Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Floquet Abelian multicycle codes convert compact qLDPC memories into periodic schedules of two-qubit XX and ZZ measurements, with no direct measurement of the original weight-six stabilizers.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 06:20 UTC pith:TF6ON4H2

load-bearing objection Solid new construction, but headline distances are unproven upper bounds because MILP only covers integer time cuts; worth refereeing, needs revision. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27521 v1 pith:TF6ON4H2 submitted 2026-07-29 quant-ph

Floquet Abelian Multicycle Codes

Alexey A. Kovalev This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P7094B25 PACS 03.67.Pp
keywords Floquet codesAbelian multicycle codesZX calculusquantum low-density parity-check codesfour-dimensional toric codespairwise measurementssingle-shot error correctionquantum memory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper introduces Floquet Abelian multicycle (AMC) codes, which turn compact quantum low-density parity-check memories into measurement-only schedules. The central move is to represent the AMC code as a quotient lattice, lift it to spacetime, and rotate the circuit-time direction so that the code's stabilizer checks become qubit worldlines. When every check and data node (spider) has even valence and admits a time-oriented pairing of its ports, the whole network factorizes into a periodic sequence of two-qubit XX and ZZ measurements. Applied to level-2 AMC4 codes built from weight-two group-algebra elements, the construction yields Floquet memories with parameters [[108,6,5]], [[144,6,8]], and [[324,6,10]], six protected logical qubits, embedded distances up to 10, and an estimated pseudothreshold of about 1.2% under measurement-native EM3 noise. The point of the construction is that four-dimensional toric-code-like redundancy can be realized as a compact measurement-only memory without ever measuring the original weight-six stabilizers.

Core claim

Starting from an AMC complex specified by commuting group-algebra elements over a finite Abelian group algebra, the paper derives a quotient-lattice unit cell in which X- and Z-checks and the data qubits live at the vertices of L/Λ. It lifts this lattice to spacetime Z^{d+1}, chooses the rotated-time covector t=(2,1,...,1), and doubles the periodicity lattice to Λ' so that time is well-defined on the quotient and no closed timelike curves appear. With a time-oriented local port matching on even-valence spiders, matched legs trace out physical-qubit worldlines, and every spider decomposes into two-qubit XX/ZZ parity measurements. For the specific weight-two cyclic AMC4 matching considered, wo

What carries the argument

The quotient lattice L/Λ with typed directions for every non-identity support element, lifted to the spacetime lattice Z^{d+1} with rotated-time covector t=(2,1,...,1) and doubled periodicity lattice Λ' = {v' : v'·t = 0}. The load-bearing mechanism is the port matching: a bijection between incoming and outgoing legs of each even-valence ZX spider. Tracing matched ports through adjacent half-cells defines qubit worldlines; applying the even-legged spider decomposition turns each spider into pairwise XX/ZZ parity measurements. The combined choice of matching, periodicity lattice, and time covector fixes the number of physical qubits, the instantaneous stabilizer group, and the embedded distanc

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction works only if every check and data spider has even valence and there exists a time-oriented port matching whose traced worldline displacement is compatible with the periodicity lattice; the paper verifies this for its specific weight-two matchings but does not prove it for general AMC complexes.

What would settle it

Run the same construction on an AMC complex with an odd-valence spider (for example, a weight-three generator). If a closed periodic schedule of two-qubit measurements still appears, the even-valence condition is unnecessary; if it fails, the condition is load-bearing. A second check: for an even-valence complex, enumerate port matchings and verify that at least one produces worldline displacements compatible with the periodicity lattice; if none do, the construction collapses for that complex.

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

If this is right

  • Floquet AMC codes exist for every AMC complex whose spiders are even-valence and admit a time-oriented port matching; the resulting schedule is a periodic sequence of native two-qubit XX and ZZ measurements.
  • The three AMC4 examples locally equivalent to four-dimensional toric codes realize the same homological redundancy in compact physical registers, without measuring weight-six stabilizers.
  • Local Pauli-web detector templates and beam-search decoding under EM3 noise give strongly suppressed logical error rates below the crossing, with an estimated pseudothreshold near 1.2%.
  • The [[144,6,8]] code achieves error suppression at physical error rate 10^-3 comparable to larger high-rate Floquet constructions, but with a smaller physical register.
  • The finite-size values of k d_emb^2/n exceed the honeycomb-code value of 1/3, showing stronger distance-per-physical-qubit overhead for these compact Floquet memories.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The rotated-time recipe is likely to work for any AMC complex with even-valence spiders, not just the weight-two cyclic examples; testing non-cyclic Abelian group algebras would reveal whether the matching step becomes the bottleneck.
  • The estimated 1.2% pseudothreshold is tied to one detector-template set and one decoder configuration, so the number is probably decoder-dependent; independent decoding runs could shift it.
  • Because the instantaneous stabilizer ranks and distances are independent of the integer time cut in the tabulated examples, a time-translation-invariant logical description may exist, which could simplify decoding or suggest time-dependent matching schedules.
  • A systematic search over periodicity lattices and port matchings—left open by the paper—is the natural route to shorter global periods and larger distance-per-overhead than the reported examples.

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. This paper introduces Floquet Abelian multicycle (AMC) codes. It starts from static AMC qLDPC codes over finite Abelian group algebras, derives a quotient-lattice unit-cell description, lifts the syndrome-extraction network to a spacetime lattice with a rotated time covector, and, when the ZX spiders have even valence and admit a time-oriented port matching, rewrites the network into a periodic schedule of native two-qubit XX and ZZ measurements. Explicit GB and weight-two AMC4 examples are constructed; instantaneous stabilizer groups and embedded distances are computed by MILP, yielding reported parameters [[108,6,5]], [[144,6,8]], [[324,6,10]], each with six logical qubits. Local Pauli-web detectors and EM3-noise simulations lead to an estimated pseudothreshold of about 1.2%.

Significance. The quotient-lattice construction is a useful extension of the Stairway approach to higher-dimensional multiblock chain complexes, and the explicit matching rules and trajectory tables are a strength: the schedule is not left unspecified. If the reported distances are correct, the finite-size parameters are competitive and the four-dimensional homological redundancy is realized through two-qubit measurements. The main quantitative claims, however, are not fully substantiated: the MILP distances are computed only at integer time cuts, the existence of the required matching is verified only for examples, and no code or data are provided for independent verification. There is also an arithmetic inconsistency in Table III. The paper is likely a solid contribution after these issues are addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. VI.A, Eq. (121); Tables I and III] Eq. (121) defines d_emb = min_t min{d_X(t), d_Z(t)}, i.e., a minimum over all circuit time cuts. The MILP computations in Tables I and III are performed only at integer values of the rotated time T, and the captions state that 'at fractional times, the ranks and distances may change and, at certain cuts, interchange between the X and Z sectors.' Consequently, the reported values (5, 8, 10 for the three AMC4 codes) are upper bounds on d_emb, not necessarily the true embedded distances. If a fractional cut admits a lower-weight logical representative, the headline parameters [[108,6,5]], [[144,6,8]], [[324,6,10]] are incorrect, and the EM3 simulations in Fig. 7, which set r_mem = d_emb, use the wrong number of noisy rounds. The authors should either compute d_X(t), d_Z(t) at all inequivalent fractional cuts (a finite set in a periodic quotient), prove cut independence for these matchings a
  2. [Sec. VI.B, Fig. 7] Section VI.B and Fig. 7 report a pseudothreshold of approximately 1.2% from EM3 simulations, but the manuscript provides no Stim circuits, no detector templates, no decoder settings, no shot counts, and no code or data release. The MILP distance computations are similarly not reproducible. Because the central deliverable is a set of finite-size parameters and a threshold, please provide the code and data, or a detailed appendix with the exact circuit, detector definitions, and per-cut distance tables. If the distance computation in the first comment is corrected, the simulations must be rerun with the corrected r_mem.
  3. [Sec. IV, steps 1-6; Sec. V.B] The Floquet schedule is valid only if every spider has even valence and admits a time-oriented local port matching whose worldline displacement is compatible with the periodic identifications generated by Lambda'. The paper states this condition but does not prove a general existence criterion; it is verified only for the GB and weight-two cyclic AMC4 examples (Eq. (116) and Table II). The conclusions refer to a 'general framework' for arbitrary finite Abelian group algebras, which is stronger than what has been shown. Please either prove the condition for the AMC families considered or state it as an explicit standing assumption and restrict the generality claims accordingly. For the reported examples, an explicit certificate (all edges positively time-oriented; displacement modulo Lambda' consistent) would help.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table III, row (12,1,3,5,7)] The BPT column lists k d_emb^2 / n = 1.34, but 6*25/108 = 1.39. Please check the formula or the listed n/d values.
  2. [Sec. V.B, Eq. (116)] The cycle notation (tau I2 I1) and (tau K1 K2) is used without specifying the composition convention (left-to-right vs right-to-left). This matters for reproducing Table II and the schedule.
  3. [Sec. VI.B, Fig. 7] The threshold estimate and the comparison with the Stairway and semi-hyperbolic codes would benefit from statistical error bars and a statement of equal noise-model/decoder settings; the current crossing estimate has no uncertainty quantification.
  4. [Throughout] Please add a code/data availability statement. Several supporting references are preprints; a note on their verification status would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the Floquet AMC construction is derived from static AMC data via ZX-network rewrites, with distances and pseudothreshold obtained by external MILP and simulation.

full rationale

No circular step is exhibited. The paper derives Floquet schedules from the static AMC quotient-lattice data in Secs. III-IV, then computes instantaneous stabilizer groups, distances via MILP, and logical error rates via Stim/Sinter/Tesseract simulations. No parameter is fitted to the reported distances or to the pseudothreshold. The static AMC family is imported from Ref. [22], which shares an author, but that is a published, independently checkable construction of static codes and is not invoked as an unverified premise that already contains the Floquet results; the Floquet parameters, ISG ranks, and distances are recomputed here. Two stated caveats are genuine correctness/completeness risks rather than circularity: the port-matching condition is asserted ('A valid matching must ensure that each retained geometric edge has positive time orientation under t and that the resulting worldline displacement is compatible with the periodic identifications generated by Λ′') without a general existence proof; and Table III admits 'At fractional times, the ranks and distances may change and, at certain cuts, interchange between the X and Z sectors,' so the MILP integer-cut distances may overestimate the true embedded distance. These caveats do not equate the claimed outputs with the inputs by construction; the central derivation chain is self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The construction is not fit-to-data in the sense of tuning parameters to a target result; the listed free parameters are design choices for the lattice, shifts, and matching. There are no newly postulated physical entities. The most important external dependencies are the ZX spider decomposition from [37] and the static AMC codes from [22], both explicitly cited.

free parameters (4)
  • Group-algebra generator weights r_J = wt(a_J)-1 = r_J = 1 for all J (weight-two elements, Sec. V.B)
    Choosing all a_J = e + g_J makes every spider 6-valent, satisfying the even-valence condition; other weights are not explored in the numerical examples.
  • Cyclic shifts (s_A, s_B, s_C, s_D) = (1,2,3,4), (1,3,5,7), (2,5,8,9), etc.
    Circulant exponents chosen by hand; they determine the quotient lattice, distances, and n_floq through the homomorphism π.
  • Spacetime periodicity lattice Λ′ = Basis rows chosen per (ℓ, shifts); e.g., the BΛ′ shown for ℓ=10 in Sec. V.B
    Chosen to minimize n_floq while satisfying v′·t = 0; alternative lifts produce different finite Floquet codes.
  • Port matching μ_data for AMC4 = Eq. (116): μ_data^X(p)=(τ I2 I1), μ_data^Z(p)=(τ K1 K2)
    Chosen so worldlines have local period 6 and positive time orientation; different matchings yield different finite Floquet codes.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Regular representation of F2[G] for Abelian G gives commuting matrices A_i, so the AMC chain complex satisfies Q_i Q_{i+1}=0.
    Used in Sec. II.D/H to build the AMC chain complex and CSS check matrices.
  • domain assumption An even-legged spider can be decomposed into two-qubit parity measurements that implement the same external projector for a fixed outcome configuration.
    Invoked from Ref. [37], Sec. II.A and Fig. 3; this is load-bearing for the measurement schedule.
  • ad hoc to paper For the constructed Floquet schedules, a time-oriented port matching exists that makes the worldline displacement compatible with periodic identifications.
    Secs. IV and V.B assume this matching condition; it is verified only for the weight-two cyclic examples, not proven for general AMC complexes.
  • domain assumption The EM3 noise channel is implemented by five independent binary fault components with 2p_ind = 1-(1-p)^(1/(2N_e-1)).
    Used in Sec. VI.B to reproduce the EM3 channel in Stim; standard from Chao et al. and Higgott–Breuckmann.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 20456 in / 12027 out tokens · 125814 ms · 2026-08-01T06:20:41.611856+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Abelian multicycle (AMC) codes are compact quantum low-density parity-check codes whose multiblock chain-complex structure provides redundant low-weight stabilizers and supports single-shot error correction. We introduce Floquet AMC codes by deriving a quotient-lattice representation of a general level-$j$, $D$-dimensional AMC complex over a finite Abelian group algebra, lifting this lattice to spacetime, and rotating the circuit-time direction in the associated ZX network. When the check and data spiders have even valence and admit a time-oriented local port matching, the network decomposes into a periodic schedule of native two-qubit $XX$ and $ZZ$ measurements. We construct generalized-bicycle and level-$2$ AMC4 examples, determine their instantaneous stabilizer groups, and compute their embedded distances by minimizing over all inequivalent circuit cuts. For AMC4 instances locally equivalent to four-dimensional toric codes, we obtain Floquet memories with parameters $[[108,6,5]]$, $[[144,6,8]]$, and $[[324,6,10]]$. Local Pauli-web detector templates and beam-search decoding under the measurement-native EM3 noise model yield an estimated pseudothreshold of approximately $1.2\%$. These results provide compact measurement-only realizations of higher-dimensional homological redundancy without directly measuring the original weight-six stabilizers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27521 by Alexey A. Kovalev.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Spiders as check measurements for the case with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Unrotated check-measurement network. Data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Stairway-style decomposition of many-leg spiders [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Intracell edges and external connection bundles for the AMC4 half-cells over an arbitrary finite Abelian group [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Local incidence diagram for a GB code with weight-four checks. A unit cell containing two qubits and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Local incidence diagram for an AMC code with weight-six checks. A unit cell containing six qubits and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Logical failure probability for the [[108 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Use the opposite assignment in the Z half-cell

    Assign X spiders to the X checks and Z spiders to the qX I data nodes within the X half-cell. Use the opposite assignment in the Z half-cell

  2. [2]

    Orient each incident leg as incoming or outgo- ing according to the sign of its rotated-time displacement, and add τin and τout ports to each data qubit

  3. [3]

    Require equal numbers of incoming and outgo- ing legs at every spider

  4. [4]

    Choose a bijection (port matching) from the incoming legs to the outgoing legs of each spi- der

  5. [5]

    Trace the matched ports through adjacent half- cells to obtain physical-qubit worldlines

  6. [6]

    Decompose each even-legged spider into two- qubit XX or ZZ parity measurements along the chosen matching. We note that different matchings produce different worldline cycles and potentially different finite Flo- quet codes, even when the static matrices and peri- odicity lattice are fixed. The number of half-cells in the T = 0 layer deter- mines the numbe...

  7. [7]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Ann. Phys.303, 2 (2003). [2] E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, J. 17 Math. Phys.43, 4452 (2002)

    2003

  8. [8]

    Preskill, Proc

    J. Preskill, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A454, 385 (1998)

    1998

  9. [9]

    B. M. Terhal, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 307 (2015)

    2015

  10. [10]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. Poulin, and B. Terhal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 050503 (2010)

    2010

  11. [11]

    N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, PRX Quan- tum2, 040101 (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    A. A. Kovalev and L. P. Pryadko, Phys. Rev. A88, 012311 (2013)

    2013

  13. [13]

    D. J. C. MacKay, G. Mitchison, and P. L. McFadden, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory50, 2315 (2004)

    2004

  14. [14]

    Wang and L

    R. Wang and L. P. Pryadko, Symmetry14, 1348 (2022)

    2022

  15. [15]

    Wang, H.-K

    R. Wang, H.-K. Lin, and L. P. Pryadko, in2023 12th International Symposium on Topics in Coding (ISTC)(IEEE, 2023) pp. 1–5

    2023

  16. [16]

    Lin and L

    H.-K. Lin and L. P. Pryadko, Phys. Rev. A109, 022407 (2024)

    2024

  17. [17]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, Nature627, 778 (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    Bomb ´ ın, Phys

    H. Bomb ´ ın, Phys. Rev. X5, 031043 (2015)

    2015

  19. [19]

    B. J. Brown, N. H. Nickerson, and D. E. Browne, Nat. Commun.7, 12302 (2016)

    2016

  20. [20]

    E. T. Campbell, Quantum Sci. Technol.4, 025006 (2019)

    2019

  21. [21]

    Tillich and G

    J.-P. Tillich and G. Z´ emor, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 60, 1193 (2014)

    2014

  22. [22]

    A. A. Kovalev and L. P. Pryadko, in2012 IEEE In- ternational Symposium on Information Theory Pro- ceedings(IEEE, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012) pp. 348–352

    2012

  23. [23]

    Zeng and L

    W. Zeng and L. P. Pryadko, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 230501 (2019)

    2019

  24. [24]

    Zeng and L

    W. Zeng and L. P. Pryadko, Phys. Rev. A102, 062402 (2020)

    2020

  25. [25]

    A. O. Quintavalle, M. Vasmer, J. Roffe, and E. T. Campbell, PRX Quantum2, 020340 (2021)

    2021

  26. [26]

    Higgott and N

    O. Higgott and N. P. Breuckmann, PRX Quantum 4, 020332 (2023)

    2023

  27. [27]

    H.-K. Lin, P. K. Lim, A. A. Kovalev, and L. P. Pryadko, PRX Quantum7, 020326 (2026)

    2026

  28. [28]

    Aasen, J

    D. Aasen, J. Haah, M. B. Hastings, and Z. Wang, Geometrically enhanced topological quantum codes (2025), arXiv:2505.10403 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Aasen, M

    D. Aasen, M. B. Hastings, V. Kliuchnikov, J. M. Bello-Rivas, A. Paetznick, R. Chao, B. W. Reichardt, M. Zanner, M. P. da Silva, Z. Wang, and K. M. Svore, A topologically fault-tolerant quantum com- puter with four dimensional geometric codes (2025), arXiv:2506.15130 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    M. B. Hastings and J. Haah, Quantum5, 564 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    Davydova, N

    M. Davydova, N. Tantivasadakarn, and S. Balasub- ramanian, PRX Quantum4, 020341 (2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    E. X. Fu and D. Gottesman, Quantum9, 1886 (2025)

    2025

  33. [33]

    Gidney, M

    C. Gidney, M. Newman, A. G. Fowler, and M. Broughton, Quantum5, 605 (2021)

    2021

  34. [34]

    Higgott and N

    O. Higgott and N. P. Breuckmann, PRX Quantum 5, 040327 (2024)

    2024

  35. [35]

    Fahimniya, H

    A. Fahimniya, H. Dehghani, K. Bharti, S. Mathew, A. J. Koll´ ar, A. V. Gorshkov, and M. J. Gullans, Quantum9, 1849 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    R. Chao, M. E. Beverland, N. Delfosse, and J. Haah, Quantum4, 352 (2020)

    2020

  37. [37]

    Gidney, Quantum7, 1156 (2023)

    C. Gidney, Quantum7, 1156 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    Rodatz, B

    B. Rodatz, B. Po´ or, and A. Kissinger, Floquetifying stabiliser codes with distance-preserving rewrites (2024), arXiv:2410.17240 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Bomb ´ ın, D

    H. Bomb ´ ın, D. Litinski, N. Nickerson, F. Pastawski, and S. Roberts, Quantum8, 1379 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    Backens, New J

    M. Backens, New J. Phys.16, 093021 (2014)

    2014

  41. [41]

    van de Wetering, ZX-calculus for the working quan- tum computer scientist (2020), arXiv:2012.13966 [quant-ph]

    J. van de Wetering, ZX-calculus for the working quan- tum computer scientist (2020), arXiv:2012.13966 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    Jacoby, A

    S. Jacoby, A. Retzker, and F. Pastawski, Stairway codes: Floquetifying bivariate bicycle codes and be- yond (2026), arXiv:2603.00228 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    Coecke and R

    B. Coecke and R. Duncan, New J. Phys.13, 043016 (2011)

    2011

  44. [44]

    A. R. Calderbank and P. W. Shor, Phys. Rev. A54, 1098 (1996)

    1996

  45. [45]

    A. M. Steane, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 793 (1996)

    1996

  46. [46]

    Arnault, P

    F. Arnault, P. Gaborit, W. Rozendaal, N. Saussay, and G. Z´ emor, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory72, 437 (2026)

    2026

  47. [47]

    A. J. Landahl, J. T. Anderson, and P. R. Rice, Fault- tolerant quantum computing with color codes (2011), arXiv:1108.5738 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  48. [48]

    Gidney, Quantum5, 497 (2021)

    C. Gidney, Quantum5, 497 (2021)

    2021

  49. [49]

    Gidney and contributors, Sinter: Sampling in tasks for estimating rates, Software package dis- tributed with Stim (2021)

    C. Gidney and contributors, Sinter: Sampling in tasks for estimating rates, Software package dis- tributed with Stim (2021)

    2021

  50. [50]

    QuantumLib contributors, Tesseract decoder, Soft- ware repository (2025)

    2025

  51. [51]

    M. Ye, D. Wecker, and N. Delfosse, PRX Quantum 7, 033002 (2026)

    2026

  52. [52]

    Jiang, I

    Y. Jiang, I. Dumer, A. A. Kovalev, and L. P. Pryadko, J. Math. Phys.60, 083302 (2019)

    2019

  53. [53]

    Delfosse, in2013 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory(IEEE, 2013) pp

    N. Delfosse, in2013 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory(IEEE, 2013) pp. 917–921

    2013