Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 58 references

Estimating the performance boundary of Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill codes and number-phase codes

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under simultaneous photon loss and dephasing, optimized GKP codes beat optimized number-phase codes only when dephasing is roughly two orders of magnitude weaker than loss; above that ratio, number-phase codes win.

desk verdict A careful numerical comparison with a real caveat: the headline two-orders-of-magnitude boundary is set by the energy caps, not by converged code performance. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.24102 v2 pith:MFAI7AOQ submitted 2026-02-27 quant-ph

Kai-Xuan Wen , Dong-Long Hu , Shengyong Li , Ze-Liang Xiang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P7081P45 PACS 03.67.Pp
keywords bosonicquantumerrorcorrectionGKPcodenumber-phasephotonlossdephasingnear-optimalfidelityparameteroptimizationCMA-ES
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks which of two families of bosonic quantum error-correcting codes—Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP) codes, which protect against displacement errors, and number-phase (NP) codes, which protect against rotation errors—is fundamentally better when a quantum harmonic oscillator suffers both photon loss and dephasing at once. The authors' central claim is that the crossover is sharp: after optimizing each code's free parameters, GKP wins when the dephasing strength is roughly a hundred times weaker than the photon-loss strength, and NP wins when dephasing is stronger. They also find that GKP fidelity degrades much more quickly under dephasing than NP fidelity does under loss. If true, this gives experimentalists a concrete rule of thumb—measure the ratio of dephasing to loss and pick the encoding accordingly—and locates where an altogether different encoding with mixed symmetry might beat both.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the near-optimal channel fidelity, defined from the QEC matrix M as $(1/d_L^2) \| \mathrm{Tr}_L \sqrt{M} \|_F^2$, with the two-sided bound $(1-\tilde{F}_{\mathrm{opt}})/2 \le 1-F_{\mathrm{opt}} \le 1-\tilde{F}_{\mathrm{opt}}$; it approximates true optimal fidelity well in the regime of interest and is cheap enough (matrix operations, not SDP) to embed in a CMA-ES evolutionary search over code parameters. The optimized parameter sets are {α, β, Δ} for GKP and {f, s, r, n} for NP; the fidelity difference contour and strict-advantage boundaries locate the crossover.

What would settle it

Repeat the optimization with a lower GKP energy bound (Δ_min = 0.10, ~50 photons) and larger s (s=6,7). If the κt/γt ratio at the crossing changes by more than a factor of ~2, or if the GKP advantage region widens as energy grows, the claimed 'approximately two orders of magnitude' boundary is an artifact of the truncated search domain rather than an intrinsic code-family separation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a single bosonic mode under combined photon loss (rate γ) and dephasing (rate κ), the paper finds numerically that optimal GKP and optimal NP codes have a well-defined performance boundary: GKP codes outperform NP codes in loss-dominated channels, NP codes outperform in dephasing-dominated channels, and the crossover occurs when κt is approximately two orders of magnitude smaller than γt. The GKP code is substantially more sensitive to dephasing than the NP code is to loss. The result is obtained by maximizing a near-optimal fidelity metric over code parameters—lattice geometry and finite-energy envelope for GKP; lattice spacing, skewness, and Gaussian envelope for NP—and locating where

Load-bearing premise

The boundary location is computed within bounded parameter ranges—GKP energy capped at about 15 photons and NP lattice spacing capped at s=5—and in the loss-dominated regime the GKP optimum sits exactly at the energy cap, so the claim that the crossover sits at κt ≈ γt/100 rests on these search cutoffs, not on demonstrated behavior at higher energies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a laboratory where dephasing is not negligible, the choice between GKP and NP encodings can be made from the ratio κt/γt: pick GKP only when κt is roughly ≤ γt/100, otherwise pick NP.
  • Near the boundary, no code of either family is optimal, so codes that interpolate between translational and rotational symmetry (non-Gaussian states with mixed symmetry) are predicted to outperform both.
  • The optimization protocol (near-optimal fidelity + CMA-ES) transfers to other bosonic code families and noise models without re-derivation.
  • Optimal parameters show interpretable trends: GKP stays close to the hexagonal lattice and only rotates its excitation direction under strong combined noise; NP codes shift lattice skewness (f = 2/5, 3/5) to effectively extend number-direction distance when loss dominates.
  • The near-optimal fidelity's two-sided bound guarantees that the reported advantage regions are unambiguous (strict lower-upper separation).

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 'two orders of magnitude' boundary is likely to shift if the energy caps are relaxed: GKP optimization saturates Δ_min = 0.18 (~14.9 photons) in the loss-dominated regime, and NP s ≤ 5 in high-loss/low-dephasing; an extended search could move the crossover and reveal the asymptotic scaling.
  • Because the metric is near-optimal fidelity rather than threshold or logical error rate per gate, the boundary might not directly translate to fault-tolerance thresholds; a testable extension is to repeat the comparison at fixed logical error rate or with finite squeezing and measurement-level GKP error correction.
  • The paper's suggestion of interpolating codes on the boundary could be made concrete by constrained optimization over states with partial rotational symmetry, checking whether a hybrid code outperforms both families across a band around κt ≈ γt/100.
  • A practical hardware prediction: as dephasing is suppressed, the optimal GKP energy (mean photon number) should grow without bound in the pure-loss limit, while the optimal NP energy saturates; this is testable in current circuit-QED platforms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a GPU-accelerated numerical optimization framework, combining the near-optimal fidelity metric of Ref. [32] with CMA-ES, to optimize the parameters of Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP) and number-phase (NP) codes under a simultaneous photon-loss and dephasing channel. It reports optimized parameter trends, fidelity maps, and a performance boundary in the (γt, κt) plane, summarized as the claim that the crossover appears when dephasing is approximately two orders of magnitude weaker than photon loss (κt ≈ γt/100). The paper also introduces strict-advantage regions using the two-sided bound of the near-optimal fidelity, and it provides careful truncation and Kraus-count controls in the appendices.

Significance. If the quantitative boundary were established, the paper would provide a useful practical guide for choosing between GKP and NP encodings and would be a valuable methodological contribution: the use of strict fidelity bounds, analytical Kraus truncation estimates, and double-precision GPU implementations are genuinely careful. The qualitative ordering (GKP better under loss, NP better under dephasing) is plausible and consistent with symmetry arguments and with prior numerical studies. However, the headline quantitative claim rests on optima that saturate the computational search bounds, and the paper's own text documents those saturations. Because the central new claim is the specific 'two orders of magnitude' boundary, the current manuscript does not yet support that claim as an intrinsic property of the code families. The methodology is sound, but the interpretation of the numerical results needs revision or substantial additional convergence analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III C, Fig. 5, Eqs. (25)-(26)] The 'approximately two orders of magnitude' boundary is read from a contour obtained by maximizing within the domains Δ∈[0.18,0.6], s≤5, n≤4. The manuscript itself states that in the loss-dominated regime the GKP optimizer saturates the lower bound Δ=0.18 (Sec. III A), and that the NP optimizer returns s=5, n=4.00 at the upper edges of its domain (Fig. 3(h), Sec. III B), with the caveat that 'if larger values of s were accessible, the optimal solution would revert to the symmetric case f=1/2.' Thus the fidelity difference that defines the boundary is not converged in code energy: one or both codes are being compared at truncation-imposed energies rather than at energies that are optimal for the noise. Equation (23) bounds the fidelity metric for fixed parameters; it does not bound the error induced by the finite optimization domain. Since the central claim is extracted from this non-conv
  2. [Sec. II A 2, Eq. (13)] The NP codes are optimized only over envelopes θ_n = ⟨n|α,r⟩ derived from displaced-squeezed Gaussian states. Equation (14) explicitly shows that cat and binomial codes correspond to different choices of θ_n, so the comparison is not between GKP and the full NP code family defined in Sec. II A 2, but between GKP and a Gaussian-envelope subclass of NP codes. The abstract and Sec. IV state the conclusion as a property of 'NP codes' generally. A better-performing non-Gaussian envelope could shift the boundary, so the quantitative claim is conditional on this ansatz. The paper should either justify that the Gaussian envelope is sufficient for the noise regimes considered, or soften the conclusions to the optimized subclass.
  3. [Sec. III C, Eq. (23), Fig. 5] The black contour ΔF̃_opt = 0 in Fig. 5 is used to identify the boundary, but Eq. (23) only relates F̃_opt to F_opt through a two-sided bound. The sign of F̃_GKP − F̃_NP does not necessarily equal the sign of F_GKP − F_NP when the difference is smaller than the bound width. The strict advantage regions defined by F_lower > F_upper are conservative and well defined, but the 'approximately two orders of magnitude' line is not certified in the same way. Please report the width of the two-sided bound along the black contour and determine whether the ΔF̃=0 contour lies within the undetermined band; if so, the boundary should be presented as an uncertainty band rather than a sharp quantitative statement.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The phrases 'fundamental advantage' and 'intrinsically outperforms' are too strong given the parameter-domain restrictions documented in Eqs. (25)-(26) and the Gaussian-envelope restriction in Eq. (13). Recommend using 'within the optimized parameter families' or 'for the code families studied.'
  2. [Fig. 4 caption and Sec. II C] Typo 'Fidliety' should be 'Fidelity'; also 'one to two orders of magnitude speedup' appears twice in consecutive sentences. Minor editorial issues.
  3. [Sec. III C] The statement 'approximately two orders of magnitude smaller' would benefit from a numerical range (e.g., the fitted κt/γt interval) and an explicit statement of the optimization-domain dependence. As written, the precision implied by 'approximately two orders' exceeds what the reported data establish.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the performance boundary is a numerical comparison over declared code families, not a fit or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (i) fix a standard loss-dephasing channel (Eq. 17 / Appendix A) and an external performance metric, the near-optimal fidelity from Ref. [32] with rigorous two-sided bounds (Eqs. 22-23); (ii) define the GKP and NP code families by their symmetries and explicit finite-energy forms (Eqs. 4-5, 10-13); (iii) independently maximize this metric with CMA-ES over declared parameter domains (Eqs. 25-26); and (iv) read the boundary off the zero contour of the fidelity difference (Sec. III C, Fig. 5). Nothing in this chain defines the boundary as an input: no equation sets κt ≈ γt/100 by construction, and the boundary is not a fitted parameter. The self-citations to Ref. [6] supply the NP parametrization and the diamond-lattice remark, but the parametrization is rederived in the text and the boundary claim does not depend on the diamond-lattice symmetry being assumed. The Gaussian-envelope restriction (Eq. 13) is an explicit ansatz, not an input fitted to the output. The manuscript itself flags the main caveat: in Sec. III A the GKP optimizer 'saturates the lower bound of Δ' at κt = 0.0001, and in Sec. III B it notes that 'if larger values of s were accessible...' the NP optimum would change. These passages show that the quantitative 'two orders of magnitude' boundary is conditional on the computational energy caps — a convergence and robustness limitation, not an equivalence-by-construction. The qualitative ordering (GKP wins under loss, NP wins under dephasing) is supported by independent symmetry arguments and external Ref. [29]. Therefore no circular step is present; the derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks, with the understanding that the headline number inherits the stated search-domain restrictions.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the noise model, the two code-family ansaetze, the near-optimal fidelity proxy, and the chosen search domains. None of these is benchmarked against experimental data, so the 'boundary' is a model-and-truncation-dependent estimate. The load-bearing hand-set choices are the energy caps (Delta_min=0.18, n_max=4, s_max=5) that the optimizer saturates in the regimes anchoring the boundary, plus the sampling grid and optimizer settings. The paper's own text acknowledges the Delta saturation and the s-restriction caveat.

free parameters (4)
  • Delta_min = 0.18 (GKP envelope width lower bound) = 0.18
    Hand-chosen energy cap (~14.9 photons). The optimum saturates it in the weak-dephasing regime (Sec. III A), and this saturation anchors the boundary location, so the cap directly affects the headline claim.
  • n_max = 4, s_max = 5 (NP Gaussian-state photon number and lattice spacing caps) = n<=4, s<=5
    Hand-chosen caps on NP code energy and geometry (Eq. 26). The paper itself notes the optimal s would revert to s=1/2-f configurations if larger s were allowed (Sec. III B), indicating boundary sensitivity to these caps.
  • CMA-ES hyperparameters (initial step size sigma = 0.3, population 50) = sigma=0.3, pop=50
    User-tunable optimizer settings. The paper claims robustness to these choices (Sec. II D), but they are not tested exhaustively.
  • Sampling grid intervals (loss step 0.005, dephasing step 0.0006/0.0001) = Delta gamma t = 0.005; Delta kappa t = 0.0001-0.0006
    Chosen discretization determines the interpolation that produces the boundary contour in Fig. 5 and hence the 'two orders of magnitude' summary.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math GKP code stabilizer and logical-operator structure (Eqs. 1-4), including the finite-energy envelope e^{-Delta^2 a-dagger a} (Eq. 5).
    Invoked from the established literature (Refs. 2, 26) without re-derivation; standard bosonic-QEC background.
  • domain assumption Generalized number-phase code construction and parametrization (Eqs. 7-11), with unit-cell area |n_x x n_z| = pi.
    Carried over from the authors' own prior work (Ref. 6). The NP-code family under study is defined by this construction, so the comparison inherits its coverage and limitations.
  • ad hoc to paper Envelope ansatz theta_n = <n| alpha, r> restricted to displaced-squeezed-vacuum Gaussian states (Eq. 13).
    An arbitrary restriction of the NP envelope space to two parameters. It limits the NP family searched and could in principle bias the competition against NP codes if better non-Gaussian envelopes exist.
  • domain assumption Noise model is the Lindblad master equation with simultaneous photon loss and number dephasing (Eq. 17), evolved to a single total time t.
    Standard loss-dephasing model, but the comparison is scoped to this specific channel; conclusions do not automatically extend to other noise (e.g., thermal noise, nonlinear loss).
  • standard math Near-optimal fidelity inherits the two-sided bound (1 - F_tilde)/2 <= 1 - F_opt <= 1 - F_tilde (Eq. 23).
    External result from Ref. 32 used as the performance metric. The strict-advantage definition in Sec. III C relies on this bound being valid.
  • domain assumption Fixing Im(alpha) = 0 for GKP lattices 'does not compromise generality' (Sec. III A).
    Relies implicitly on rotational symmetry of both loss and dephasing channels under phase-space rotations. Not stated explicitly in the text; if the noise were anisotropic this reduction would fail.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Estimating the performance boundary of Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill codes and number-phase codes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MFAI7AOQ

@misc{pith2026260224102,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Estimating the performance boundary of Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill codes and number-phase codes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MFAI7AOQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.24102}
}
read the original abstract

Bosonic quantum error-correcting codes encode logical information in a harmonic oscillator, with the Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP) and number-phase (NP) codes representing two fundamentally different encoding paradigms. Although both have been extensively studied, it remains unclear under what physical noise conditions (including photon loss and dephasing) one encoding intrinsically outperforms the other. Here we estimate a quantitative performance boundary between GKP and NP codes under general photon loss-dephasing noise. By optimizing code parameters within each encoding family, we identify the noise regimes in which each code exhibits a fundamental advantage. In particular, we find that the crossover occurs when the dephasing strength is approximately two orders of magnitude smaller than the loss strength, revealing a sharp separation between operational regimes. Beyond this specific comparison, our work establishes a practical and extensible methodology for benchmarking bosonic codes and optimizing their parameters, providing concrete guidance for the experimental selection and deployment of bosonic encodings in realistic noise environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.24102 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Overview of the bosonic lattice codes and the optimization workflow. The yellow panel shows the Wigner function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Optimal parameters of GKP codes versus loss and dephasing: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Optimal parameters of NP codes versus loss and dephasing: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a), (b) Contour maps of near-optimal fidelity: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Contour map of the near-optimal fidelity difference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [29]

    V. V. Albert, K. Noh, K. Duivenvoorden, D. J. Young, R. T. Brierley, P. Reinhold, C. Vuillot, L. Li, C. Shen, S. M. Girvin, B. M. Terhal, and L. Jiang, Performance and structure of single-mode bosonic codes, Phys. Rev. A97, 032346 (2018)

    2018

  2. [32]

    F. A. Mele, F. Salek, V. Giovannetti, and L. Lami, Quan- tum communication on the bosonic loss-dephasing chan- nel, Phys. Rev. A110, 012460 (2024)

    2024

  3. [1]

    Here, we focus on the simplest setting of a single logical qubit en- coded in one bosonic mode

    Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill codes The GKP code encodes a logical qubit in the continu- ous degrees of freedom of a harmonic oscillator. Here, we focus on the simplest setting of a single logical qubit en- coded in one bosonic mode. The ideal GKP states [2] are defined as simultaneous +1 eigenstates of the continuous- variable stabilizer group{ ˆSk X , ˆSl Z...

  4. [2]

    Typical members of this family include cat codes [3], binomial codes [8] codes, and more general NP vortex codes with non-rectangle lattice geometries [6]

    Number-phase codes In analogy to the discrete translation symmetry under- lying GKP codes in phase space, NP codes belong to a broader class of bosonic codes characterized by discrete translation symmetry in number-phase space. Typical members of this family include cat codes [3], binomial codes [8] codes, and more general NP vortex codes with non-rectang...

  5. [3]

    S. L. Braunstein, Error correction for continuous quan- tum variables, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 4084 (1998)

    1998

  6. [4]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Phys. Rev. A64, 012310 (2001)

    2001

  7. [5]

    P. T. Cochrane, G. J. Milburn, and W. J. Munro, Macro- scopically distinct quantum-superposition states as a bosonic code for amplitude damping, Phys. Rev. A59, 2631 (1999)

    1999

  8. [6]

    I. L. Chuang, D. W. Leung, and Y. Yamamoto, Bosonic quantum codes for amplitude damping, Phys. Rev. A56, 1114 (1997)

    1997

Show all 58 references
  1. [7]

    Lloyd and J.-J

    S. Lloyd and J.-J. E. Slotine, Analog quantum error cor- rection, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 4088 (1998)

    1998

  2. [8]

    D.-L. Hu, W. Cai, C.-L. Zou, and Z.-L. Xiang, Gener- alized number-phase lattice encoding of a bosonic mode for quantum error correction, Nat. Commun.16, 7647 13 (2025)

    2025

  3. [9]

    A. L. Grimsmo, J. Combes, and B. Q. Baragiola, Quan- tum computing with rotation-symmetric bosonic codes, Phys. Rev. X10, 011058 (2020)

    2020

  4. [10]

    M. H. Michael, M. Silveri, R. T. Brierley, V. V. Albert, J. Salmilehto, L. Jiang, and S. M. Girvin, New class of quantum error-correcting codes for a bosonic mode, Phys. Rev. X6, 031006 (2016)

    2016

  5. [11]

    Leghtas, G

    Z. Leghtas, G. Kirchmair, B. Vlastakis, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. H. Devoret, and M. Mirrahimi, Hardware-efficient au- tonomous quantum memory protection, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 120501 (2013)

    2013

  6. [12]

    D. S. Schlegel, F. Minganti, and V. Savona, Quantum error correction using squeezed schr¨ odinger cat states, Phys. Rev. A106, 022431 (2022)

    2022

  7. [13]

    J. D. Teoh, P. Winkel, H. K. Babla, B. J. Chap- man, J. Claes, S. J. de Graaf, J. W. O. Gar- mon, W. D. Kalfus, Y. Lu, A. Maiti, K. Sahay, N. Thakur, T. Tsunoda, S. H. Xue, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, S. Puri, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Dual- rail encoding with superconducting caviti...

    2023 doi

  8. [14]

    Hayden, S

    P. Hayden, S. Nezami, G. Salton, and B. C. Sanders, Spacetime replication of continuous variable quantum in- formation, New J. Phys.18, 083043 (2016)

    2016

  9. [15]

    Niset, U

    J. Niset, U. L. Andersen, and N. J. Cerf, Experimentally feasible quantum erasure-correcting code for continuous variables, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 130503 (2008)

    2008

  10. [16]

    Bergmann and P

    M. Bergmann and P. van Loock, Quantum error correc- tion against photon loss using noon states, Phys. Rev. A 94, 012311 (2016)

    2016

  11. [17]

    M. Y. Niu, I. L. Chuang, and J. H. Shapiro, Hardware- efficient bosonic quantum error-correcting codes based on symmetry operators, Phys. Rev. A97, 032323 (2018)

    2018

  12. [18]

    A. J. Brady, A. Eickbusch, S. Singh, J. Wu, and Q. Zhuang, Advances in bosonic quantum error correc- tion with gottesman–kitaev–preskill codes: Theory, engi- neering and applications, Prog. Quantum Electron.93, 100496 (2024)

    2024

  13. [19]

    S. P. Jain, J. T. Iosue, A. Barg, and V. V. Albert, Quan- tum spherical codes, Nat. Phys.20, 1300 (2024)

    2024

  14. [20]

    E. N. Bashmakova, S. B. Korolev, and T. Y. Golubeva, Bosonic quantum error correction using squeezed fock states, Phys. Rev. A112, 032434 (2025)

    2025

  15. [21]

    Zeng, Z.-Y

    Y. Zeng, Z.-Y. Zhou, E. Rinaldi, C. Gneiting, and F. Nori, Approximate autonomous quantum error correc- tion with reinforcement learning, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 050601 (2023)

    2023

  16. [22]

    Y. Zeng, W. Qin, Y.-H. Chen, C. Gneiting, and F. Nori, Neural-network-based design of approximate gottesman- kitaev-preskill code, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 060601 (2025)

    2025

  17. [23]

    N. Ofek, A. Petrenko, R. Heeres, P. Reinhold, Z. Leghtas, B. Vlastakis, Y. Liu, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, L. Jiang, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Ex- tending the lifetime of a quantum bit with error correc- tion in superconducting circuits, Nature536, 441 (2016)

    2016

  18. [24]

    Z. Ni, S. Li, X. Deng, Y. Cai, L. Zhang, W. Wang, Z.- B. Yang, H. Yu, F. Yan, S. Liu, C.-L. Zou, L. Sun, S.- B. Zheng, Y. Xu, and D. Yu, Beating the break-even point with a discrete-variable-encoded logical qubit, Na- ture616, 56 (2023)

    2023

  19. [25]

    V. V. Sivak, A. Eickbusch, B. Royer, S. Singh, I. Tsiout- sios, S. Ganjam, A. Miano, B. L. Brock, A. Z. Ding, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. De- voret, Real-time quantum error correction beyond break- even, Nature616, 50 (2023)

    2023

  20. [26]

    W. Cai, X. Mu, W. Wang, J. Zhou, Y. Ma, X. Pan, Z. Hua, X. Liu, G. Xue, H. Yu, H. Wang, Y. Song, C.- L. Zou, and L. Sun, Protecting entanglement between logical qubits via quantum error correction, Nat. Phys. 20, 1022 (2024)

    2024

  21. [27]

    B. L. Brock, S. Singh, A. Eickbusch, V. V. Sivak, A. Z. Ding, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and M. H. Devoret, Quan- tum error correction of qudits beyond break-even, Nature 641, 612 (2025)

    2025

  22. [28]

    A. L. Grimsmo and S. Puri, Quantum error correction with the gottesman-kitaev-preskill code, PRX Quantum 2, 020101 (2021)

    2021

  23. [30]

    Ouyang and E

    Y. Ouyang and E. T. Campbell, Trade-offs on num- ber and phase shift resilience in bosonic quantum codes, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory67, 6644 (2021)

    2021

  24. [31]

    Leviant, Q

    P. Leviant, Q. Xu, L. Jiang, and S. Rosenblum, Quan- tum capacity and codes for the bosonic loss-dephasing channel, Quantum6, 821 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Totey, A

    S. Totey, A. Kyle, S. Liu, P. J. Barge, N. Lordi, and J. Combes, The performance of random bosonic rotation codes (2023), arXiv:2311.16089 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Zheng, W

    G. Zheng, W. He, G. Lee, and L. Jiang, Near-optimal per- formance of quantum error correction codes, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 250602 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Choi, Completely positive linear maps on complex matrices, Linear Algebra and its Applications10, 285 (1975)

    M.-D. Choi, Completely positive linear maps on complex matrices, Linear Algebra and its Applications10, 285 (1975)

    1975

  28. [36]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction, inRussian Mathematical Surveys, Vol. 52 (1997) pp. 1191–1249

    1997

  29. [37]

    Schumacher, Sending entanglement through noisy quantum channels, Phys

    B. Schumacher, Sending entanglement through noisy quantum channels, Phys. Rev. A54, 2614 (1996)

    1996

  30. [38]

    Reimpell and R

    M. Reimpell and R. F. Werner, Iterative optimization of quantum error correcting codes, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 080501 (2005)

    2005

  31. [39]

    Reimpell and R

    M. Reimpell and R. F. Werner, Optimal recovery of in- formation from quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. A 71, 032308 (2005)

    2005

  32. [40]

    A. S. Fletcher, P. W. Shor, and M. Z. Win, Optimum quantum error recovery using semidefinite programming, Phys. Rev. A75, 012338 (2007)

    2007

  33. [41]

    Watrous, Semidefinite programs for completely bounded norms, Theory of Computing5, 217 (2009)

    J. Watrous, Semidefinite programs for completely bounded norms, Theory of Computing5, 217 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    R. L. Kosut, A. Shabani, and D. A. Lidar, Robust quan- tum error correction via convex optimization, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 020502 (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    Audenaert and B

    K. Audenaert and B. De Moor, Optimizing completely positive maps using semidefinite programming, Phys. Rev. A65, 030302 (2002)

    2002

  36. [44]

    Mironowicz, Semi-definite programming and quantum information, J

    P. Mironowicz, Semi-definite programming and quantum information, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.57, 163002 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Hansen and A

    N. Hansen and A. Ostermeier, Completely derandom- ized self-adaptation in evolution strategies, Evolutionary 14 Computation9, 159 (2001)

    2001

  38. [46]

    Hansen, Reducing the time complexity of the de- randomized evolution strategy with covariance matrix adaptation (CMA-ES), Evolutionary Computation11, 1 (2003)

    N. Hansen, Reducing the time complexity of the de- randomized evolution strategy with covariance matrix adaptation (CMA-ES), Evolutionary Computation11, 1 (2003)

    2003

  39. [47]

    Hansen and A

    N. Hansen and A. Auger, CMA-ES: evolution strategies and covariance matrix adaptation, Proceedings of the 13th annual conference companion on Genetic and evo- lutionary computation (2011)

    2011

  40. [48]

    Hansen, CMA-ES for derivative-free optimization: A review, arXiv:1604.00772 (2014), preprint, arXiv

    N. Hansen, CMA-ES for derivative-free optimization: A review, arXiv:1604.00772 (2014), preprint, arXiv

    2014 arXiv

  41. [49]

    O. S. Ajani, A. Kumar, and R. Mallipeddi, Covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy based on corre- lated evolution paths with application to reinforcement learning, Expert Systems with Applications246, 123289 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Jiang, T

    H. Jiang, T. Kathuria, Y. T. Lee, S. Padmanabhan, and Z. Song, A faster interior point method for semidefinite programming, in2020 IEEE 61st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)(2020) pp. 910–918

    2020

  43. [51]

    Paszke, S

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, et al., Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library, inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32(Curran Associates, Inc., 2019) pp...

    2019

  44. [52]

    J. H. Holland,Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Sys- tems(University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1975)

    1975

  45. [53]

    D. E. Goldberg,Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimiza- tion and Machine Learning(Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, USA, 1989)

    1989

  46. [54]

    Schwefel,Evolution and Optimum Seeking(Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1995)

    H.-P. Schwefel,Evolution and Optimum Seeking(Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1995)

    1995

  47. [55]

    B¨ ack, Evolutionary algorithms in theory and practice, Oxford University Press1, 361 (1996)

    T. B¨ ack, Evolutionary algorithms in theory and practice, Oxford University Press1, 361 (1996)

    1996

  48. [56]

    Dasgupta and Z

    D. Dasgupta and Z. Michalewicz, Evolutionary algo- rithms — an overview, inEvolutionary Algorithms in Engineering Applications, edited by D. Dasgupta and Z. Michalewicz (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Hei- delberg, 1997) pp. 3–28

    1997

  49. [57]

    Hansen, Y

    N. Hansen, Y. Akimoto, and P. Baudis, CMA-ES/pycma on Github, Zenodo, DOI:10.5281/zenodo.2559634 (2019)

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    Provazn ´ ık, R

    J. Provazn ´ ık, R. Filip, and P. Marek, Taming numerical errors in simulations of continuous variable non-gaussian state preparation, Sci. Rep.12, 16574 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.