basis matrices exhausts all integer solutions to Eq. (40), so the listed generators indeed generate the full Gaussian stabilizer group; this relies on the assumption that a discrete subgroup of the symplectic group has a generating set no larger than the dimension of sp(2N,R).

What would settle it

Find a GKP lattice (for instance, one whose canonical Gram matrix has a diagonal entry D_jj > 2) and search for an integer matrix X satisfying Eq. (40) that is not in the group generated by the listed F_{j,k} and G_{j,k} solutions; any such X falsifies the completeness claim. Alternatively, compile a simple Clifford circuit on a hexagonal GKP code using the paper's generator list and compare the resulting logical error rate against a direct optimization over all Gaussian stabilizers up to a fixed length—if the direct search finds a better implementation, the generator set is not exhaustive.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Any GKP lattice has a finitely generated Gaussian stabilizer group, with the explicit generator count 2N + 2N^2 + m given in Eq. (50).
  • Clifford circuits on finite-energy GKP codes can be compiled to minimize the displacement and squeezing of the state envelope, reducing the logical error rate under bosonic loss and dephasing.
  • The compiler extends the computation lifetime of square-GKP qubits compared with a random-walk compiler; at low loss rates the lifetime gain is larger (Fig. 4a).
  • The compiler also outperforms constant and random-walk compilers when only two-qubit Clifford gates are used, a regime relevant to magic-state injection.
  • Because the compiler works by keeping the mean excitation number low, the authors conjecture it will also reduce errors from other excitation-dependent channels such as Kerr nonlinearity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same compiler logic could be applied to other GKP lattices (hexagonal, rotated, qudit); the generator set depends on the lattice's Gram matrix, so the performance gain may differ.
  • The completeness of the generator enumeration rests on the assumption that a discrete subgroup of the symplectic group is generated by at most dim sp(2N,R) elements; if a lattice admits a stabilizer not generated by the listed matrices, the characterization is incomplete but the compiler would still work on the known generators.
  • The paper's central distinction—logical information lives in the grid, noise sensitivity in the envelope—suggests a direct experimental test: prepare two finite-energy GKP states with the same logical state but envelopes differing by a Gaussian stabilizer operation, and compare their logical error rates under loss.
  • A natural follow-up is to combine the compiler with the generalized sBs stabilization protocol from Appendix B: the compiler could decide when to refresh the envelope, and the enlarged stabilizer group could be used for active correction rather than only compilation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper relaxes the usual abelian stabilizer condition for GKP codes and studies the group of Gaussian unitaries that act trivially on the code subspace. The central mathematical claim is that this Gaussian stabilizer group is generated by 2N translation stabilizers together with 2N^2 + m Gaussian generators, obtained by solving the matrix equation X A X^T - (X - X^T) = 0 after reduction to the canonical Gram form A_D = Ω_2 ⊗ D. The authors then apply this group to finite-energy GKP states, arguing that the logical information is carried only by the underlying grid while the Gaussian envelope is an optimization resource. They propose a compiler that, among short walks on the generator Cayley graph, minimizes displacement and squeezing metrics, and they demonstrate with logical randomized benchmarking that the resulting compiler increases survival probability compared with constant and random-walk compilers for one to three square-GKP logical qubits.

Significance. If the generator characterization is correct, the paper provides a compact description of all Gaussian logical identity operations for multimode GKP codes, which is a conceptually useful and potentially practical resource for compiling Clifford circuits under loss and dephasing. The derivation of Eq. (38) is clean, and for the square-GKP example the listed generators are consistent with the principal congruence subgroup Γ(2). The numerical comparison is also well designed: the optimization metrics are analytically motivated rather than fitted to the survival curves, and the LRB results provide an independent check. The appendix material on generalized sBs and Wigner functions of finite-energy grid states is a useful contribution in its own right. However, the completeness proof of the generator set is the main load-bearing result and is not rigorously established; the paper's central mathematical claim therefore needs additional support.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2, Eqs. (40)–(50)] The completeness claim 'This corresponds to the maximum number of generators possible, which means that we found all solutions to Eq. (40)' is not justified. The search only tests single basis elements X_D = αF_{j,k} and X_D = βG_{j,k}. The solution set is a group under the nonlinear product (41), not a vector space, so sums or products of basis elements need not be captured by testing individual basis elements. Moreover, the dimension of sp(2N,R) is not an upper bound on the number of generators of a discrete subgroup of Sp(2N,Z), so the counting argument cannot establish completeness. If additional solutions exist, Eq. (50) does not fully characterize S_G. Since the abstract and conclusion explicitly claim that the generators were found, this is load-bearing. Please either provide a rigorous proof, for example by identifying the solution group with the principal congruence subgroup Γ(2
  2. [§5.1, Algorithm 1] Algorithm 1 is described as finding 'the optimal encoded Clifford implementation' among all walks g_n on the Cayley graph, but S_G contains infinite-order translation generators, so the Cayley graph is infinite. With the cutoff n = 2 the search space is finite, but then the output is optimal only within that truncation. The paper does not show that longer walks cannot improve the result or that the truncation is harmless. This is not fatal for the numerical demonstration, which is still a meaningful comparison, but the wording should be changed to 'optimal among walks of length at most n', and the dependence of the results on the cutoff n should be discussed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] There are numerous typos and minor language issues: 'independant', 'caracterised', 'restrictriction', 'excition', 'exitation', 'computation', and 'ponderated sum' should be corrected.
  2. [§5.1] The notation 'for all g_n in {g_n}' in Algorithm 1 is ambiguous; the set of walks of length at most n should be defined explicitly, especially because the generating set in Eq. (50) contains infinite-order elements.
  3. [§3.3, Eq. (60)] The sentence 'Since the full group of symplectic operations is generated by two-body interactions' is too terse and not obviously relevant to the generation of the Gaussian stabilizer group; the generator count can be verified directly from Eq. (40), and that direct verification would be more transparent.
  4. [§4.2, Eq. (73)] The displacement metric d^2_μ is motivated by an order-of-magnitude estimate combining loss contraction and dephasing displacement. This is acceptable as a heuristic, but the claim that minimizing this metric reduces logical error should be stated as a heuristic rather than as a derived objective.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity; compiler metrics and LRB are independent, and self-citations are auxiliary.

full rationale

The central generator characterization in Sect. 3.2 is derived from the stabilizer condition Eq. (36) and the symplectic condition Eq. (38), with the canonical-form reduction Eq. (39) cited to standard lattice theory ([10,26]). The optimization metrics of the compiler, Eqs. (74) and (79), are defined analytically from the physics of bosonic loss and dephasing (radial contraction and squeezing), not fitted to the survival curves. The Gaussian-stabilizer compiler in Algorithm 1 selects implementations by minimizing those metrics, and its performance is then evaluated independently by logical randomized benchmarking with full Wigner-function evolution (Sect. 5.2). The survival curves are simulated, not produced from the metrics, so the lifetime comparison is an independent numerical check. Self-citations to Refs. [14,18] support the auxiliary sBs protocol and the Fock-envelope formalism, but they are not load-bearing for the generator characterization or for the compiler demonstration; even if those auxiliary derivations were removed, the main claims would stand on the symplectic-lattice derivation and the Wigner-function simulation. The only flagged concern is the completeness assertion in Sect. 3.2: the paper tests single basis elements and states that because this gives the 'maximum number of generators possible,' all solutions to Eq. (40) have been found. That is an omitted proof / correctness gap, not a circular step: the exhibited generators are still valid stabilizer operations, and the compiler result does not depend on the group being complete. Accordingly, no circular reduction is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on standard symplectic lattice theory plus two paper-specific assumptions: the unproven completeness of the generator enumeration and the heuristic choice of noise metrics. No new physical entities or ad hoc coupling constants are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Cayley walk length cutoff n = 2
    Algorithm 1 restricts the search to walks of length at most n on the Gaussian stabilizer Cayley graph; the paper sets n=2 with the assertion that longer walks may not help, without systematic study. This directly bounds the compiler's search space.
  • Lifetime fit parameters (A, a, b, B)
    Equation (85) fits survival probability P(x)=A e^{-(a x^2 + b x)} + B for each LRB curve to extract the lifetime t; these numbers are fitted to simulation data and no uncertainties are reported.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption GKP codes are lattice codes: stabilizer translations generate lattice Lambda and logical Pauli operators are cosets of Lambda*/Lambda (Eqs. 6-11)
    Used throughout Sect. 2 and 3; standard in Refs. [10,17,18].
  • domain assumption The unitary stabilizer group of a grid code is the intersection of automorphisms of all Pauli subgrids P_j (Eq. 30)
    This redefinition of the stabilizer group is the paper's starting point; it is stated, not proved.
  • domain assumption Gaussian stabilizers admit affine form L_{M,lambda} with M in Aut_S(Lambda*) (Eq. 32)
    Taken from Ref. [25]; provides the structure used to derive Eq. (37).
  • ad hoc to paper Completeness of the generator enumeration follows from counting generators against dim sp(2N,R)
    Sect. 3.2: solutions are only searched among single basis elements alpha F, beta G; the conclusion 'we found all solutions' relies on the claim that 2N^2+m is the maximum number of generators possible, which is not established for discrete subgroups.
  • ad hoc to paper Minimizing displacement d^2_mu and squeezing d^2_Sigma is a valid proxy for reducing logical error under loss and dephasing
    Sect. 4.2 motivates these metrics from average excitation number and radial contraction, but the equivalence with logical failure rate is heuristic; the LRB uses the same noise model rather than an independent check.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 36324 in / 23532 out tokens · 247297 ms · 2026-08-04T16:37:56.198861+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enlarging the GKP stabilizer group for enhanced noise protection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YJJDHF6W

@misc{pith2026250912502,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enlarging the GKP stabilizer group for enhanced noise protection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YJJDHF6W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.12502}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Encoding a qubit in a larger Hilbert space of an oscillator is an efficient way to protect its quantum information against decoherence. Promising examples of such bosonic encodings are the Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP) codes. In this work, we investigate how redefining the stabilizer group of the GKP codes to include all operations with trivial action on the code space can contribute to the search for an optimal implementation of a logical circuit when it is affected by noise. We find the generators of the Gaussian stabilizer group, allowing us to search for different physical implementations of a Clifford operation. We then propose an algorithm that finds the optimal implementation of a given logical Clifford circuit on GKP codes, such that the state is less affected by loss errors during the computation. Finally, we demonstrate numerically, with logical randomized benchmarking, that such a compiler can increase the lifetime of square-GKP qubits while running Clifford circuits, compared to a random walk compiler.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.12502 by Baptiste Royer, Jonathan Pelletier.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Finite-energy GKP state stabilization. Autonomous sBs stabilization circuit for a GKP state with envelope described by the covariance matrix ΣE = MΣ0MT and position µE. The protocol uses engineered cooling of a GKP on N modes (represented by three wires) using a 2-level system as an ancilla (bottom wire) that is discarded at the end. The full stabilization is the result of cycling over all the stabilizer g… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Noise application on GKP states. Effects of different error channels on the Wigner representation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Logical randomized benchmarking results. Survival probability for the constant compiler (red), random walk (purple) and Gaussian stabilizer compiler (green) on square GKP codes with varying sequence length. We have also included the average survival probability curve when no logical operation is applied (blue) as an indicator. The average survival probability curves are shown for (a) 1 and (b) 3 logical qu… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance of the GS compiler with varying randomized benchmarking conditions. (a) Lifetime amelioration factor between the Gaussian stabilizer compiler and random walk compiler as a function of loss rate (κt). (b) Results of two-qubit gates randomized benchmarking with the group [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 14 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Real-time quantum error correction beyond break-even

    V. V. Sivak, A. Eickbusch, B. Royer, S. Singh, I. Tsioutsios, S. Ganjam, A. Miano, B. L. Brock, A. Z. Ding, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret. “Real-time quantum error correction beyond break-even”. Nature616, 50–55 (2023). arXiv:2211.09116

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Autonomous Quantum Er- ror Correction of Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill States

    Dany Lachance-Quirion, Marc-Antoine Lemonde, Jean Olivier Simoneau, Lucas St- Jean, Pascal Lemieux, Sara Turcotte, Wyatt Wright, Amélie Lacroix, Joëlle Fréchette- Viens, Ross Shillito, Florian Hopfmueller, Maxime Tremblay, Nicholas E. Frat- 20 tini, Julien Camirand Lemyre, and Philippe St-Jean. “Autonomous Quantum Er- ror Correction of Gottesman-Kitaev-Pr...

    2024

  3. [3]

    Quantum error correction of qudits beyond break-even

    Benjamin L. Brock, Shraddha Singh, Alec Eickbusch, Volodymyr V. Sivak, Andy Z. Ding, Luigi Frunzio, Steven M. Girvin, and Michel H. Devoret. “Quantum error correction of qudits beyond break-even”. Nature641, 612–618 (2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    Extending the lifetime of a quantum bit with error correction in superconducting circuits

    Nissim Ofek, Andrei Petrenko, Reinier Heeres, Philip Reinhold, Zaki Leghtas, Brian Vlastakis, Yehan Liu, Luigi Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, L. Jiang, Mazyar Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf. “Extending the lifetime of a quantum bit with error correction in superconducting circuits”. Nature536, 441–445 (2016)

    2016

  5. [5]

    Logical states for fault-tolerant quantum computation with propagating light

    Shunya Konno, Warit Asavanant, Fumiya Hanamura, Hironari Nagayoshi, Kosuke Fukui, Atsushi Sakaguchi, Ryuhoh Ide, Fumihiro China, Masahiro Yabuno, Shigehito Miki, Hirotaka Terai, Kan Takase, Mamoru Endo, Petr Marek, Radim Filip, Peter van Loock, and Akira Furusawa. “Logical states for fault-tolerant quantum computation with propagating light”. Science383, ...

    2024

  6. [6]

    Integrated photonic source of Gottesman–Kitaev–Preskill qubits

    M. V. Larsen, J. E. Bourassa, S. Kocsis, J. F. Tasker, R. S. Chadwick, C. González- Arciniegas, J. Hastrup, C. E. Lopetegui-González, F. M. Miatto, A. Motamedi, R.Noro, G.Roeland, R.Baby, H.Chen, P.Contu, I.DiLuch, C.Drago, M.Giesbrecht, T. Grainge, I. Krasnokutska, M. Menotti, B. Morrison, C. Puviraj, K. Rezaei Shad, B. Hussain, J. McMahon, J. E. Ortmann...

    2025

  7. [7]

    Error correction of a logical grid state qubit by dissipative pumping

    Brennan de Neeve, Thanh-Long Nguyen, Tanja Behrle, and Jonathan P. Home. “Error correction of a logical grid state qubit by dissipative pumping”. Nature Physics18, 296–300 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Robust and Deterministic Preparation of Bosonic Logical States in a Trapped Ion

    V. G. Matsos, C. H. Valahu, T. Navickas, A. D. Rao, M. J. Millican, X. C. Kolesnikow, M. J. Biercuk, and T. R. Tan. “Robust and Deterministic Preparation of Bosonic Logical States in a Trapped Ion”. Physical Review Letters133, 050602 (2024)

    2024

  9. [9]

    Universal quantum gate set for Gottesman–Kitaev–Preskill logical qubits

    V. G. Matsos, C. H. Valahu, M. J. Millican, T. Navickas, X. C. Kolesnikow, M. J. Biercuk, and T. R. Tan. “Universal quantum gate set for Gottesman–Kitaev–Preskill logical qubits”. Nature PhysicsPages 1–6 (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    Encoding a qubit in an oscilla- tor

    Daniel Gottesman, Alexei Kitaev, and John Preskill. “Encoding a qubit in an oscilla- tor”. Physical Review A64, 012310 (2001). arXiv:quant-ph/0008040

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  11. [11]

    Quantum Capacity Bounds of Gaussian Thermal Loss Channels and Achievable Rates With Gottesman-Kitaev- Preskill Codes

    Kyungjoo Noh, Victor V. Albert, and Liang Jiang. “Quantum Capacity Bounds of Gaussian Thermal Loss Channels and Achievable Rates With Gottesman-Kitaev- Preskill Codes”. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory65, 2563–2582 (2019)

    2019

  12. [12]

    Quantum capac- ity and codes for the bosonic loss-dephasing channel

    Peter Leviant, Qian Xu, Liang Jiang, and Serge Rosenblum. “Quantum capac- ity and codes for the bosonic loss-dephasing channel”. Quantum6, 821 (2022). arXiv:2205.00341

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas

    Sergey Bravyi and Alexei Kitaev. “Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas”. Physical Review A71, 022316 (2005). 21

    2005

  14. [14]

    Stabilization of Finite-Energy Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill States

    Baptiste Royer, Shraddha Singh, and S. M. Girvin. “Stabilization of Finite-Energy Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill States”. Physical Review Letters125, 260509 (2020). arXiv:2009.07941

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Progress towards practical qubit computation using approximate Gottesman-Kitaev- Preskill codes

    Ilan Tzitrin, J. Eli Bourassa, Nicolas C. Menicucci, and Krishna Kumar Sabapathy. “Progress towards practical qubit computation using approximate Gottesman-Kitaev- Preskill codes”. Physical Review A101, 032315 (2020)

    2020

  16. [16]

    Achievable rates for the Gaussian quantum chan- nel

    Jim Harrington and John Preskill. “Achievable rates for the Gaussian quantum chan- nel”. Physical Review A64, 062301 (2001)

    2001

  17. [17]

    Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill codes: A lattice perspective

    Jonathan Conrad, Jens Eisert, and Francesco Arzani. “Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill codes: A lattice perspective”. Quantum6, 648 (2022). arXiv:2109.14645

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Encoding qubits in multi- mode grid states

    Baptiste Royer, Shraddha Singh, and Steven M. Girvin. “Encoding qubits in multi- mode grid states”. PRX Quantum3, 010335 (2022). arXiv:2201.12337

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction, Caltech Ph.D. thesis

    Daniel Gottesman. “Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction, Caltech Ph.D. thesis” (1997). arXiv:quant-ph/9705052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  20. [20]

    A non-commuting stabilizer formalism

    Xiaotong Ni, Oliver Buerschaper, and Maarten Van den Nest. “A non-commuting stabilizer formalism”. Journal of Mathematical Physics56, 052201 (2015)

    2015

  21. [21]

    The XP Stabiliser Formalism: AGeneralisationofthePauliStabiliserFormalismwithArbitraryPhases

    Mark A. Webster, Benjamin J. Brown, and Stephen D. Bartlett. “The XP Stabiliser Formalism: AGeneralisationofthePauliStabiliserFormalismwithArbitraryPhases”. Quantum6, 815 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    Using a Kerr interaction for GKP magic state preparation

    JérémieBoudreault, RossShillito, Jean-BaptisteBertrand, andBaptisteRoyer. “Using a Kerr interaction for GKP magic state preparation” (2025). arXiv:2507.09684

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Logical Clifford Synthesis for Stabilizer Codes

    Narayanan Rengaswamy, Robert Calderbank, Swanand Kadhe, and Henry D. Pfister. “Logical Clifford Synthesis for Stabilizer Codes”. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering1, 1–17 (2020)

    2020

  24. [24]

    Hardware-tailored logical Clifford circuits for stabilizer codes

    Eric J. Kuehnke, Kyano Levi, Joschka Roffe, Jens Eisert, and Daniel Miller. “Hardware-tailored logical Clifford circuits for stabilizer codes” (2025). arXiv:2505.20261

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Lattices, Gates, and Curves: GKP codes as a Rosetta stone

    Jonathan Conrad, Ansgar G. Burchards, and Steven T. Flammia. “Lattices, Gates, and Curves: GKP codes as a Rosetta stone” (2024). arXiv:2407.03270

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Closest Lattice Point Decoding for Multimode Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill Codes

    Mao Lin, Christopher Chamberland, and Kyungjoo Noh. “Closest Lattice Point Decoding for Multimode Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill Codes”. PRX Quantum4, 040334 (2023)

    2023

  27. [27]

    Gaussian quantum information

    Christian Weedbrook, Stefano Pirandola, Raúl García-Patrón, Nicolas J. Cerf, Timo- thy C. Ralph, Jeffrey H. Shapiro, and Seth Lloyd. “Gaussian quantum information”. Reviews of Modern Physics84, 621–669 (2012)

    2012

  28. [28]

    Matrix decompositions in quantum optics: Takagi/Autonne, Bloch–Messiah/Euler, Iwasawa, and Williamson

    Martin Houde, Will McCutcheon, and Nicolás Quesada. “Matrix decompositions in quantum optics: Takagi/Autonne, Bloch–Messiah/Euler, Iwasawa, and Williamson”. Canadian Journal of Physics102, 497–507 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    On symplectic eigenvalues of positive definite ma- trices

    Rajendra Bhatia and Tanvi Jain. “On symplectic eigenvalues of positive definite ma- trices”. Journal of Mathematical Physics56, 112201 (2015). arXiv:1803.04647. 22

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  30. [30]

    A Metric for Covariance Matrices

    Wolfgang Förstner and Boudewijn Moonen. “A Metric for Covariance Matrices”. In Erik W. Grafarend, Friedrich W. Krumm, and Volker S. Schwarze, editors, Geodesy- The Challenge of the 3rd Millennium. Pages 299–309. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg (2003)

    2003

  31. [31]

    Logical Randomized Benchmarking

    Joshua Combes, Christopher Granade, Christopher Ferrie, and Steven T. Flammia. “Logical Randomized Benchmarking” (2017). arXiv:1702.03688

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  32. [32]

    Scalable noise estimation with random unitary operators

    Joseph Emerson, Robert Alicki, and Karol Życzkowski. “Scalable noise estimation with random unitary operators”. Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics7, S347 (2005)

    2005

  33. [33]

    Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates

    E. Knill, D. Leibfried, R. Reichle, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, S. Seidelin, and D. J. Wineland. “Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates”. Physical Review A77, 012307 (2008)

    2008

  34. [34]

    General Framework for Randomized Benchmarking

    J. Helsen, I. Roth, E. Onorati, A.H. Werner, and J. Eisert. “General Framework for Randomized Benchmarking”. PRX Quantum3, 020357 (2022)

    2022

  35. [35]

    Non-Exponential Behaviour in Logical Randomized Benchmarking

    Athena Ceasura, Pavithran Iyer, Joel J. Wallman, and Hakop Pashayan. “Non-Exponential Behaviour in Logical Randomized Benchmarking” (2022). arXiv:2212.05488

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    Fast sim- ulation of bosonic qubits via Gaussian functions in phase space

    J. Eli Bourassa, Nicolás Quesada, Ilan Tzitrin, Antal Száva, Theodor Isacsson, Josh Izaac, Krishna Kumar Sabapathy, Guillaume Dauphinais, and Ish Dhand. “Fast sim- ulation of bosonic qubits via Gaussian functions in phase space”. PRX Quantum2, 040315 (2021). arXiv:2103.05530

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Low- Overhead Fault-Tolerant Quantum Error Correction with the Surface-GKP Code

    Kyungjoo Noh, Christopher Chamberland, and Fernando G.S.L. Brandão. “Low- Overhead Fault-Tolerant Quantum Error Correction with the Surface-GKP Code”. PRX Quantum3, 010315 (2022)

    2022

  38. [38]

    Tata Lectures on Theta I

    David Mumford. “Tata Lectures on Theta I”. Modern Birkhauser Classics. Birkhauser Boston. Boston, MA (2007)

    2007

  39. [39]

    FormulationofQuantumMechanicsBasedontheQuasi-Probability Distribution Induced on Phase Space

    GeorgeA.Baker. “FormulationofQuantumMechanicsBasedontheQuasi-Probability Distribution Induced on Phase Space”. Physical Review109, 2198–2206 (1958)

    1958

  40. [40]

    Statistical Methods in Quantum Optics 1

    Howard J. Carmichael. “Statistical Methods in Quantum Optics 1”. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Berlin, Heidelberg (1999). A Derivation of gaussian stabilizer Starting from Eq. (36), we derive in this section the condition onMsuch that it defines a symplectic automorphism of the grid. In Sect. 3.2, we derived that the vector(M−I)pj must be part of the gridΛ....

    1999