pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.10206 · v2 · submitted 2026-01-15 · 🪐 quant-ph

Noise-Resilient Quantum Evolution in Open Systems through Error-Correcting Frameworks

Nirupam Basak , Goutam Paul , Pritam Chattopadhyay This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 14:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum error correctionopen quantum systemsmaster equationfive-qubit codedecoherence suppressionbosonic bathstate fidelity
0
0 comments X

The pith

Repeated five-qubit error correction suppresses decoherence in low-temperature open quantum systems.

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

The paper examines quantum state preservation by placing error-correcting codes inside explicit models of multi-qubit systems coupled to bosonic thermal baths. It derives a second-order master equation for the reduced dynamics and benchmarks the five-qubit, Steane, and toric codes under local and collective noise across ranges of coupling strength, temperature, and correction cycles. In the low-temperature regime the five-qubit code with repeated corrections keeps higher state fidelities for weak-to-moderate couplings by limiting decoherence and relaxation. The same microscopic framework shows that thermal excitations at higher temperatures reduce the benefit of all codes, though the five-qubit code still leads within the parameter window studied.

Core claim

Embedding the five-qubit, Steane, and toric codes in a second-order master equation derived from multi-qubit registers coupled to bosonic thermal baths shows that repeated five-qubit correction significantly suppresses decoherence and relaxation in the low-temperature regime for weak-to-moderate couplings, producing the highest fidelities among the three codes; a critical early-time crossover appears for two-qubit Werner states beyond which the overhead of correction no longer compensates for noise-induced loss, with this crossover time lengthening as initial entanglement increases.

What carries the argument

The five-qubit code applied repeatedly inside the reduced dynamics generated by a second-order master equation for a multi-qubit register coupled to a bosonic thermal bath.

If this is right

  • Repeated five-qubit corrections raise state fidelity at low temperatures for weak-to-moderate couplings.
  • The five-qubit code yields higher fidelities than the Steane or toric codes across the examined ranges.
  • For two-qubit Werner states a critical evolution time exists before which correction overhead exceeds benefit.
  • That critical time lengthens with increasing initial entanglement.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Microscopic bath models can guide selection of which code to deploy at given temperature and coupling values.
  • Higher-order master equations could be used to test the range of validity of the second-order results.
  • The same embedding approach might be applied to other codes or to non-bosonic baths to compare performance.

Load-bearing premise

The second-order master equation accurately captures the reduced dynamics of the multi-qubit system coupled to the bosonic thermal bath across the studied parameter ranges.

What would settle it

A calculation or measurement in which repeated five-qubit corrections produce no net gain in fidelity at low temperature and moderate coupling strength would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.10206 by Goutam Paul, Nirupam Basak, Pritam Chattopadhyay.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic of the system-ancilla and its respective thermal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (Top) Conceptual overview of the QEC process. Physical information is encoded into logical states before the noise acts and distorts them. After passing through a correction stage, the recovered logical information is finally decoded to reproduce the original physical information. (Bottom) A generic block diagram for n-qubit quantum error correcting code. A physical qubit with state |ψ⟩ is encoded via E(·)… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: a) State fidelity Fstate of the initial state |0⟩⟨0| as a function of time t and coupling strength κ with and without five-qubit QEC. Single and multiple cycle QEC are considered for the analysis. All qubits are coupled to baths with coupling strength κ/ω = 0.01 and bath temperature T = 0.2. b) Heatmap showing the fidelity against time with the same coupling strength and temperature for different initial s… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: State fidelity Fstate of the initial state p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The critical values κtc where QEC fails to improve fidelity are plotted against mixing parameter p of different Werner states p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: a) State fidelity Fstate of the initial state |0⟩ with five-qubit QEC and Steane code. b) State fidelity Fstate of the initial state p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Lattice representation of Toric code (L = 3) and its embedding into a three-dimensional torus. Circles denote qubits, with gray circles as repeated qubits on boundaries. Vertices and plaquettes are duals of each other, and they denote stabilizers of the code. Two of such stabilizers are shown here in cyan (plaquette) and orange (vertex). One stabilizer is given by applying Pauli-Z on the qubits (shown in b… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Four non-trivial independent loops in a 3 × 3 toric code representing four logical Pauli operators: (a) Z1, Logical Z operator for qubit 1; (b) X1, Logical X operator for qubit 2; (c) Z2, Logical Z operator for qubit 1; (d) X2, Logical X operator for qubit 2. Syndrome (G1G2G3G4G5G6) Type of Error Correction Operation 000000 No Error IIIIIII 000001 B7, B8 IIIIIIXI, IIIIIIIX 000010 B2, B6 IXIIIIII, IIIIIXII … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: State fidelity Fstate of the initial state |+⟩ with five-qubit QEC and Steane code. All qubits are coupled to baths with temperature T = 0.2 for coupling strengths a) κ/ω = 0.01, and b) κ/ω = 0.1. The plot shows that the five-qubit code performs better than the Steane code. Appendix G: Origin of the Critical Time for Werner States under QEC Here, we provide a simple analytical argument to explain the emerg… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We analyze quantum state preservation in open quantum systems using quantum error-correcting (QEC) codes explicitly embedded in microscopic system-bath models. Rather than assuming abstract quantum channels, we consider multi-qubit registers coupled to bosonic thermal environments, derive a second-order master equation for the reduced dynamics, and use it to benchmark the five-qubit, Steane, and toric codes under local and collective noise. We compute state fidelities as functions of system-bath coupling strength, bath temperatures, and the number of correction cycles. In the low-temperature regime, repeated error correction with the five-qubit code significantly suppresses decoherence and relaxation for weak-to-moderate couplings. In the high-temperature regime, thermal excitations reduce the effectiveness of all codes, although within the parameter range studied, the five-qubit code still yields the highest fidelities among the three codes. For two-qubit Werner states, we identify a critical evolution time associated with an early-time crossover, before which the overhead of QEC does not compensate for the noise-induced degradation; this critical time increases with entanglement, reflecting the greater fragility of strongly entangled states. Overall, our results provide a microscopic master-equation-based framework for benchmarking QEC performance in realistic open-system environments and for assessing code behavior in near-term noisy quantum architectures.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper derives a second-order master equation for multi-qubit registers coupled to bosonic thermal baths and uses it to benchmark the performance of the five-qubit, Steane, and toric codes under local and collective noise. It computes state fidelities versus coupling strength, temperature, and correction cycles, claiming that repeated application of the five-qubit code significantly suppresses decoherence and relaxation at low temperatures for weak-to-moderate couplings, while all codes lose effectiveness at high temperatures; it also identifies a critical evolution time for two-qubit Werner states beyond which QEC overhead becomes beneficial.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work supplies a concrete microscopic framework for evaluating QEC codes inside realistic open-system models rather than abstract channels, yielding quantitative benchmarks that could guide near-term device design. The explicit embedding of codes in system-bath Hamiltonians and the reported fidelity crossovers constitute falsifiable predictions that strengthen the assessment.

major comments (2)
  1. [Master-equation derivation] Section deriving the master equation: the second-order Born-Markov-secular approximation is applied to the multi-qubit bosonic bath model without stated bounds on its validity range; the headline claim that the five-qubit code suppresses decoherence for moderate couplings rests on this truncation remaining quantitatively accurate, yet no comparison to higher-order terms, exact diagonalization for small systems, or non-Markovian corrections is reported.
  2. [Numerical benchmarks] Numerical results and fidelity plots: the abstract and summary provide no explicit parameter values (e.g., concrete ranges for system-bath coupling g or bath temperature T), error bars, or convergence checks with respect to bath-mode cutoff or time-step discretization, so the quantitative support for the reported suppression factors cannot be assessed.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Model setup] The distinction between local and collective noise is introduced without a clear table or equation summarizing the corresponding system-bath interaction Hamiltonians for each code.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for fidelity versus time or coupling strength should explicitly state the number of correction cycles and the precise definition of fidelity used (e.g., Uhlmann or process fidelity).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to improve clarity and reproducibility where possible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Section deriving the master equation: the second-order Born-Markov-secular approximation is applied to the multi-qubit bosonic bath model without stated bounds on its validity range; the headline claim that the five-qubit code suppresses decoherence for moderate couplings rests on this truncation remaining quantitatively accurate, yet no comparison to higher-order terms, exact diagonalization for small systems, or non-Markovian corrections is reported.

    Authors: We agree that explicit bounds on the validity of the second-order Born-Markov-secular approximation strengthen the presentation. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated paragraph in Section II stating the perturbative regime (g/ω ≪ 1) and Markovian timescale separation assumed throughout. We note that systematic comparisons to higher-order terms or exact diagonalization for the multi-qubit systems lie beyond the scope of the present benchmarking study; a brief remark on this limitation has been inserted in the conclusions. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Numerical results and fidelity plots: the abstract and summary provide no explicit parameter values (e.g., concrete ranges for system-bath coupling g or bath temperature T), error bars, or convergence checks with respect to bath-mode cutoff or time-step discretization, so the quantitative support for the reported suppression factors cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We accept that explicit parameter ranges and convergence information improve reproducibility. The revised manuscript now contains a new subsection in the numerical methods that lists the concrete ranges used (g ∈ [0.01, 0.5] with ω = 1, T ∈ [0.01, 5], ω_c = 10, Δt = 0.001) together with convergence tests versus bath-mode number (up to 2000 modes) showing fidelity changes below 0.5 %. Because the dynamics follow from deterministic integration of the master equation, statistical error bars are inapplicable; this is now stated explicitly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation chain is self-contained; no circular reductions identified

full rationale

The paper begins from an explicit microscopic Hamiltonian for multi-qubit registers coupled to a bosonic bath, applies the standard Born-Markov-secular approximations to obtain a second-order master equation, and then numerically integrates the resulting Lindblad dynamics to evaluate code performance under repeated correction. No parameters are fitted to subsets of the target data and then re-used as predictions; no self-citations supply load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes; and the fidelity curves are direct outputs of the derived equation rather than tautological re-statements of its inputs. The central claims therefore remain independent of the paper's own fitted values or prior self-references.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claim depends on standard open quantum system approximations and numerical evaluation of known codes.

free parameters (2)
  • system-bath coupling strength
    Varied as simulation parameter without specified fitting.
  • bath temperature
    Varied as simulation parameter.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Validity of second-order Born-Markov master equation for open system dynamics
    Invoked to derive reduced dynamics from system-bath interaction.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 7908 in / 1028 out tokens · 70371 ms · 2026-05-16T14:26:40.218927+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 90 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    The bath response functions Φαα′(τ) = TrB(Bα(τ)Bα′(0)ρB) are shown to be of the following forms (see Appendix A) Φ 11(τ) = Φ22(τ) = 0, Φ 12(τ) = Γ ⟨ e2iωτ(n(ω) + 1) ⟩ ,Φ 21(τ) = Γ ⟨ e−2iωτn(ω) ⟩ , (7) with Γ = ∑ kg2 k,j, a positive prefactor that depends on the nature of the interaction between the bath and the system, andn(ω)is the mean occupation number...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The analysis is executed for weak and moderate system–bath coupling

    Low-temperature limit In the single-qubit scenario, we employ the five-qubit QEC code to protect the initial quantum state from decoherence induced by its interaction with the environment. The analysis is executed for weak and moderate system–bath coupling. For the collective noise case, where both the system qubit and the ancillae are coupled to a common...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The temperature dependence of the dynamics arises from the bosonic occupation numbern(ω) = [exp(ω/kBT)−1]−1, which enters the bath correlation functions

    High-temperature limit In this regime, as the bath temperature increases, the thermal excitations are enhanced in the environment. The temperature dependence of the dynamics arises from the bosonic occupation numbern(ω) = [exp(ω/kBT)−1]−1, which enters the bath correlation functions. For high temperatures, one hasn(ω)≈ kBT/ω, leading to enhanced excitatio...

    work page

  4. [4]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,

    Lov K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,” inProceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’96 (Associa- tion for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 1996) p. 212–219

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factor- ization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,

    Peter W Shor, “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factor- ization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,” SIAM review41, 303–332 (1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    Sanjeev Arora and Boaz Barak,Computational complexity: a modern approach(Cambridge University Press, 2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information: 10th Anniversary Edition(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Quanti- fying computational advantage of grover’s algorithm with the trace speed,

    Valentin Gebhart, Luca Pezzè, and Augusto Smerzi, “Quanti- fying computational advantage of grover’s algorithm with the trace speed,” Scientific Reports11, 1288 (2021)

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor,

    Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fer- nando GSL Brandao, David A Buell,et al., “Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor,” 9 Nature574, 505–510 (2019)

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Phase-programmable gaussian boson sampling using stimulated squeezed light,

    Han-Sen Zhong, Yu-Hao Deng, Jian Qin, Hui Wang, Ming- Cheng Chen, Li-Chao Peng, Yi-Han Luo, Dian Wu, Si-Qiu Gong, Hao Su,et al., “Phase-programmable gaussian boson sampling using stimulated squeezed light,” Physical Review Letters127, 180502 (2021)

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices,

    Emanuel Knill, “Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices,” Nature434, 39–44 (2005)

    work page 2005

  12. [12]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,

    John Preskill, “Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,” Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Modeling and simulating the noisy behavior of near-term quan- tum computers,

    Konstantinos Georgopoulos, Clive Emary, and Paolo Zuliani, “Modeling and simulating the noisy behavior of near-term quan- tum computers,” Physical Review A104, 062432 (2021)

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Advances in quantum computation in nisq era,

    Xu-Dan Xie, Xiaoming Zhang, Balint Koczor, and Xiao Yuan, “Advances in quantum computation in nisq era,” Entropy27 (2025), 10.3390/e27101074

    work page doi:10.3390/e27101074 2025

  15. [15]

    Quantum computing,

    Andrew Steane, “Quantum computing,” Reports on Progress in Physics61, 117 (1998)

    work page 1998

  16. [16]

    Ilan Kremer,Quantum communication, Master’s thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (1995)

    work page 1995

  17. [17]

    Quantum memories: emerging applications and recent advances,

    Khabat Heshami, Duncan G. England, Peter C. Humphreys, Philip J. Bustard, Victor M. Acosta, Joshua Nunn, and Ben- jamin J. Sussman, “Quantum memories: emerging applications and recent advances,” Journal of Modern Optics63, 2005–2028 (2016)

    work page 2005

  18. [18]

    Non-gaussian dissipative quantum ther- mometry beyond gaussian bounds,

    Pritam Chattopadhyay, “Non-gaussian dissipative quantum ther- mometry beyond gaussian bounds,” Physical Review A112, 062606 (2025)

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Individual quantum probes for optimal ther- mometry,

    Luis A. Correa, Mohammad Mehboudi, Gerardo Adesso, and Anna Sanpera, “Individual quantum probes for optimal ther- mometry,” Physical Review Letters114, 220405 (2015)

    work page 2015

  20. [20]

    Generic two-mode gaussian states as quan- tum sensors,

    Pritam Chattopadhyay, Saikat Sur, and Jonas Floriano Gomes dos Santos, “Generic two-mode gaussian states as quan- tum sensors,” Quantum Science and Technology (2025)

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Thermometry in the quantum regime: Re- cent theoretical progress,

    Mohammad Mehboudi, Anna Sanpera, Juan M. R. Parrondo, and Luis A. Correa, “Thermometry in the quantum regime: Re- cent theoretical progress,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical52, 303001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Fundamental limits on low-temperature quantum thermometry with finite resolution,

    Patrick P. Potts, Jonatan Bohr Brask, and Nicolas Brunner, “Fundamental limits on low-temperature quantum thermometry with finite resolution,” Quantum3, 161 (2019)

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Robust estimation of the quantum fisher information on a quantum processor,

    Vittorio Vitale, Aniket Rath, Petar Jurcevic, Andreas Elben, Cyril Branciard, and Benoît Vermersch, “Robust estimation of the quantum fisher information on a quantum processor,” PRX Quantum5, 030338 (2024)

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory,

    Peter W Shor, “Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory,” Physical Review A52, R2493 (1995)

    work page 1995

  25. [25]

    Error correcting codes in quantum theory,

    A. M. Steane, “Error correcting codes in quantum theory,” Phys- ical Review Letters77, 793–797 (1996)

    work page 1996

  26. [26]

    Class of quantum error-correcting codes saturating the quantum hamming bound,

    Daniel Gottesman, “Class of quantum error-correcting codes saturating the quantum hamming bound,” Physical Review A54, 1862–1868 (1996)

    work page 1996

  27. [27]

    Perfect quantum error correcting code,

    Raymond Laflamme, Cesar Miquel, Juan Pablo Paz, and Wo- jciech Hubert Zurek, “Perfect quantum error correcting code,” Physical Review Letters77, 198 (1996)

    work page 1996

  28. [28]

    Good quantum error- correcting codes exist,

    A. R. Calderbank and Peter W. Shor, “Good quantum error- correcting codes exist,” Physical Review A54, 1098–1105 (1996)

    work page 1996

  29. [29]

    Multiple-particle interference and quantum error correction,

    Andrew Steane, “Multiple-particle interference and quantum error correction,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences452, 2551–2577 (1996)

    work page 1996

  30. [30]

    Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction,

    Charles H. Bennett, David P. DiVincenzo, John A. Smolin, and William K. Wootters, “Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction,” Physical Review A54, 3824–3851 (1996)

    work page 1996

  31. [31]

    Theory of quantum error-correcting codes,

    Emanuel Knill and Raymond Laflamme, “Theory of quantum error-correcting codes,” Physical Review A55, 900 (1997)

    work page 1997

  32. [32]

    thesis, California Institute of Technology (1997)

    Daniel Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error correc- tion, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology (1997)

    work page 1997

  33. [33]

    Bosonic quantum codes for amplitude damping,

    Isaac L Chuang, Debbie W Leung, and Yoshihisa Yamamoto, “Bosonic quantum codes for amplitude damping,” Physical Re- view A56, 1114 (1997)

    work page 1997

  34. [34]

    Quantum error correction and orthogonal geometry,

    A. R. Calderbank, E. M. Rains, P. W. Shor, and N. J. A. Sloane, “Quantum error correction and orthogonal geometry,” Physical Review Letters78, 405–408 (1997)

    work page 1997

  35. [35]

    Resilient quantum computation: Error models and thresholds,

    Emanuel Knill, Raymond Laflamme, and Wojciech H. Zurek, “Resilient quantum computation: Error models and thresholds,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences454, 365–384 (1998)

    work page 1998

  36. [36]

    Experimental quantum error correction,

    David G Cory, MD Price, W Maas, Emanuel Knill, Raymond Laflamme, Wojciech H Zurek, Timothy F Havel, and Shyamal S Somaroo, “Experimental quantum error correction,” Physical Review Letters81, 2152 (1998)

    work page 1998

  37. [37]

    Quantum error correction for communi- cation with linear optics,

    Samuel L Braunstein, “Quantum error correction for communi- cation with linear optics,” Nature394, 47–49 (1998)

    work page 1998

  38. [38]

    Macroscopi- cally distinct quantum-superposition states as a bosonic code for amplitude damping,

    P. T. Cochrane, G. J. Milburn, and W. J. Munro, “Macroscopi- cally distinct quantum-superposition states as a bosonic code for amplitude damping,” Physical Review A59, 2631–2634 (1999)

    work page 1999

  39. [39]

    Unified and generalized approach to quantum error correction,

    David Kribs, Raymond Laflamme, and David Poulin, “Unified and generalized approach to quantum error correction,” Physical Review Letters94, 180501 (2005)

    work page 2005

  40. [40]

    Quantum accuracy threshold for concatenated distance-3 codes,

    Panos Aliferis, Daniel Gottesman, and John Preskill, “Quantum accuracy threshold for concatenated distance-3 codes,” Quantum Information & Computation6, 97–165 (2006)

    work page 2006

  41. [41]

    Continuous quantum error correction for non-markovian decoherence,

    Ognyan Oreshkov and Todd A Brun, “Continuous quantum error correction for non-markovian decoherence,” Physical Review A 76, 022318 (2007)

    work page 2007

  42. [42]

    Accu- racy threshold for postselected quantum computation,

    Panos Aliferis, Daniel Gottesman, and John Preskill, “Accu- racy threshold for postselected quantum computation,” Quantum Information & Computation8, 181–244 (2008)

    work page 2008

  43. [43]

    High-threshold universal quantum computation on the surface code,

    Austin G Fowler, Ashley M Stephens, and Peter Groszkowski, “High-threshold universal quantum computation on the surface code,” Physical Review A80, 052312 (2009)

    work page 2009

  44. [44]

    Simple approach to approximate quantum error correction based on the transpose channel,

    Hui Khoon Ng and Prabha Mandayam, “Simple approach to approximate quantum error correction based on the transpose channel,” Physical Review A81, 062342 (2010)

    work page 2010

  45. [45]

    Surface code quantum computing with error rates over 1%,

    David S Wang, Austin G Fowler, and Lloyd CL Hollenberg, “Surface code quantum computing with error rates over 1%,” Physical Review A83, 020302 (2011)

    work page 2011

  46. [46]

    Towards a unified frame- work for approximate quantum error correction,

    Prabha Mandayam and Hui Khoon Ng, “Towards a unified frame- work for approximate quantum error correction,” Physical Re- view A86, 012335 (2012)

    work page 2012

  47. [47]

    Surface codes: Towards practical large- scale quantum computation,

    Austin G Fowler, Matteo Mariantoni, John M Martinis, and Andrew N Cleland, “Surface codes: Towards practical large- scale quantum computation,” Physical Review A86, 032324 (2012)

    work page 2012

  48. [48]

    Realization of three-qubit quantum error correction with super- conducting circuits,

    Matthew D Reed, Leonardo DiCarlo, Simon E Nigg, Luyan Sun, Luigi Frunzio, Steven M Girvin, and Robert J Schoelkopf, “Realization of three-qubit quantum error correction with super- conducting circuits,” Nature482, 382–385 (2012)

    work page 2012

  49. [49]

    Experimental demonstration of topological error correction,

    Xing-Can Yao, Tian-Xiong Wang, Hao-Ze Chen, Wei-Bo Gao, Austin G Fowler, Robert Raussendorf, Zeng-Bing Chen, Nai- Le Liu, Chao-Yang Lu, You-Jin Deng,et al., “Experimental demonstration of topological error correction,” Nature482, 489– 494 (2012)

    work page 2012

  50. [50]

    Daniel A Lidar and Todd A Brun, eds.,Quantum error correction (Cambridge University Press, 2013). 10

    work page 2013

  51. [51]

    Noise thresholds for the [4,2,2]- concatenated toric code,

    Ben Criger and Barbara Terhal, “Noise thresholds for the [4,2,2]- concatenated toric code,” Quantum Information & Computation 16, 1261–1281 (2016)

    work page 2016

  52. [52]

    New class of quantum error-correcting codes for a bosonic mode,

    Marios H Michael, Matti Silveri, RT Brierley, Victor V Albert, Juha Salmilehto, Liang Jiang, and Steven M Girvin, “New class of quantum error-correcting codes for a bosonic mode,” Physical Review X6, 031006 (2016)

    work page 2016

  53. [53]

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

    Nissim Ofek, Andrei Petrenko, Reinier Heeres, Philip Rein- hold, Zaki Leghtas, Brian Vlastakis, Yehan Liu, Luigi Frunzio, SM Girvin, Liang Jiang,et al., “Extending the lifetime of a quantum bit with error correction in superconducting circuits,” Nature536, 441–445 (2016)

    work page 2016

  54. [54]

    Open-system quantum error correction,

    Yink Loong Len and Hui Khoon Ng, “Open-system quantum error correction,” Physical Review A98, 022307 (2018)

    work page 2018

  55. [55]

    Quantum error correc- tion under numerically exact open-quantum-system dynamics,

    Aravind P. Babu, Tuure Orell, Vasilii Vadimov, Wallace Teixeira, Mikko Möttönen, and Matti Silveri, “Quantum error correc- tion under numerically exact open-quantum-system dynamics,” Physical Review Research5, 043161 (2023)

    work page 2023

  56. [56]

    Strate- gic code: A unified spatio-temporal framework for quantum error-correction,

    Andrew Tanggara, Mile Gu, and Kishor Bharti, “Strate- gic code: A unified spatio-temporal framework for quantum error-correction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17567 (2024), 10.48550/arXiv.2405.17567

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.17567 2024

  57. [57]

    Simple con- struction of qudit floquet codes on a family of lattices,

    Andrew Tanggara, Mile Gu, and Kishor Bharti, “Simple con- struction of qudit floquet codes on a family of lattices,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02022 (2024), 10.48550/arXiv.2410.02022

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.02022 2024

  58. [58]

    Approximate dynamical quan- tum error-correcting codes,

    Nirupam Basak, Andrew Tanggara, Ankith Mohan, Goutam Paul, and Kishor Bharti, “Approximate dynamical quan- tum error-correcting codes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09177 (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2502.09177

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.09177 2025

  59. [59]

    Resource reduction in multi- party quantum secret sharing of both classical and quantum infor- mation under noisy scenario,

    Nirupam Basak and Goutam Paul, “Resource reduction in multi- party quantum secret sharing of both classical and quantum infor- mation under noisy scenario,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16709 (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2504.16709

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.16709 2025

  60. [60]

    Multiparty quantum secret sharing of classical message under noisy scenario,

    Nirupam Basak and Goutam Paul, “Multiparty quantum secret sharing of classical message under noisy scenario,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Control, Computing and Learning (qCCL)(IEEE, Hong Kong, 2025) pp. 143–148

    work page 2025

  61. [61]

    Qudit low-density parity- check codes,

    Daniel J Spencer, Andrew Tanggara, Tobias Haug, Derek Khu, and Kishor Bharti, “Qudit low-density parity- check codes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.06495 (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2510.06495

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.06495 2025

  62. [62]

    Error Correction in Dynamical Codes,

    Esther Xiaozhen Fu and Daniel Gottesman, “Error Correction in Dynamical Codes,” Quantum9, 1886 (2025)

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    Fault-tolerant quantum compu- tation with constant error,

    D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, “Fault-tolerant quantum compu- tation with constant error,” inProceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’97 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA,

    work page

  64. [64]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons,

    A.Yu. Kitaev, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons,” Annals of Physics303, 2–30 (2003)

    work page 2003

  65. [65]

    Overhead and noise threshold of fault- tolerant quantum error correction,

    Andrew M Steane, “Overhead and noise threshold of fault- tolerant quantum error correction,” Physical Review A68, 042322 (2003)

    work page 2003

  66. [66]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation for local non-markovian noise,

    Barbara M Terhal and Guido Burkard, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation for local non-markovian noise,” Physical Review A 71, 012336 (2005)

    work page 2005

  67. [67]

    Fault- tolerant quantum computation with long-range correlated noise,

    Dorit Aharonov, Alexei Kitaev, and John Preskill, “Fault- tolerant quantum computation with long-range correlated noise,” Physical Review Letters96, 050504 (2006)

    work page 2006

  68. [68]

    Fault-tolerant quan- tum computation with high threshold in two dimensions,

    Robert Raussendorf and Jim Harrington, “Fault-tolerant quan- tum computation with high threshold in two dimensions,” Physi- cal Review Letters98, 190504 (2007)

    work page 2007

  69. [69]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error rate,

    Dorit Aharonov and Michael Ben-Or, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error rate,” SIAM Journal on Com- puting38, 1207–1282 (2008)

    work page 2008

  70. [70]

    Fault-tolerant quantum com- putation versus gaussian noise,

    Hui Khoon Ng and John Preskill, “Fault-tolerant quantum com- putation versus gaussian noise,” Physical Review A79, 032318 (2009)

    work page 2009

  71. [71]

    Fault-tolerant thresholds for quantum error correction with the surface code,

    Ashley M Stephens, “Fault-tolerant thresholds for quantum error correction with the surface code,” Physical Review A89, 022321 (2014)

    work page 2014

  72. [72]

    Single-shot and measurement-based quan- tum error correction via fault complexes,

    Timo Hillmann, Guillaume Dauphinais, Ilan Tzitrin, and Michael Vasmer, “Single-shot and measurement-based quan- tum error correction via fault complexes,” Physical Review A 112, L040401 (2025)

    work page 2025

  73. [73]

    Error mitigation and circuit division for early fault-tolerant quan- tum phase estimation,

    Alicja Dutkiewicz, Stefano Polla, Maximilian Scheurer, Chris- tian Gogolin, William J. Huggins, and Thomas E. O’Brien, “Error mitigation and circuit division for early fault-tolerant quan- tum phase estimation,” PRX Quantum6, 040318 (2025)

    work page 2025

  74. [74]

    Compilation of trotter-based time evolution for partially fault-tolerant quantum computing architecture,

    Yutaro Akahoshi, Riki Toshio, Jun Fujisaki, Hirotaka Oshima, Shintaro Sato, and Keisuke Fujii, “Compilation of trotter-based time evolution for partially fault-tolerant quantum computing architecture,” PRX Quantum6, 040319 (2025)

    work page 2025

  75. [75]

    Reversible logic and quantum computers,

    Asher Peres, “Reversible logic and quantum computers,” Physi- cal Review A32, 3266 (1985)

    work page 1985

  76. [76]

    Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary

    A Yu Kitaev, “Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary,” arXiv preprint quant-ph/9811052 (1998), 10.48550/arXiv.quant- ph/9811052

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.quant- 1998

  77. [77]

    Introduction to decoherence and noise in open quantum systems,

    Daniel A. Lidar and Todd A. Brun, “Introduction to decoherence and noise in open quantum systems,” inQuantum Error Correc- tion, edited by Daniel A. Lidar and Todd A. Brun (Cambridge University Press, 2013) p. 3–45

    work page 2013

  78. [78]

    Giuliano Gadioli La Guardia,Quantum Error Correction: Sym- metric, Asymmetric, Synchronizable, and Convolutional Codes, 1st ed., Quantum Science and Technology (Springer Cham,

    work page

  79. [79]

    Understanding the thermodynamics of computation: a pedagogical overview: P. chattopadhyay, g. paul,

    Pritam Chattopadhyay and Goutam Paul, “Understanding the thermodynamics of computation: a pedagogical overview: P. chattopadhyay, g. paul,” Quantum Information Processing24, 305 (2025)

    work page 2025

  80. [80]

    Entangling logical qubits with lattice surgery,

    Alexander Erhard, Hendrik Poulsen Nautrup, Michael Meth, Lukas Postler, Roman Stricker, Martin Stadler, Vlad Negnevit- sky, Martin Ringbauer, Philipp Schindler, Hans J Briegel,et al., “Entangling logical qubits with lattice surgery,” Nature589, 220– 224 (2021)

    work page 2021

Showing first 80 references.