Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Quantum States Protection under Environmental Noise

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A control-qubit filter can perfectly preserve fixed-excitation-count states under amplitude-damping noise, without full quantum error correction.

desk verdict Right math, overstated headline: single-ancilla perfect protection holds only for Hamming weights 0 and 1, not all fixed weights as the abstract claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04822 v1 pith:L6KH7TEJ submitted 2026-08-05 quant-ph

Kai Wang , Zhen-Yang Peng This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords amplitudedampingquantumfilterstateprotectionHammingweightpost-selectiondecoherencesuppressionmulti-qubitstatesfidelity
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

All real qubits lose energy to their environment, and the dominant low-temperature error is amplitude damping: the excited state $|1\rangle$ relaxes to $|0\rangle$ with some rate $\gamma$. This paper introduces a filtering circuit, a control qubit coupled through controlled-Z gates followed by post-selection, that suppresses exactly that relaxation. It establishes that any $N$-qubit state lying entirely in a subspace of fixed quantum Hamming weight, meaning every computational basis component contains the same number $s$ of $|1\rangle$s, can be perfectly restored after amplitude damping: the post-selected fidelity is $F_{s,N}=\sqrt{(1-\gamma)^s/p_0}$, which equals 1 for weight $s=1$ with one ancilla and for any fixed weight $s$ when one ancilla per qubit is used. For states that superpose different Hamming weights, perfect protection is not achieved with this filter, and the GHZ state, whose components have maximal Hamming distance, sets the lower bound. The practical upshot is a resource-efficient route to protecting memories and entangled states from energy relaxation without invoking full quantum error correction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quantum filtration circuit: one or more control qubits coupled to the data qubits by controlled-Z gates, followed by measurement and post-selection on the $|0\rangle$ outcome. It exploits the commutation relation $[E_0,Z]=0$ and the anticommutation relation $\{E_1,Z\}=0$ for the amplitude-damping Kraus operators $E_0=|0\rangle\langle0|+\sqrt{1-\gamma}|1\rangle\langle1|$ and $E_1=\sqrt{\gamma}|0\rangle\langle1|$, so the filter removes every Kraus term containing an odd number of $E_1$ factors. The second central object is the quantum Hamming weight, the number of $|1\rangle$s in a computational-basis string: the subspace $H_{s,N}$ of fixed weight $s$ acts as a code space because any damping term with $m$ jump operators maps it into an orthogonal subspace $H_{s-m,N}$. The fidelity formula $F_{s,N}=\sqrt{(1-\gamma)^s/p_0}$ carries the argument, showing that protection depends only on $s$ rather than on the total qubit number $N$, and becomes unity when only the $m=0$ term contributes.

What would settle it

Run a single round of the filtration circuit on the one-excitation Bell state $(|01\rangle+|10\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ under tunable amplitude damping at several rates $\gamma$, and post-select on the control qubit measuring $|0\rangle$. The paper predicts the output equals the input, so the conditional fidelity is exactly 1 for every $\gamma$, with success probability $1-\gamma$; any measured deviation from 1 would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for amplitude-damping noise with rate $\gamma$, the quantum filter preserves the no-jump branch exactly and discards the jump branch. For any input state supported on the $N$-qubit subspace $H_{s,N}$ of fixed quantum Hamming weight $s$, the post-selected output is proportional to the original state and the fidelity is $F_{s,N}=\sqrt{(1-\gamma)^s/p_0}$, with $p_0=\sum_{m\,\mathrm{even}} \binom{s}{m}(1-\gamma)^{s-m}\gamma^m$. Because every Kraus operator containing an odd number of $E_1$ factors is filtered out, and every even-$m$ Kraus operator with $m>0$ maps $H_{s,N}$ into an orthogonal subspace, only the no-jump term survives; this yields unit fidelity exactly for weight $s=1$ with a single ancilla and for arbitrary fixed $s$ when the filter uses $N$ ancillas, one per qubit. The paper thus proves that one-excitation Bell states, generalized W states, and Dicke states, all of which have fixed Hamming weight, are perfectly protected, while GHZ states, with maximal Hamming distance between their components, are the worst case and bound the achievable fidelity from below.

Load-bearing premise

The perfect-protection result holds only for input states that lie entirely within a single quantum Hamming-weight subspace; once a state superposes different Hamming weights, the surviving even-m damping terms create components in other weight sectors and the fidelity drops.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single-ancilla filtration recovers the excited single-qubit state $|1\rangle$ and every one-excitation Bell state with unit fidelity after post-selection, at success probability $1-\gamma$.
  • With one ancilla per data qubit, every state of fixed Hamming weight $s$ is recovered with unit fidelity, at success probability $(1-\gamma)^s$, including generalized W states and Dicke states.
  • Superposition states cannot be perfectly protected: the post-selected fidelity lies strictly between the fidelities of their component Hamming-weight sectors, and the GHZ state, with maximal Hamming distance $N$, is the worst case.
  • The fidelity depends only on the Hamming weight $s$ and not on the total qubit number $N$, so protection quality within a fixed weight sector does not degrade as the system grows.
  • The filter outperforms controlled-SWAP-based purification in fidelity and avoids the exponential copy overhead of streaming purification schemes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the perfect protection is conditional on a successful post-selection whose probability is $(1-\gamma)^s$ for an $s$-excitation state, the scheme is a heralded error-detection protocol: it protects accepted runs only, and the unconditional output fidelity is no better than the bare no-jump survival. The paper's formulas imply this trade-off but do not state it.
  • Editorial inference: the Hamming-weight result suggests a design principle for $T_1$-limited hardware: encode logical information inside a single excitation-number subspace so that damping acts as a detectable leakage event. A natural extension would be to combine the filter with a recovery step on the rejected runs, converting the heralded protection into an erasure-correcting code.
  • Editorial inference: the same controlled-Z filtration should suppress any noise channel whose Kraus operators split into commuting and anticommuting sets under a Pauli symmetry; amplitude damping is one instance, and the fixed-Hamming-weight protection would then be a special case of symmetry-based error detection.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum filter circuit based on controlled-Z gates and post-selection to protect quantum states against amplitude-damping (AD) noise. For a single qubit it shows that the filter removes the E1 damping term and protects |1> with unit fidelity, outperforming a controlled-SWAP circuit. The treatment is extended to Bell states, to multi-qubit states within fixed Hamming-weight subspaces, and to superpositions such as GHZ states. The main analytical results are the post-selected fidelity formula F_{s,N} = sqrt((1-gamma)^s / p0) for the single-ancilla filter (Eq. 18), the claim that states of fixed Hamming weight can be perfectly protected with a single ancilla, and the N-ancilla construction of Section IV that perfectly protects any fixed-weight subspace H_{s,N}. Numerical results for average fidelities and a comparison with CSWAP are also presented.

Significance. If the advertised claims were correct in their stated generality, the paper would offer a striking resource-efficient alternative to full quantum error correction for amplitude-damping noise: a simple CZ filter with post-selection supposedly protects all fixed-weight states with a single ancilla. The paper does provide explicit, internally consistent fidelity formulas, including Eq. (18), and the N-ancilla construction in Section IV is correct. However, the central single-ancilla claim is overstated in the abstract and conclusion, the Bell-state labeling is nonstandard and reverses which states are perfectly protected, and the proof of the GHZ worst-case claim in Appendix B is not valid. These issues affect the paper's main advertised message, so the work needs substantial revision before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, Conclusion, Section III.A, Eq. (18)-(19)]
  2. [Section II.B]
  3. [Section IV and Appendix B]
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A]
  2. [Section III.B, after Eq. (24)]
  3. [Section V heading]
  4. [Appendix A]
  5. [Keywords line]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the protection fidelities are derived from the AD Kraus operators and the filter's post-selection rule.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are self-contained. Starting from the standard AD Kraus operators (Eq. (2)) and the CZ-based filter, Eq. (16) follows by retaining only even-m Kraus operators under post-selection. For an input in H_s,N, every odd-m Kraus operator maps the state into H_{s-m,N}, orthogonal to the input, and the m=0 term acts as (1-gamma)^{s/2} times identity on that subspace; hence Eq. (18) is an explicit computation, not an assumed result. Perfect protection for s=1 follows by substituting p0=1-gamma into Eq. (18), and for general s with N ancillas by the tensor-product output (1-gamma)^s |phi><phi| / p0vec in Eq. (29). No parameter is fitted, no prediction is renamed from an input, and the paper contains no self-citations used to justify the load-bearing claims. The fidelity invariance of Eq. (17) is proved in Appendix A from orthogonality of Hamming-weight sectors. The only concern visible in the text is the Conclusion's blanket statement that fixed Hamming-weight states are perfectly protected with a single ancilla, which contradicts the paper's own Eq. (18) for s>=2; this is a mathematical overgeneralization, not a circular reduction. Accordingly the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, forces, or dimensions. It relies on the standard AD channel model, the prior quantum filter construction from [36,37], and ideal-circuit assumptions. No free parameters are fitted to data; gamma is a physical channel parameter and theta is a state parameter.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math The amplitude-damping channel is defined by Kraus operators E0 = |0><0| + sqrt(1-gamma)|1><1| and E1 = sqrt(gamma)|0><1|.
    This is the noise model used throughout, stated in Eq (2).
  • domain assumption Each qubit experiences independent and identical amplitude-damping noise with the same rate gamma.
    Section II.B states: 'each qubit is subject to independent AD noise with the same damping rate.'
  • domain assumption The controlled-Z gates and the final measurement on the control qubit are noiseless and the filter exactly implements the projection in Eq (16).
    All derivations assume ideal circuit elements; no gate error or measurement error is modeled.
  • standard math The commutation and anti-commutation relations [E0,Z]=0 and {E1,Z}=0 hold.
    This is the algebraic property, given in Eq (3), that justifies the filter design.
  • domain assumption The input state lies in a subspace of fixed Hamming weight for the perfect-protection result.
    The central claim is restricted to states in H_s,N; general superpositions are treated separately.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum States Protection under Environmental Noise." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L6KH7TEJ

@misc{pith2026260804822,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum States Protection under Environmental Noise},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L6KH7TEJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04822}
}
read the original abstract

All realistic quantum systems are inevitably in contact with the environment. Suppressing theimpact of environmental noise is a critical challenge in cutting-edge quantum technologies. In thiswork, we introduce and systematically analyze a scheme for the protection of quantum states againstamplitude-damping (AD) noise based on the circuit structure called the quantum filter. Filtrationcircuits employing single- and multi-control qubits are examined, and their capability to enhance stateprotection fidelity while preserving a high success probability is discussed. Moreover, for many-bodyqubit states, those with a fixed quantum Hamming weight can be perfectly protected against ADnoise, whereas states with the largest Hamming weight difference set a lower bound on the achievableprotection fidelity. Our work provides a resource-efficient route for quantum state protection withoutrequiring full quantum error correction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04822 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Sketch of the circuit for quantum state protection via a quantum filter under AD noise. (b) Circuit for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Sketch illustrating the decomposition of the Hilbert space for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. A sketch of the filtration circuit with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Average fidelity for the multi-control filtration circuit; the input states are sampled from the entire Hilbert [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The quantum internet,

    H. J. Kimble, “The quantum internet,” Nature453, 1023–1030 (2008)

    2008

  2. [2]

    Quantum channels and memory effects,

    Filippo Caruso, Vittorio Giovannetti, Cosmo Lupo, and Stefano Mancini, “Quantum channels and memory effects,” Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 1203–1259 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Quantum error correction for quantum memories,

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

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Photonic quantum information processing: a review,

    F. Flamini, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, “Photonic quantum information processing: a review,” REPORTS ON PROGRESS IN PHYSICS82(2019), 10.1088/1361-6633/aad5b2

    doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aad5b2 2019

  5. [5]

    Quantum information processing and quantum optics with circuit quantum electrodynamics,

    Alexandre Blais, Steven M. Girvin, and William D. Oliver, “Quantum information processing and quantum optics with circuit quantum electrodynamics,” Nature Physics16, 247–256 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Complete methods set for scalable ion trap quantum information processing,

    Jonathan P. Home, David Hanneke, John D. Jost, Jason M. Amini, Dietrich Leibfried, and David J. Wineland, “Complete methods set for scalable ion trap quantum information processing,” Science325, 1227–1230 (2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Quantum information processing with superconducting circuits: a review,

    G Wendin, “Quantum information processing with superconducting circuits: a review,” Reports on Progress in Physics80, 106001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Quantum sensing,

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, “Quantum sensing,” Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Programmable quantum simulations of spin systems with trapped ions,

    C. Monroe, W. C. Campbell, L.-M. Duan, Z.-X. Gong, A. V. Gorshkov, P. W. Hess, R. Islam, K. Kim, N. M. Linke, G. Pagano, P. Richerme, C. Senko, and N. Y. Yao, “Programmable quantum simulations of spin systems with trapped ions,” Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025001 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Circuit quantum electrodynamics,

    Alexandre Blais, Arne L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and Andreas Wallraff, “Circuit quantum electrodynamics,” Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025005 (2021). 16

    2021

  3. [11]

    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,

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

    2018

  4. [12]

    Quantum circuit optimizations for nisq architectures,

    Beatrice Nash, Vlad Gheorghiu, and Michele Mosca, “Quantum circuit optimizations for nisq architectures,” Quantum Science and Technology5, 025010 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms,

    Kishor Bharti, Alba Cervera-Lierta, Thi Ha Kyaw, Tobias Haug, Sumner Alperin-Lea, Abhinav Anand, Matthias Degroote, Hermanni Heimonen, Jakob S. Kottmann, Tim Menke, Wai-Keong Mok, Sukin Sim, Leong-Chuan Kwek, and Al ´an Aspuru-Guzik, “Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithm...

    2022

  6. [14]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    Bosonic quantum codes for amplitude damping,

    Isaac L. Chuang, Debbie W. Leung, and Yoshihisa Yamamoto, “Bosonic quantum codes for amplitude damping,” Phys. Rev. A56, 1114–1125 (1997)

    1997

  8. [16]

    Asymmetric quantum codes detecting a single amplitude error,

    Martianus Frederic Ezerman and Markus Grassl, “Asymmetric quantum codes detecting a single amplitude error,” 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory , 922–926 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Mitigating coherent noise using pauli conjugation,

    Zhenyu Cai, Xiaosi Xu, and Simon C. Benjamin, “Mitigating coherent noise using pauli conjugation,” npj Quantum Information6, 17 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Entanglement purification and protection in a superconducting quantum network,

    Haoxiong Yan, Youpeng Zhong, Hung-Shen Chang, Audrey Bienfait, Ming-Han Chou, Christopher R. Conner, ´Etienne Dumur, Joel Grebel, Rhys G. Povey, and Andrew N. Cleland, “Entanglement purification and protection in a superconducting quantum network,” Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 080504 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Erasure qubits: Overcoming theT 1 limit in superconducting circuits,

    Aleksander Kubica, Arbel Haim, Yotam Vaknin, Harry Levine, Fernando Brand ˜ao, and Alex Retzker, “Erasure qubits: Overcoming theT 1 limit in superconducting circuits,” Phys. Rev. X13, 041022 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Higher-order protection of quantum gates: Hamiltonian engineering coordinated with dynamical decoupling,

    P. Z. Zhao, Tianqi Chen, Sirui Liu, and Jiangbin Gong, “Higher-order protection of quantum gates: Hamiltonian engineering coordinated with dynamical decoupling,” Phys. Rev. A111, 022621 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Perfect entanglement swapping of w states,

    Sajede Harraz, Yueyan Wang, and Shuang Cong, “Perfect entanglement swapping of w states,” Communications in Theoretical Physics77, 105102 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Enhancing the coherence of a spin qubit by operating it as a feedback loop that controls its nuclear spin bath,

    Hendrik Bluhm, Sandra Foletti, Diana Mahalu, Vladimir Umansky, and Amir Yacoby, “Enhancing the coherence of a spin qubit by operating it as a feedback loop that controls its nuclear spin bath,” Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 216803 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    Protecting entanglement from finite-temperature thermal noise via weak measurement and quantum measurement reversal,

    Wen-Jie Zou, Yu-Huai Li, Shu-Chao Wang, Yuan Cao, Ji-Gang Ren, Juan Yin, Cheng-Zhi Peng, Xiang-Bin Wang, and Jian-Wei Pan, “Protecting entanglement from finite-temperature thermal noise via weak measurement and quantum measurement reversal,” Phys. Rev. A95, 042342 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Mid-circuit correc- tion of correlated phase errors using an array of spectator qubits,

    K. Singh, C. E. Bradley, S. Anand, V. Ramesh, R. White, and H. Bernien, “Mid-circuit correc- tion of correlated phase errors using an array of spectator qubits,” Science380, 1265–1269 (2023), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.ade5337

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Decoherence cancellation through noise interference,

    Giuseppe D’ Auria, Giovanna Morigi, Fabio Anselmi, and Fabio Benatti, “Decoherence cancellation through noise interference,” Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 040201 (2026)

    2026

  18. [26]

    Universal control induced by noise,

    Christian Arenz, Daniel Burgarth, Paolo Facchi, Vittorio Giovannetti, Hiromichi Nakazato, Saverio Pascazio, and Kazuya Yuasa, “Universal control induced by noise,” Phys. Rev. A93, 062308 (2016). 17

    2016

  19. [27]

    Adiabatic control of decoherence-free subspaces in an open collective system,

    Jarrod T. Reilly, Simon B. J ¨ager, John Cooper, and Murray J. Holland, “Adiabatic control of decoherence-free subspaces in an open collective system,” Phys. Rev. A106, 023703 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Decoding quantum errors with subspace expansions,

    Jarrod R. McClean, Zhang Jiang, Nicholas C. Rubin, Ryan Babbush, and Hartmut Neven, “Decoding quantum errors with subspace expansions,” Nature Communications11, 636 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Quantum Error Mitigation using Symmetry Expansion,

    Zhenyu Cai, “Quantum Error Mitigation using Symmetry Expansion,” Quantum5, 548 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Symmetric channel verification for purifying noisy quantum channels,

    Kento Tsubouchi, Yosuke Mitsuhashi, Ryuji Takagi, and Nobuyuki Yoshioka, “Symmetric channel verification for purifying noisy quantum channels,” PRX Quantum6, 040310 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Petz recovery maps for qudit quantum channels,

    Lea Lautenbacher, Vinayak Jagadish, Francesco Petruccione, and Nadja K. Bernardes, “Petz recovery maps for qudit quantum channels,” Physics Letters A512, 129583 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Optimality condition for the petz map,

    Bikun Li, Zhaoyou Wang, Guo Zheng, Yat Wong, and Liang Jiang, “Optimality condition for the petz map,” Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 200602 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Petz recovery maps of single-qubit decoherence channels in an ion trap quantum processor,

    Wen-Han Png and Valerio Scarani, “Petz recovery maps of single-qubit decoherence channels in an ion trap quantum processor,” Phys. Rev. A112, 022613 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Greenberger-horne-zeilinger versuswstates: Quantum teleportation through noisy channels,

    Eylee Jung, Mi-Ra Hwang, You Hwan Ju, Min-Soo Kim, Sahng-Kyoon Yoo, Hungsoo Kim, DaeKil Park, Jin-Woo Son, S. Tamaryan, and Seong-Keuck Cha, “Greenberger-horne-zeilinger versuswstates: Quantum teleportation through noisy channels,” Phys. Rev. A78, 012312 (2008)

    2008

  27. [35]

    Symmetric quantum states: a review of recent progress,

    Carlo Marconi, Guillem M¨ uller-Rigat, Jordi Romero-Pallej`a, Jordi Tura, and Anna Sanpera, “Symmetric quantum states: a review of recent progress,” Reports on Progress in Physics89, 024001 (2026)

    2026

  28. [36]

    Error suppression for arbitrary-size black box quantum operations,

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

    2023

  29. [37]

    Purification and correction of quantum channels by commutation-derived quantum filters,

    Sowmitra Das, Jinzhao Sun, Michael Hanks, B ´alint Koczor, and MS Kim, “Purification and correction of quantum channels by commutation-derived quantum filters,” arXiv:2407.20173 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Superposed quantum error mitigation,

    Jorge Miguel-Ramiro, Zheng Shi, Luca Dellantonio, Albie Chan, Christine A. Muschik, and Wolfgang D¨ ur, “Superposed quantum error mitigation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 230601 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Enhancing quantum computation via superposition of quantum gates,

    Jorge Miguel-Ramiro, Zheng Shi, Luca Dellantonio, Albie Chan, Christine A. Muschik, and Wolfgang D¨ ur, “Enhancing quantum computation via superposition of quantum gates,” Phys. Rev. A108, 062604 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Dual-state purification for practical quantum error mitigation,

    Mingxia Huo and Ying Li, “Dual-state purification for practical quantum error mitigation,” Phys. Rev. A105, 022427 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    No-go theorems for quantum resource purification: New approach and channel theory,

    Kun Fang and Zi-Wen Liu, “No-go theorems for quantum resource purification: New approach and channel theory,” PRX Quantum3, 010337 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Virtual channel purification,

    Zhenhuan Liu, Xingjian Zhang, Yue-Yang Fei, and Zhenyu Cai, “Virtual channel purification,” PRX Quantum 6, 020325 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    Streaming quantum state purification,

    Andrew M. Childs, Honghao Fu, Debbie Leung, Zhi Li, Maris Ozols, and Vedang Vyas, “Streaming quantum state purification,” Quantum9, 1603 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    Dalzell, Sam McArdle, Mario Berta, Przemyslaw Bienias, Chi-Fang Chen, Andr ´as Gily ´en, Connor T

    Alexander M. Dalzell, Sam McArdle, Mario Berta, Przemyslaw Bienias, Chi-Fang Chen, Andr ´as Gily ´en, Connor T. Hann, Michael J. Kastoryano, Emil T. Khabiboulline, Aleksander Kubica, and et al., Quantum Algorithms: A Survey of Applications and End-to-end Complexities (Cambridg...

    2025

  37. [45]

    Logarithmic-depth quantum circuits for hamming weight projections,

    Soorya Rethinasamy, Margarite L. LaBorde, and Mark M. Wilde, “Logarithmic-depth quantum circuits for hamming weight projections,” Phys. Rev. A110, 052401 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.