Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 9 cited by

Cluster statistics from clustering decoders give a fast, code-agnostic post-selection signal that cuts logical error rates by orders of magnitude at low abort rates.

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 ↗

Cluster-size and cluster-LLR norm fractions from BP+LSD decoding suppress logical error rates by orders of magnitude at low abort rates on surface, bivariate bicycle, and hypergraph product codes.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection Cluster-statistics post-selection for QLDPC codes is a genuinely useful heuristic tool, honestly benchmarked; the 'general' claim outruns the evidence, but the paper deserves refereeing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.05795 v4 pith:LY4L7FTF submitted 2025-10-07 quant-ph

Efficient Post-Selection for General Quantum LDPC Codes

Seok-Hyung Lee , Lucas H. English , Stephen D. Bartlett This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P7094B35 PACS 03.67.Pp
keywords post-selectionquantum LDPC codesdecoding confidenceclustering decodersBP+LSDlogical error ratesliding-window decodingbivariate bicycle codes
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 reading

This paper claims that the cluster structure a clustering decoder already builds—how big error clusters are and how likely their constituent errors are—is a reliable inverse measure of decoding confidence for quantum LDPC codes. On this basis it introduces two post-selection metrics, the cluster size norm fraction and the cluster LLR norm fraction, that require only a single decoder run, unlike the logical gap whose cost doubles per added logical qubit. Numerical simulations on surface codes, bivariate bicycle codes, and hypergraph product codes show orders-of-magnitude reductions in logical error rates at modest abort rates; the headline example is a roughly 1000x reduction for the [[144,12,12]] bivariate bicycle code at a 1% abort rate. A sliding-window variant makes abort decisions mid-circuit, keeps per-round error and abort rates constant, and matches or beats the global strategy. If correct, this makes confidence-based post-selection practical for the non-surface QLDPC codes that are central to current fault-tolerance roadmaps.

Core claim

The central discovery is that cluster norm fractions computed from a clustering-based decoder's output form an efficient inverse-confidence score for QLDPC decoding. Because larger clusters overlap more of a logical operator's support and span more ambiguous local solutions, a trial whose score Q exceeds a cutoff c is exactly the kind of high-error run post-selection should discard. The paper shows numerically, using circuit-level depolarizing noise and the BP+LSD decoder, that accepting only runs with Q<=c lowers logical error rates by orders of magnitude across surface codes, bivariate bicycle codes, and hypergraph product codes, and that the real-time sliding-window version reproduces the

What carries the argument

The central objects are the cluster size α-norm fraction Q_size^(α) and the cluster LLR α-norm fraction Q_LLR^(α): normalized α-norms over the clusters a clustering decoder grows, weighted either by cluster cardinality or by accumulated prior log-likelihood ratios. They carry the argument by turning a single decoder's clustering output into a scalar confidence score; a cutoff c on either metric selects which trials to accept. The work also relies on the BP+LSD clustering decoder for collecting cluster statistics and on the sliding-window framework with a lookback length L to make the metrics local in time.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that larger and more likely error clusters reliably signal lower decoding confidence for any QLDPC code; the paper treats this as expected intuition rather than a proven bound, and its own discussion lists theoretical foundations as future work.

What would settle it

A concrete test: fix a code and noise rate, run the memory experiment with a strict cutoff c, and sort accepted runs into bins of increasing Q. If the logical error rate does not decrease monotonically as Q decreases—or if the lowest-Q bin has a higher error rate than some higher bin—the metric is not tracking decoding confidence and the reported trade-off curves would not reproduce. A direct search for a code family where small-cluster runs fail as often as large-cluster runs would also falsify the universality claim.

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

If this is right

  • One decoder run replaces the 2^k comparative decodings needed by the logical gap, making post-selection usable for codes with many logical qubits per block.
  • For the [[144,12,12]] bivariate bicycle code, the LLR 2-norm fraction at a 1% abort rate and physical error rate 0.1% suppresses logical error by about three orders of magnitude.
  • On surface codes the cluster-based strategy lands between simple baselines (correction weight, detector density) and the logical gap in performance, while being far cheaper and more general.
  • Sliding-window real-time post-selection keeps per-round logical error and abort rates nearly constant as the number of rounds grows, which the global strategy does not, favoring deep circuits.
  • Performance is robust to the norm order α as long as α>=1, so the method does not hinge on fine hyperparameter tuning.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If cluster statistics are a universal confidence proxy, the same metrics could be exported to other clustering-based decoders and to hardware-triggered retry decisions, not just the decoder used here.
  • A natural extension is to use the metric not only to accept or abort but to reweight samples in expectation-value estimation, converting post-selection into a more sample-efficient estimator.
  • The results suggest a code-design target: codes whose Tanner graphs force every dangerous logical error to pass through large clusters would have intrinsically better post-selection trade-offs.
  • The constant per-round abort rate opens the possibility of pipelined parallel retry, where multiple attempts start early and aborted ones free resources for fresh attempts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes heuristic post-selection metrics for quantum LDPC codes based on error-cluster statistics from clustering decoders (specifically BP+LSD). Two metric families are defined: cluster size norm fraction and cluster LLR norm fraction. The authors claim these metrics are efficient (one decoder run), avoid the exponential-in-k overhead of logical-gap post-selection, and apply to general QLDPC codes. They validate via circuit-level depolarizing-noise simulations on rotated surface codes, two bivariate bicycle codes, and one hypergraph product code, reporting order-of-magnitude reductions in logical error rate at moderate abort rates. They also integrate the metrics with sliding-window decoding for real-time post-selection with mid-circuit aborts, showing comparable or better performance than global post-selection.

Significance. If the central heuristic holds beyond the tested instances, this is a practically valuable contribution: it offers a computationally cheap confidence metric for QLDPC codes where the logical-gap method is infeasible or inapplicable, and it extends naturally to real-time sliding-window decoding. The paper is commendably transparent: simulations use 95% confidence intervals, fair baselines (correction weight, detector density, and logical gap where available), parameter sweeps, and the code and aggregated data are publicly available. The main weakness is that the core inverse-correlation assumption is heuristic and untested outside the presented code/noise instances, and the formal definition of the metrics contains a range error for α<1.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2.2 and §3] The central claim that the cluster norm fractions are reliable inverse proxies for decoding confidence is asserted, not derived or bounded. The paper states these metrics 'are expected to correlate inversely' (Sec. 2.2.2) and lists theoretical foundations as future work. The evidence covers five code instances (three surface, two BB, one HGP) under one uniform depolarizing circuit-level noise model with one decoder (BP+LSD). The title and abstract claim 'general QLDPC codes', which is stronger than the evidence. A failure of the correlation for other codes or noise models (e.g., large clusters not overlapping logical supports, or small clusters that do) would invalidate the claimed generality. Please qualify the claims to the tested families, or add evidence from additional clustering decoders, noise models, or code ensembles.
  2. [Sec. 2.2.2, Definitions 1 and 2] The claimed range Q ∈ [0,1] is false for 0 < α < 1 when clusters are disjoint. For example, if E is partitioned into |E| singleton clusters, Q_size^(0.5) = |E|, which can be ≫1. The definitions also do not state that the clusters must be disjoint (which is needed even for α ≥ 1). Strategy 1 restricts the cutoff c ∈ [0,1], so for α = 0.5 the strategy is not well-defined as written. The paper includes α = 0.5 in Figs. 2(c), 3(c), 4(b) and Supplementary Fig. 4. Please either restrict α ≥ 1 or adjust the normalization/cutoff definition to accommodate quasi-norms.
  3. [Sec. 4.2.3 and Figs. 2-4] The baseline 'w/o PS (BP+LSD)' is obtained with the modified decoder that forces LSD execution even when BP converges. This modified decoder may have a different (potentially worse) no-post-selection logical error rate than the standard BP+LSD decoder. The paper does not report the standard-decoder baseline, so the magnitude of the reported post-selection improvement relative to the off-the-shelf decoder is not calibrated. The 'conv-max-conf' comparison in Supplementary Fig. 5 partially addresses this, but the main-text claims would be clearer if the unmodified BP+LSD logical error rates were also reported.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 6(b) caption] The formula pround_abort := 1−1/exp(G) appears to be a typo. With the linear fit log(1−pabort) = G·T + const, the per-round abort rate is q = 1−exp(G), not 1−1/exp(G).
  2. [Sec. 2.3] Typo: 'triger' should be 'trigger'.
  3. [Sec. 3] Typo: 'signifcant' should be 'significant'.
  4. [Strategy 2, Eq. (2)] The definition of E_commit^w uses H_ij without explicitly restating that H is the global check matrix and i ranges over detectors in the commit region. Please add a short clarifying sentence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: cluster-statistics metrics are empirical heuristics; the tradeoff curves are measured, not fitted-to-input predictions, and self-citations are background.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is not circular. The confidence metrics Q_size^(α) and Q_LLR^(α) (Definitions 1–2) are defined directly from cluster sizes and prior LLRs obtained from the BP+LSD decoder, and Strategies 1 and 2 use them only as accept/reject cutoffs. The reported reductions in plog versus pabort, and the real-time comparisons in terms of T_accepted, are direct Monte Carlo measurements, not predictions derived from fitted parameters. The tunable quantities (α, cutoff c, lookback L, window parameters W and F) are either fixed a priori or swept, and the comparison baselines (logical gap, correction weight, detector density) are external to the construction. The self-citations ([22], [28], [62]) are background or baseline references, not load-bearing justifications for the central claim that cluster statistics track decoding confidence. That claim is explicitly presented as an expectation: 'These metrics are expected to correlate inversely with decoding confidence' (Section 2.2.2), and the Discussion lists 'Theoretical foundations: Establishing theoretical justifications (e.g., bounds that relate cluster-based metrics to the logical gap)' as future work. This is a limitation on the strength of the 'general QLDPC' claim, not circularity. A separate, non-circular technical issue is that Definitions 1 and 2 assert Q∈[0,1] for all α>0, but for α=0.5 many singleton clusters give Q≈|E|>1; this is a normalization/correctness bug, not a reduction of the result to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central contribution rests on hand-chosen hyperparameters (alpha, cutoff, L, W, decoder settings) and on the unproven heuristic that cluster size/LLR concentration tracks logical failure probability. No new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Norm order alpha = tested values 0.5, 1, 2, infinity; main results use 2
    Hyperparameter controlling how much large clusters dominate the metric. Swept in Fig 2(c) and Supp Fig 4; not fitted to data, but chosen by the authors.
  • Cutoff threshold c = swept over [0,1]; operating points selected per figure
    Acceptance threshold for Q<=c. Sweeping c generates the plog-abort-rate tradeoff curves; headline low-abort-rate numbers correspond to specific chosen cutoffs.
  • Lookback window size L = 1,2,3,5,7 (main figures use 3)
    Real-time Strategy 2 parameter controlling how many recent windows contribute committed clusters; chosen by the user and swept.
  • Sliding-window parameters (W,F) = (5,1) for surface code, (3,1) for BB code
    Window size and commit size for the real-time simulations; standard sliding-window performance tradeoff parameters, not fitted to target results.
  • BP+LSD decoder hyperparameters = max_iter=30, min-sum, LSD-0
    Fixed decoder settings chosen for comparability; the authors note that further optimization could change results. Not central to the method.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Circuit-level depolarizing noise with independent fault probabilities p is a faithful test model.
    Methods 4.2.2 defines the noise model used for all validation; correlated or biased noise is explicitly deferred to future work (Discussion), so the tradeoff claims are conditional on this model.
  • ad hoc to paper Valid clusters grown by BP+LSD are meaningful objects whose size and LLR concentration are monotonically related to logical decoding failure.
    This is the core heuristic (Section 2.2.2, 'expected to correlate inversely with decoding confidence'). No theorem or bound is provided, and the Discussion lists theoretical justification as an open problem.
  • ad hoc to paper Forcing LSD execution even when BP converges yields representative cluster statistics without biasing the confidence evaluation.
    The modified BP+LSD decoder (Methods 4.2.3) is needed to always obtain clusters; the 'conv-max-conf' test in Supp Fig 5 checks a less-invasive alternative but the main results depend on the modification.
  • domain assumption For CSS codes, restricting confidence evaluation to error mechanisms associated with Z-type detectors fully captures logical-Z failure probability.
    Section 2.2.2 states it suffices to take E as the set of X errors for logical Z resets/measurements, ignoring X-Z correlations; all main simulations use this simplification.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient Post-Selection for General Quantum LDPC Codes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LY4L7FTF

@misc{pith2026251005795,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient Post-Selection for General Quantum LDPC Codes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LY4L7FTF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.05795}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Post-selection strategies that discard low-confidence computational results can significantly improve the effective fidelity of quantum error correction at the cost of reduced acceptance rates, which can be particularly useful for offline resource state generation and other moderate-depth fault-tolerant circuits. Prior work has primarily relied on the "logical gap" metric with the minimum-weight perfect matching decoder, but this approach faces fundamental limitations including computational overhead that scales exponentially with the number of logical qubits and poor generalizability to arbitrary codes beyond surface codes. We develop post-selection strategies based on computationally efficient heuristic confidence metrics that leverage error cluster statistics (specifically, aggregated cluster sizes and log-likelihood ratios) from clustering-based decoders, which are applicable to arbitrary quantum low-density parity check (QLDPC) codes. We validate our method through extensive numerical simulations on surface codes, bivariate bicycle codes, and hypergraph product codes, demonstrating orders of magnitude reductions in logical error rates with moderate abort rates. For instance, applying our strategy to the [[144, 12, 12]] bivariate bicycle code achieves approximately three orders of magnitude reduction in the logical error rate with an abort rate of only 1% (19%) at a physical error rate of 0.1% (0.3%). Additionally, we integrate our approach with the sliding-window framework for real-time decoding, featuring early mid-circuit abort decisions that eliminate unnecessary overheads. Notably, its performance matches or even surpasses the original strategy for global decoding, while exhibiting favorable scaling in the number of rounds. Our approach provides a practical foundation for efficient post-selection in fault-tolerant quantum computing with QLDPC codes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.05795 by Lucas H. English, Seok-Hyung Lee, Stephen D. Bartlett.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of our heuristic cluster-based confidence metrics and post-selection strate￾gies based on them. (a) Given detector outcomes, a clustering-based decoder constructs valid clusters and performs decoding within each cluster in parallel. As an example, we show a distance-9 surface code patch under bit-flip noise. Blue squares denote violated detectors (check nodes), red circles indi￾cate fault nodes wi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Post-selection analysis of global decoding for rotated surface codes. (a) Logical error rates plog are plotted against pabort for Strategy 1 based on the cluster LLR 2-norm fraction Q (2) LLR, across different physical error rates p ∈ {0.001, 0.003, 0.005, 0.01} and code distances d ∈ {5, 9, 13}. The values of plog without post-selection (pabort = 0) are emphasized as filled circles. For p = 0.001, an inse… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Post-selection analysis of global decoding for bivariate bicycle codes. Two variants of bivariate bicycle codes are considered: [[144, 12, 12]] and [[72, 12, 6]]. Shaded regions represent 95% confidence intervals. (a) Any-observable logical error rates plog are plotted against the abort rate pabort at p ∈ {0.001, 0.003, 0.005} for Strategy 1 based on Q (2) LLR. For p = 0.001, a log-scale inset is included.… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Post-selection analysis of global decoding for a hypergraph product code. We consider a [[225, 9, 6]] (3, 4)-regular hypergraph product code, defined from the product of a 12-variable classical LDPC codes with itself. (a) Any-observable logical error rates plog are plotted against the abort rate pabort at p = 0.001, comparing Strategy 1 based on Q (2) LLR with the baseline metrics. Shaded regions represent… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Analysis of real-time post-selection via Strategy 2 for (a) the surface code with d = 13 and (b) the [[144, 12, 12]] bivariate bicycle code. Logical error rates plog are plotted against the average time cost per accepted shots Taccepted, which represents the average time cost required to succeed when immediately retrying after each aborted attempt. The results are for the memory experiments with T = d at p… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dependence of real-time post-selection performance on the number of rounds T for the [[144, 12, 12]] bivariate bicycle code. We consider the same setting as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 9 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Syndrome resampling enhances quantum error correction thresholds

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Syndrome resampling increases QEC thresholds and cuts logical errors by up to four orders of magnitude by biasing toward likely syndromes, linked to Rényi coherent information phase transitions.

  2. Scalable Neural Decoders for Practical Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Neural decoder for quantum LDPC codes achieves ~10^{-10} logical error at 0.1% physical error with 17x improvement and high throughput, enabling practical fault tolerance at modest code sizes.

  3. Concatenating Algebraic Codes over High-Rate Quantum LDPC Codes

    quant-ph 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    Concatenating quantum Reed-Solomon codes over the gross code via Galois qudits reaches teraquop regime at uniform 10^{-3} noise with reduced overhead.

  4. Concatenating Algebraic Codes over High-Rate Quantum LDPC Codes

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Concatenating quantum Reed-Solomon outer codes over the gross code using Galois qudits reaches teraquop regime at 10^{-3} physical noise with lower overhead than prior two-gross-code constructions.

  5. Forced Gap Post-Selection for Quantum LDPC Codes and their Operations

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A forced-gap post-selection strategy using repeated Relay-BP decoder runs improves logical error rates by over 4x on 72- and 144-qubit bivariate bicycle codes at fixed post-selection rate.

  6. Forced Gap Post-Selection for Quantum LDPC Codes and their Operations

    quant-ph 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    Forced-gap post-selection on bivariate bicycle codes and surgery gadgets improves logical error rates by a factor of more than 4 using Relay-BP decoding at fixed post-selection rate.

  7. Scalable accuracy gains from postselection in quantum error correcting codes

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Postselection on typical syndromes in the toric code suppresses logical error rates from p_f to p_f^b with b approximately 3.1 via large-deviation arguments.

  8. Adaptive Window Decoding based on Spatiotemporal Complementary Gap

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Adaptive window decoding with spatiotemporal complementary gap reduces average buffer size by 40% while maintaining logical error rate in quantum error correction simulations.

  9. ADaPT: Adaptive-window Decoding for Practical fault-Tolerance

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Adaptive-window decoding that shrinks or expands based on decoder confidence cuts reaction-time overhead in quantum error correction without raising logical error rates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 10 linked inside Pith · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Quantum error correction for quantum memories

    Barbara M. Terhal. “Quantum error correction for quantum memories”. Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 307–346 (2015)

    2015

  2. [2]

    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”. Phys. Rev. A 71, 022316 (2005)

    2005

  3. [3]

    Magic-state distillation with low over head

    Sergey Bravyi and Jeongwan Haah. “Magic-state distillation with low over head”. Phys. Rev. A 86, 052329 (2012)

    2012

  4. [4]

    A variational e igenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor

    Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man-Hong Yung, Xiao-Q i Zhou, Peter J Love, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L O’brien. “A variational e igenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor”. Nat. commun. 5, 4213 (2014). 1https://github.com/seokhyung-lee/ldpc-post-selection 19

    2014

  5. [5]

    Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms

    Kishor Bharti, Alba Cervera-Lierta, Thi Ha Kyaw, Tobias Haug, Sumner Alp erin-Lea, Abhinav Anand, Matthias Degroote, Hermanni Heimonen, Jakob S. Kottmann, Tim Menke, Wai-Keong Mok, Sukin Sim, Leong-Chuan Kwek, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guz ik. “Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms”. Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 015004 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    Low-cost e rror mitigation by symmetry verification

    X. Bonet-Monroig, R. Sagastizabal, M. Singh, and T. E. O’Brien. “Low-cost e rror mitigation by symmetry verification”. Phys. Rev. A 98, 062339 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    Experimental error mitigation via symme try verifi- cation in a variational quantum eigensolver

    R. Sagastizabal, X. Bonet-Monroig, M. Singh, M. A. Rol, C. C. Bultink, X. Fu , C. H. Price, V. P. Ostroukh, N. Muthusubramanian, A. Bruno, M. Beekman, N. Haide r, T. E. O’Brien, and L. DiCarlo. “Experimental error mitigation via symme try verifi- cation in a variational quantum eigensolver”. Phys. Rev. A 100, 010302 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    Quantum Error Mitigation using Symmetry Expansion

    Zhenyu Cai. “Quantum Error Mitigation using Symmetry Expansion”. Quantum 5, 548 (2021)

    2021

  9. [9]

    Virtual quantum error detection

    Kento Tsubouchi, Yasunari Suzuki, Yuuki Tokunaga, Nobuyuki Yoshioka, and Suguru Endo. “Virtual quantum error detection”. Phys. Rev. A 108, 042426 (2023)

    2023

  10. [10]

    E rror suppression for arbitrary-size black box quantum operations

    Gideon Lee, Connor T. Hann, Shruti Puri, S. M. Girvin, and Liang Jiang. “E rror suppression for arbitrary-size black box quantum operations”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 190601 (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    Quantum error mitigati on

    Zhenyu Cai, Ryan Babbush, Simon C. Benjamin, Suguru Endo, William J . Huggins, Ying Li, Jarrod R. McClean, and Thomas E. O’Brien. “Quantum error mitigati on”. Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 045005 (2023)

    2023

  12. [12]

    Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices

    E. Knill. “Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices”. Nature 434, 39– 44 (2005)

    2005

  13. [13]

    Accuracy thres hold for postse- lected quantum computation

    Panos Aliferis, Daniel Gottesman, and John Preskill. “Accuracy thres hold for postse- lected quantum computation”. Quant. Inf. Comput. 8, 181–244 (2008). arXiv:quant- ph/0703264

    arXiv 2008

  14. [14]

    Calibrated decoders for experimental quantum error correction

    Edward H. Chen, Theodore J. Yoder, Youngseok Kim, Neereja Sundares an, Srikanth Srinivasan, Muyuan Li, Antonio D. C´ orcoles, Andrew W. Cross, and Maika Tak ita. “Calibrated decoders for experimental quantum error correction”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 110504 (2022)

    2022

  15. [15]

    Fault- tolerant postselection for low-overhead magic state preparation

    H´ ector Bomb ´ ın, Mihir Pant, Sam Roberts, and Karthik I. Seetharam. “Fault- tolerant postselection for low-overhead magic state preparation”. PRX Quantum 5, 010302 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    Yoked s urface codes

    Craig Gidney, Michael Newman, Peter Brooks, and Cody Jones. “Yoked s urface codes”. Nat. Commun. 16, 4498 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Mi tigating errors in logical qubits

    Samuel C. Smith, Benjamin J. Brown, and Stephen D. Bartlett. “Mi tigating errors in logical qubits”. Commun. Phys. 7, 1–10 (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    Scalable accuracy gains from postselection in quan tum error correcting codes

    Hongkun Chen, Daohong Xu, Grace M. Sommers, David A. Huse, Jeff D. Thompson , and Sarang Gopalakrishnan. “Scalable accuracy gains from postselection in quan tum error correcting codes” (2025). arXiv:2510.05222

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Topol ogical quan- tum memory

    Eric Dennis, Alexei Kitaev, Andrew Landahl, and John Preskill. “Topol ogical quan- tum memory”. J. Math. Phys. 43, 4452 (2002)

    2002

  20. [20]

    Statistical mechanic al models for quantum codes with correlated noise

    Christopher T. Chubb and Steven T. Flammia. “Statistical mechanic al models for quantum codes with correlated noise”. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar´ e Comb. Phys. Inter- act. 8, 269–321 (2021)

    2021

  21. [21]

    Magic state cultivation: gro wing T states as cheap as CNOT gates

    Craig Gidney, Noah Shutty, and Cody Jones. “Magic state cultivation: gro wing T states as cheap as CNOT gates” (2024). arXiv:2409.17595

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Low-overhead magic state distillation with color codes

    Seok-Hyung Lee, Felix Thomsen, Nicholas Fazio, Benjamin J. Brown, and Stephen D. Bartlett. “Low-overhead magic state distillation with color codes”. PRX Quantum 6, 030317 (2025). 20

    2025

  23. [23]

    Hardness of decoding quantum stab ilizer codes

    Pavithran Iyer and David Poulin. “Hardness of decoding quantum stab ilizer codes”. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 61, 5209–5223 (2015)

    2015

  24. [24]

    Degeneracy and its impact on the decoding of sparse quantum cod es

    Patricio Fuentes, Josu Etxezarreta Martinez, Pedro M. Crespo, and Javier Garcia- Fr ´ ıas. “Degeneracy and its impact on the decoding of sparse quantum cod es”. IEEE Access 9, 89093–89119 (2021)

    2021

  25. [25]

    Paths, trees, and flowers

    Jack Edmonds. “Paths, trees, and flowers”. Can. J. Math. 17, 449–467 (1965)

    1965

  26. [26]

    PyMatching: A python package for decoding quantum codes w ith minimum-weight perfect matching

    Oscar Higgott. “PyMatching: A python package for decoding quantum codes w ith minimum-weight perfect matching”. ACM Trans. Quantum Comput. 3, 16 (2022)

    2022

  27. [27]

    Sparse Blossom: correcting a million er rors per core second with minimum-weight matching

    Oscar Higgott and Craig Gidney. “Sparse Blossom: correcting a million er rors per core second with minimum-weight matching”. Quantum 9, 1600 (2025)

    2025

  28. [28]

    Th resholds for postselected quantum error correction from statistical mechanics

    Lucas H. English, Dominic J. Williamson, and Stephen D. Bartlett. “Th resholds for postselected quantum error correction from statistical mechanics”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 120603 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    Efficie nt soft-output decoders for the surface code

    Nadine Meister, Christopher A. Pattison, and John Preskill. “Efficie nt soft-output decoders for the surface code” (2024). arXiv:2405.07433

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Almost-linear time decoding algori thm for topological codes

    Nicolas Delfosse and Naomi H. Nickerson. “Almost-linear time decoding algori thm for topological codes”. Quantum 5, 595 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    Toward a uni on-find decoder for quantum LDPC codes

    Nicolas Delfosse, Vivien Londe, and Michael E. Beverland. “Toward a uni on-find decoder for quantum LDPC codes”. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory. 68, 3187–3199 (2022)

    2022

  32. [32]

    Localized statistics decoding for quantum low-den sity parity- check codes

    Timo Hillmann, Lucas Berent, Armanda O. Quintavalle, Jens Eisert , Robert Wille, and Joschka Roffe. “Localized statistics decoding for quantum low-den sity parity- check codes”. Nat. Commun. 16, 8214 (2025)

    2025

  33. [33]

    Ambiguity clustering: an accurate and e fficient decoder for qLDPC codes

    Stasiu Wolanski and Ben Barber. “Ambiguity clustering: an accurate and e fficient decoder for qLDPC codes” (2025). arXiv:2406.14527

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Quantum codes on a lattice with bound ary

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Yu. Kitaev. “Quantum codes on a lattice with bound ary” (1998). arXiv:quant-ph/9811052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  35. [35]

    Quantum kronecker sum-produ ct low- density parity-check codes with finite rate

    Alexey A. Kovalev and Leonid P. Pryadko. “Quantum kronecker sum-produ ct low- density parity-check codes with finite rate”. Phys. Rev. A 88, 012311 (2013)

    2013

  36. [36]

    High-threshold and low-overhead fault-toleran t quantum memory

    Sergey Bravyi, Andrew W. Cross, Jay M. Gambetta, Dmitri Maslov, P atrick Rall, and Theodore J. Yoder. “High-threshold and low-overhead fault-toleran t quantum memory”. Nature 627, 778–782 (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    Improved quantum hypergraph- product LDPC codes

    Alexey A. Kovalev and Leonid P. Pryadko. “Improved quantum hypergraph- product LDPC codes”. In 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory Pro- ceedings. Pages 348–352 . (2012)

    2012

  38. [38]

    Quantum LDPC codes with positive rate and minimum distance proportional to the square root of the blocklength

    Jean-Pierre Tillich and Gilles Z´ emor. “Quantum LDPC codes with positive rate and minimum distance proportional to the square root of the blocklength”. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 60, 1193–1202 (2014)

    2014

  39. [39]

    Higher-dimensional quantum hyper graph- product codes with finite rates

    Weilei Zeng and Leonid P. Pryadko. “Higher-dimensional quantum hyper graph- product codes with finite rates”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 230501 (2019)

    2019

  40. [40]

    Parallel window decoding enables scalable fault tolerant quant um computa- tion

    Luka Skoric, Dan E. Browne, Kenton M. Barnes, Neil I. Gillespie, an d Earl T. Camp- bell. “Parallel window decoding enables scalable fault tolerant quant um computa- tion”. Nat. Commun. 14, 7040 (2023)

    2023

  41. [41]

    Scalable s urface- code decoders with parallelization in time

    Xinyu Tan, Fang Zhang, Rui Chao, Yaoyun Shi, and Jianxin Chen. “Scalable s urface- code decoders with parallelization in time”. PRX Quantum 4, 040344 (2023)

    2023

  42. [42]

    Increasing memory lifetime of quant um low-density parity check codes with sliding-window noisy syndrome decoding

    Shilin Huang and Shruti Puri. “Increasing memory lifetime of quant um low-density parity check codes with sliding-window noisy syndrome decoding”. Phys. Rev. A 110, 012453 (2024)

    2024

  43. [43]

    Toward low-laten cy itera- tive decoding of QLDPC codes under circuit-level noise

    Anqi Gong, Sebastian Cammerer, and Joseph M. Renes. “Toward low-laten cy itera- tive decoding of QLDPC codes under circuit-level noise” (2024). arXiv:2403.18901. 21

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Ana- log information decoding of bosonic quantum low-density parity-chec k codes

    Lucas Berent, Timo Hillmann, Jens Eisert, Robert Wille, and Josch ka Roffe. “Ana- log information decoding of bosonic quantum low-density parity-chec k codes”. PRX Quantum 5, 020349 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    High-threshold, l ow-overhead and single-shot decodable fault-tolerant quantum memory

    Thomas R. Scruby, Timo Hillmann, and Joschka Roffe. “High-threshold, l ow-overhead and single-shot decodable fault-tolerant quantum memory” (2024). arXiv:2406.14445

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    QUITS: A modular Qldpc code circUIT Simulator

    Mingyu Kang, Yingjia Lin, Hanwen Yao, Mert G¨ okduman, Arianna Meinking, an d Kenneth R. Brown. “QUITS: A modular Qldpc code circUIT Simulator” ( 2025). arXiv:2504.02673

    arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator

    Craig Gidney. “Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator”. Quantum 5, 497 (2021)

    2021

  48. [48]

    Near Shannon limit performance of l ow density parity check codes

    David J. C. MacKay and Radford M. Neal. “Near Shannon limit performance of l ow density parity check codes”. Electronics Letters 33, 457 (1997)

    1997

  49. [49]

    Degenerate quantum LDPC codes w ith good finite length performance

    Pavel Panteleev and Gleb Kalachev. “Degenerate quantum LDPC codes w ith good finite length performance”. Quantum 5, 585 (2021)

    2021

  50. [50]

    Trapping sets of quantum LDPC cod es

    Nithin Raveendran and Bane Vasi´ c. “Trapping sets of quantum LDPC cod es”. Quan- tum 5, 562 (2021)

    2021

  51. [51]

    Dec oding across the quantum low-density parity-check code landscape

    Joschka Roffe, David R. White, Simon Burton, and Earl Campbell. “Dec oding across the quantum low-density parity-check code landscape”. Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043423 (2020)

    2020

  52. [52]

    Improved decoding of circuit noise and fragile b oundaries of tailored surface codes

    Oscar Higgott, Thomas C. Bohdanowicz, Aleksander Kubica, Steven T. Flam mia, and Earl T. Campbell. “Improved decoding of circuit noise and fragile b oundaries of tailored surface codes”. Phys. Rev. X 13, 031007 (2023)

    2023

  53. [53]

    Sequential decoding of the xyz 2 hexagonal stabilizer code

    Basudha Srivastava, Yinzi Xiao, Anton Frisk Kockum, Ben Criger, and Mat s Granath. “Sequential decoding of the xyz 2 hexagonal stabilizer code” (2025). arXiv:2505.03691

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Decoding algorithms for surface codes

    Antonio deMarti iOlius, Patricio Fuentes, Rom´ an Or´ us, Pedro M . Crespo, and Josu Etxezarreta Martinez. “Decoding algorithms for surface codes”. Quantum 8, 1498 (2024)

    2024

  55. [55]

    Topological quantum distillation

    H. Bombin and M. A. Martin-Delgado. “Topological quantum distillation”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 180501 (2006)

    2006

  56. [56]

    Decoding color codes by projection onto surface c odes

    Nicolas Delfosse. “Decoding color codes by projection onto surface c odes”. Phys. Rev. A 89, 012317 (2014)

    2014

  57. [57]

    Triangular color codes on trivalent graphs with flag qubits

    Christopher Chamberland, Aleksander Kubica, Theodore J. Yoder, and Guanyu Zhu. “Triangular color codes on trivalent graphs with flag qubits”. New J. Phys. 22, 023019 (2020)

    2020

  58. [58]

    Cost of universality: A comparative study of the overhead of state distillation and code switc hing with color codes

    Michael E. Beverland, Aleksander Kubica, and Krysta M. Svore. “Cost of universality: A comparative study of the overhead of state distillation and code switc hing with color codes”. PRX Quantum 2, 020341 (2021)

    2021

  59. [59]

    Decoder for the triangular color c ode by matching on a M¨ obius strip

    Kaavya Sahay and Benjamin J. Brown. “Decoder for the triangular color c ode by matching on a M¨ obius strip”. PRX Quantum 3, 010310 (2022)

    2022

  60. [60]

    Efficient color code decoder s in d≥ 2 dimensions from toric code decoders

    Aleksander Kubica and Nicolas Delfosse. “Efficient color code decoder s in d≥ 2 dimensions from toric code decoders”. Quantum 7, 929 (2023)

    2023

  61. [61]

    New circuits and an open source decoder for the color code

    Craig Gidney and Cody Jones. “New circuits and an open source decoder for the color code” (2023). arXiv:2312.08813

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [62]

    Color code decod er with improved scaling for correcting circuit-level noise

    Seok-Hyung Lee, Andrew Li, and Stephen D. Bartlett. “Color code decod er with improved scaling for correcting circuit-level noise”. Quantum 9, 1609 (2025)

    2025

  63. [63]

    A real-time, scalable, fast and resource-efficient decoder for a quant um computer

    Ben Barber, Kenton M Barnes, Tomasz Bialas, Okan Bu˘ gdaycı, Earl T Camp bell, Neil I Gillespie, Kauser Johar, Ram Rajan, Adam W Richardson, Luka Skoric, et al. “A real-time, scalable, fast and resource-efficient decoder for a quant um computer”. Nature Electronics 8, 84–91 (2025). 22

    2025

  64. [64]

    Demonstrating real-time and low-latency quantum e rror correc- tion with superconducting qubits

    Laura Caune, Luka Skoric, Nick S. Blunt, Archibald Ruban, Jimmy McDan iel, Joseph A. Valery, Andrew D. Patterson, Alexander V. Gramolin, Joonas Majani emi, Kenton M. Barnes, Tomasz Bialas, Okan Bu˘ gdaycı, Ophelia Crawford, Gy ¨ orgy P. Geh´ er, Hari Krovi, Elisha Matekole, Canberk Topal, Stefano Poletto, Michael Bryant, Kalan Snyder, Neil I. Gillespie, G...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    LDPC: Python tools for low density parity check code s

    Joschka Roffe. “LDPC: Python tools for low density parity check code s” (2022)

    2022

  66. [66]

    Quant um expander codes

    Anthony Leverrier, Jean-Pierre Tillich, and Gilles Zemor. “Quant um expander codes”. In 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Sci- ence. Pages 810–824 . Berkeley, CA, USA (2015). IEEE. Acknowledgements We thank Timo Hillmann, Nicholas Fazio, Dominic Williamson, Mingyu Kang, and Hyuk- gun Kwon for helpful discussions and comments. We a...

    2015

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.