Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 71 references

Quantum error correction with global control

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A ring of qubits controlled by global fields can run quantum error correction at a practical threshold.

desk verdict The architecture is new and worth serious attention, but the headline ~10^-3 thresholds are computed with a noise model that treats every routing iSWAP/SWAP gate as perfect, so the central quantitative claim is untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05821 v1 pith:XXISXEF2 submitted 2026-08-06 quant-ph cond-mat.supr-con

Roberto Menta , Lindsay Bassman Oftelie , Ashkan Abedi , Francesco Cioni , Marco Polini , Seth Lloyd , Francesco Caravelli , Vittorio Giovannetti This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.supr-con MSC 81P7081P68 PACS 03.67.Pp03.67.Lx
keywords globalcontrolquantumerrorcorrectioncyclicstabilizercodeiSWAPfaulttolerancethresholdsuperconductingqubitssyndromeextractionzero-qubit-overheadarchitecture
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 claims that quantum error correction can run on a globally controlled ring of qubits with no auxiliary qubits, using only parallel global gates plus one locally controlled site. The proposed cyclic stabilizer code makes every physical qubit a data or syndrome qubit, so a single error-correcting scheme protects the whole device. Monte Carlo simulations under a noise model that keeps gates perfect but includes idle-data depolarization and measurement errors give QEC thresholds around $10^{-3}$, roughly seven orders of magnitude higher than earlier global-control estimates. If true, this would mean the wiring bottleneck does not fundamentally block fault tolerance, and global-control processors could operate at physical error rates comparable to current devices.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the pairing of global SWAP transport with a cyclic stabilizer code. The ring alternates two global coupling patterns that act on even and odd bonds, producing parallel iSWAP layers; correcting each iSWAP to a SWAP with global rotations lets any qubit be moved to the single local-control site, while the code's stabilizer generators are cyclic translations of a base operator. Because the code is translation-invariant, syndrome extraction uses only spatially uniform parallel operations, so stabilizer information accumulates in syndrome qubits through the same global dynamics; only the final readout of syndrome qubits is serial, with global SWAPs carrying each syndrome qubit to the local measurement site.

What would settle it

Run the same Monte Carlo threshold extraction on the cyclic code with a depolarizing channel applied to every global iSWAP/SWAP and single-qubit rotation at the same strength as the data-idle error; if the crossing points vanish or fall by orders of magnitude, the reported $10^{-3}$ thresholds depend on the perfect-gate assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a zero-overhead global-control architecture: a homogeneous ring of XY-coupled qubits driven by two global coupling patterns and one locally addressed site, on which a cyclic stabilizer code $[\![n,1,d]\!]$ has syndrome extraction built entirely from global iSWAP gates and global single-qubit rotations. Qubit states are transported around the ring by decomposing the native iSWAP into SWAP using three iSWAPs and global $\sqrt{X}$ pulses, and syndrome qubits are then shuttled to the local measurement site. Simulating the code with a stabilizer-circuit simulator and decoding with a look-up table augmented by a memory, the paper reports logical-error thresholds of $p_{\mathrm{th}}^{(2)}=0.47\%$, $p_{\mathrm{th}}^{(3)}=0.35\%$, and $p_{\mathrm{th}}^{(5)}=0.23\%$ for different numbers of measurement rounds, placing the thresholds near $10^{-3}$ and nearly seven orders of magnitude above a prior global-control threshold estimate near $10^{-10}$. The thresholds improve as local measurement sites are added, revealing a tunable trade-off between wiring simplicity and fault-tolerant performance.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed thresholds assume all two-qubit gates, swaps, and rotations are perfect and only idle data-qubit depolarization plus syndrome measurement errors are included; if actual gate errors are comparable to the threshold, the reported numbers do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A globally controlled processor with zero auxiliary qubits could in principle run fault-tolerant quantum error correction at physical error rates near $10^{-3}$, a regime comparable to current hardware, rather than the much lower rates suggested by earlier global-control schemes.
  • Because every physical qubit is protected by the same error-correcting scheme, the dual computational/auxiliary correction overhead that forced two interleaved correction procedures in previous global-control proposals is eliminated.
  • Increasing the number of local measurement sites systematically raises the threshold, giving designers a quantitative trade-off between measurement wiring density and error-correction performance.
  • The architecture's effective connectivity can approach all-to-all in a keyhole geometry, which may ease future implementation of qLDPC codes under global control.
  • The ring can act as a building block for a scalable logical architecture, with multiple rings tiled and coupled through shared physical qubits so that transport and entangling gates are lifted to the logical level.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper computes thresholds with all gates assumed perfect; a natural next test is to repeat the threshold extraction with a depolarizing rate applied to every global iSWAP/SWAP and local rotation, since finite gate errors could substantially move or erase the reported crossing points.
  • The systematic improvement of thresholds with added measurement sites suggests a design rule that the paper does not spell out: for a fixed wiring budget, choose the smallest number of measurement rounds that keeps the logical error rate below the physical error rate.
  • The comparison to the earlier $10^{-10}$ global-control threshold may depend on different noise models; re-simulating that earlier scheme with the same phenomenological noise would give a cleaner benchmark for the claimed seven-order improvement.
  • Because the cyclic code is not a quantum low-density parity-check code, the architecture may be best suited to near-term small logical qubits; the keyhole connectivity mentioned in the paper could be explored as a route to global-control qLDPC implementations.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a global-control quantum processor consisting of a ring of qubits with a single local control site, global iSWAP/SWAP transport, and no dedicated addressing ancillas. It identifies a family of cyclic stabilizer codes whose syndrome extraction is claimed to be implementable using only global gates, and it reports Monte Carlo QEC thresholds of roughly 0.23%–0.47% for different numbers of measurement rounds, which the authors state are nearly seven orders of magnitude larger than a previous global-control threshold estimate. The paper also discusses how adding local measurement sites improves the thresholds and sketches a superconducting-circuit implementation.

Significance. If the numerical claims were established, this would be a notable advance for global-control architectures: a minimally wired ring could run a stabilizer code with a threshold close to current experimental gate fidelities, and the measurement-site trade-off is a useful design principle. The paper is careful in defining the Hamiltonian, the routing primitives, and the universality argument; the single-qubit routing theorem in the Supplemental Material is a concrete formal contribution, and the threshold simulations use the external Stim simulator with a code family from Ref. [38], so the thresholds are outputs rather than inputs. However, the central threshold claim is currently conditioned on an idealized noise model that omits all gate errors, and the comparison to Ref. [28] is made under a different set of assumptions, so the headline seven-order improvement is not yet substantiated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Quantum error correction; Fig. 2] The thresholds p^{(M)}_{th} reported in Fig. 2 are computed under a noise model that includes only depolarizing errors on idle data qubits and bit-flip errors before syndrome measurement; all iSWAP/SWAP gates, local rotations, and transport operations are treated as noiseless. In this architecture, syndrome extraction and measurement routing require many global two-qubit gates, each SWAP costing three iSWAPs plus three global √X pulses (Eq. (7)), and these gates act on data qubits as well. Because the claimed thresholds (0.23%–0.47%) are comparable to realistic two-qubit gate error rates, omitting gate errors is not a benign approximation. The paper should either present circuit-level simulations that include gate errors or explicitly restrict the abstract's threshold claim to the idealized phenomenological model.
  2. [Quantum error correction (comparison to Ref. [28])] The statement that the thresholds are 'nearly seven orders of magnitude larger' than the 10^{-10} estimate of Ref. [28] is not supported by the simulations presented, because the two calculations are not performed under the same noise model. The present model excludes gate errors entirely, whereas Ref. [28]'s estimate accounts for the restricted-control costs in a global-control scheme. A fair quantitative comparison requires either running the same code under equivalent assumptions or redoing the simulation with a circuit-level model; otherwise the improvement factor is an artifact of the differing models.
  3. [End Matter: Cyclic codes under global control] The central claim that the cyclic code's syndrome extraction is 'realized using only nearest-neighbor iSWAP gates plus single-qubit gates' and 'comprises solely operations that act in parallel across the entire register' is stated with references [38,68] but no explicit circuit or transpilation proof is given. Since the compatibility of the SE circuit with the global alternating-bond iSWAP pattern of Eqs. (5)–(6), rather than with arbitrary local nearest-neighbor gates, is load-bearing for the threshold simulations, the authors should provide the full SE circuit and its mapping onto the global gate set, or a rigorous argument that the circuit can be executed without additional serial routing.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and QEC section] The phrases 'zero qubit overhead' and 'every physical qubit is a computational qubit' are inconsistent with the QEC layout in the 'Quantum error correction' section, where N=2n qubits and half are syndrome qubits. Please clarify that the zero overhead refers to the absence of control/address ancillas, not to the absence of standard QEC ancillas.
  2. [Table I] Table I is misformatted: the rows for M=2,3,4,5 appear to be missing their labels, making data such as '27 11 15 ∼26' unintelligible. The table should be restructured so that each row corresponds to a single value of M with columns for d=5, d=7, d=9, and the percentage.
  3. [End Matter] The notation for the base stabilizers, e.g., 'ZIXXIZI ⊗7' for d=5, is ambiguous; please write explicit generator strings or define the multiplication convention clearly.
  4. [General reproducibility] For reproducibility, consider providing the Stim simulation code and the data sets used for Fig. 2 in an ancillary file or public repository.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QEC thresholds are simulation outputs from an externally defined code family and noise model, not predictions baked into the model's inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central QEC claim does not reduce to its own inputs. The cyclic stabilizer code family is taken from an independent external source, Ref. [38] (Simakov and Besedin), and the threshold estimates are produced by Monte Carlo simulation in the external Stim package under an explicitly stated phenomenological noise model. The physical error rate is swept as an independent variable, and the logical error rates are simulation outputs, not fitted parameters later relabeled as predictions; the thresholds are defined as crossing points of the simulated d=5,7,9 curves, so they are not fixed by construction. The iSWAP-to-SWAP compilation in Eq. (7) is cited to external works [37,40] and is not used as evidence for the threshold. The paper does cite several works by its own authors ([22-25], [33], [50], [67]), but these appear in architecture background, disorder compensation discussion, and a redundant universality attribution; the End Matter universality argument is given constructively (connected graph, local rotations, iSWAP as a universal set), and no load-bearing premise is justified only by a same-author citation. The comparison with Kay's threshold [28] is made against an external prior result, so any concern about mismatched noise models is a modeling or benchmarking risk, not circularity. Finally, the omission of noise on global iSWAP/SWAP gates is a stated modeling assumption and a legitimate correctness concern, but the assumption is not equivalent to the claimed threshold; the simulation remains self-contained under that stated model.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation relies on standard quantum mechanics for iSWAP/SWAP, on the cyclic code family and decoder from Ref [38], and on a phenomenological noise model that sets gate errors to zero. No new physical entities are posited. The only hand-chosen protocol parameter is the number of measurement rounds M, which affects the reported threshold. The main unstated cost is the assumption that transport SWAPs are error-free, which is load-bearing for the threshold magnitude.

free parameters (1)
  • Number of measurement rounds M = 2, 3, 5
    Chosen by the authors to demonstrate the trade-off between measurement wiring and threshold. The reported thresholds p_th^(M) depend directly on M; no theory selects M.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Resonant XY interaction generates an exact iSWAP after time 3π/(2J)
    Shown in SM Eq. (S9)-(S10); assumes exact resonance and no stray couplings.
  • ad hoc to paper All global gate operations are noiseless in the QEC simulations
    The Monte Carlo model only includes idle depolarization and measurement bit-flip; gate errors are implicitly zero. This is the main modeling assumption behind the threshold values.
  • domain assumption The cyclic code from Ref [38] has the claimed distances and can be implemented on a ring with alternating data and syndrome qubits using nearest-neighbor iSWAPs
    Taken from Ref [38]; the paper does not reproduce the full syndrome extraction circuit.
  • domain assumption The look-up table decoder with memory can correct both spacelike and timelike errors at the simulated rates
    Decoder is inherited from Ref [38]; no independent analysis is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum error correction with global control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XXISXEF2

@misc{pith2026260805821,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum error correction with global control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XXISXEF2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05821}
}
read the original abstract

Reaching fault tolerance means scaling qubit counts by orders of magnitude, a jump that conventional superconducting architectures cannot sustain without solving the so-called `wiring problem'. Global control sidesteps this bottleneck, but implementing quantum error correction (QEC) on previously proposed global architectures incurs extremely steep overhead costs, due to the need for separate correction procedures for the computational and auxiliary qubits that comprise the global device. We resolve this by introducing the first globally-controlled architecture with zero qubit overhead. Every physical qubit is a computational qubit, and thus, every qubit is protected under a single error correcting scheme. We identify a class of cyclic stabilizer codes realizable through global iSWAP and single-qubit gates, yielding QEC thresholds nearly seven orders of magnitude larger than previous estimates for globally-controlled arrays. We further show these thresholds improve systematically as the global architecture is augmented with a limited amount of local measurement sites, demonstrating a trade-off between wiring simplicity and fault-tolerant performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05821 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Globally controlled quantum architecture with zero qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Logical error rate versus physical error rate for the cyclic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    Deriving a Fault-Tolerant Threshold for a Global Control Scheme

    A. Kay, Deriving a fault-tolerant threshold for a global control scheme, arXiv:quant-ph/0702239 (2007)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  2. [38]

    I. A. Simakov and I. S. Besedin, Low-overhead quantum error- correction codes with a cyclic topology, Physical Review A111, 012444 (2025)

    work page 2025

  3. [1]

    Huang, S

    H.-Y. Huang, S. Choi, J. R. McClean, and J. Preskill, Vast world of quantum advantage, Phys. Rev. X16, 030501 (2026)

    work page 2026

  4. [2]

    Babbush, R

    R. Babbush, R. King, S. Boixo, W. Huggins, T. Khattar, G. H. Low, J. R. McClean, T. O’Brien, and N. C. Rubin, Grand chal- lenge of quantum applications, PRX Quantum7, 020101 (2026)

    work page 2026

  5. [3]

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

    J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  6. [4]

    Preskill, Beyond nisq: The megaquop machine, ACM Trans- actions on Quantum Computing6, 1 (2025)

    J. Preskill, Beyond nisq: The megaquop machine, ACM Trans- actions on Quantum Computing6, 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [5]

    Eisert and J

    J. Eisert and J. Preskill, Mind the gaps: The fraught road to quantum advantage, arXiv:2510.19928 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  8. [6]

    Mohseniet al., How to build a quantum supercom- puter: Scaling challenges and opportunities, arXiv:2411.10406 (2024)

    M. Mohseniet al., How to build a quantum supercom- puter: Scaling challenges and opportunities, arXiv:2411.10406 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

Show all 71 references
  1. [7]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braum¨ uller, P. Krantz, J. I.- J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Superconducting qubits: Current state of play, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics11(2020)

    2020

  2. [8]

    Richter, I

    M. Richter, I. Strandberg, S. Gasparinetti, and A. F. Kockum, Overhead in quantum circuits with time-multiplexed qubit con- trol, PRX Quantum7, 020308 (2026)

    2026

  3. [9]

    Google Quantum AI, Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, Nature614, 676 (2023)

    2023

  4. [10]

    Google Quantum AI, Quantum error correction below the sur- face code threshold, Nature638, 920 (2025)

    2025

  5. [11]

    Lloyd, A potentially realizable quantum computer, Science 261, 1569 (1993)

    S. Lloyd, A potentially realizable quantum computer, Science 261, 1569 (1993)

    1993

  6. [12]

    S. C. Benjamin, Schemes for parallel quantum computation without local control of qubits, Physical Review A61, 020301 (2000)

    2000

  7. [13]

    Lloyd, Quantum approximate optimization is computationally universal, arXiv:1812.11075 (2018)

    S. Lloyd, Quantum approximate optimization is computationally universal, arXiv:1812.11075 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  8. [14]

    S. C. Benjamin, Quantum computing without local control of qubit-qubit interactions, Physical Review Letters88, 017904 (2001)

    2001

  9. [15]

    Levy, Universal quantum computation with spin-1/2 pairs and heisenberg exchange, Physical Review Letters89, 147902 (2002)

    J. Levy, Universal quantum computation with spin-1/2 pairs and heisenberg exchange, Physical Review Letters89, 147902 (2002). 6

    2002

  10. [16]

    S. C. Benjamin and S. Bose, Quantum computing with an always-on heisenberg interaction, Physical Review Letters90, 247901 (2003)

    2003

  11. [17]

    S. C. Benjamin and S. Bose, Quantum computing in arrays coupled by ”always-on” interactions, Physical Review A70, 032314 (2004)

    2004

  12. [18]

    Fitzsimons and J

    J. Fitzsimons and J. Twamley, Globally controlled quantum wires for perfect qubit transport, mirroring, and computing, Physical Review Letters97, 090502 (2006)

    2006

  13. [19]

    G. A. Paz-Silva, G. K. Brennen, and J. Twamley, Globally con- trolled universal quantum computation with arbitrary subsystem dimension, Physical Review A80, 052318 (2009)

    2009

  14. [20]

    Cesa and H

    F. Cesa and H. Pichler, Universal quantum computation in glob- ally driven rydberg atom arrays, Physical Review Letters131, 170601 (2023)

    2023

  15. [21]

    S. M. Patom ¨aki, M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, M. A. Fogarty, Z. Cai, S. C. Benjamin, and J. J. L. Morton, Pipeline quantum processor architecture for silicon spin qubits, npj Quantum Information10, 31 (2024)

    2024

  16. [22]

    Menta, F

    R. Menta, F. Cioni, R. Aiudi, M. Polini, and V. Giovannetti, Globally driven superconducting quantum computing architec- ture, Physical Review Research7, L012065 (2025)

    2025

  17. [23]

    Cioni, R

    F. Cioni, R. Menta, R. Aiudi, M. Polini, and V. Giovannetti, Conveyor-belt superconducting quantum computer, Physical Re- view A113, 012439 (2026)

    2026

  18. [24]

    Menta, F

    R. Menta, F. Cioni, R. Aiudi, F. Caravelli, M. Polini, and V. Gio- vannetti, Building globally-controlled quantum processors with zz interactions, Physical Review A113, 012614 (2026)

    2026

  19. [25]

    Menta, F

    R. Menta, F. Cioni, R. Aiudi, M. Polini, and V. Giovan- netti, Global control via quantum actuators, arXiv:2603.23362 (2026)

    2026

  20. [26]

    Bririd, S

    A. Bririd, S. C. Benjamin, and A. Kay, Quantum error correction in globally controlled arrays, arXiv:quant-ph/0308113 (2004)

    2004 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Kay, Error correcting the control unit in global control schemes, arXiv:quant-ph/0504197 (2005)

    A. Kay, Error correcting the control unit in global control schemes, arXiv:quant-ph/0504197 (2005)

    2005 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Fitzsimons and J

    J. Fitzsimons and J. Twamley, Quantum fault tolerance in sys- tems with restricted control, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science258, 35 (2009)

    2009

  23. [30]

    L.-A. Wu, D. Lidar, and M. Friesen, One-spin quantum logic gates from exchange interactions and a global magnetic field, Physical Review Letters93, 030501 (2004)

    2004

  24. [31]

    Ye, Y.-S

    M.-Y. Ye, Y.-S. Zhang, and G.-C. Guo, Quantum computation using controllable exchange interactions and a global magnetic field, Physical Review A73, 024304 (2006)

    2006

  25. [32]

    H.-Y. Hu, A. M. Gomez, L. Chen, A. Trowbridge, A. J. Gold- schmidt, Z. Manchester, F. T. Chong, A. Jaffe, and S. F. Yelin, Universal dynamics with globally controlled analog quantum simulators, arXiv:2508.19075 (2025)

    2025

  26. [33]

    Gargiulo, R

    R. Gargiulo, R. Menta, V. Giovannetti, and R. Zeier, Ob- structions to universality in globally controlled qubit graphs, arXiv:2604.18699 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Kounalakis, C

    M. Kounalakis, C. Dickel, A. Bruno, N. K. Langford, and G. A. Steele, Tuneable hopping and nonlinear cross-kerr interactions in a high-coherence superconducting circuit, npj Quantum In- formation4, 38 (2018)

    2018

  28. [35]

    F. Yan, P. Krantz, Y. Sung, M. Kjaergaard, D. L. Campbell, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Tunable coupling scheme for implementing high-fidelity two-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. Appl.10, 054062 (2018)

    2018

  29. [36]

    Mitarai, Y

    H. Mitarai, Y. Tadokoro, and H. Tanaka, Orthogonal frequency- division multiplexing for simultaneous gate operations on multi- ple qubits via a shared control line, Phys. Rev. Appl.25, 044007 (2026)

    2026

  30. [37]

    Schuch and J

    N. Schuch and J. Siewert, Natural two-qubit gate for quantum computation using the xy interaction, Physical Review A67, 032301 (2003)

    2003

  31. [39]

    Menta, Universal quantum computation and error correction with global control, Invited Seminar at the Quantum Center, ETH Zurich (2026)

    R. Menta, Universal quantum computation and error correction with global control, Invited Seminar at the Quantum Center, ETH Zurich (2026)

    2026

  32. [40]

    Bai and I

    G. Bai and I. Marvian, Synthesis of energy-conserving quantum circuits with xy interaction, Quantum Science and Technology 9, 045049 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    See the Supplemental Material (SM) file

  34. [42]

    Sunget al., Realization of high-fidelity cz and zz-free iswap gates with a tunable coupler, Physical Review X11, 021058 (2021)

    Y. Sunget al., Realization of high-fidelity cz and zz-free iswap gates with a tunable coupler, Physical Review X11, 021058 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Krizan, J

    C. Krizan, J. Bizn ´arov´a, L. Chen, E. Hogedal, A. Osman, C. W. Warren, S. Kosen, H. ichi Li, T. Abad, and A. Aggarwal, Quan- tum swap gate realized with cz and iswap gates in a supercon- ducting architecture, New Journal of Physics27, 074507 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    Huang and H.-S

    S.-Y. Huang and H.-S. Goan, Optimal control for fast and high- fidelity quantum gates in coupled superconducting flux qubits, Physical Review A90, 012318 (2014), arXiv:1406.7707 [quant- ph]

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    R. J. Spiteri, M. Schmidt, J. Ghosh, E. Zahedinejad, and B. C. Sanders, Quantum control for high-fidelity multi-qubit gates, New Journal of Physics20, 113009 (2018), arXiv:1805.03569 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Y. Cho, K. M. Beck, A. R. Castelli, K. A. Wendt, B. Evert, M. J. Reagor, and J. L. DuBois, Direct pulse-level compilation of arbitrary quantum logic gates on superconducting qutrits, Physical Review Applied22, 034066 (2024), arXiv:2303.04261 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010)

    2010

  40. [48]

    Gidney, Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator, Quantum5, 497 (2021)

    C. Gidney, Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator, Quantum5, 497 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    Riccardiet al., Experimental observation of dynamical blockade between transmon qubits via zz interaction engineer- ing, arXiv:2601.11714 (2026)

    M. Riccardiet al., Experimental observation of dynamical blockade between transmon qubits via zz interaction engineer- ing, arXiv:2601.11714 (2026)

    2026

  42. [50]

    Aiudi, J

    R. Aiudi, J. Despres, R. Menta, A. Abedi, G. Menichetti, V. Gio- vannetti, M. Polini, and F. Caravelli, Overcoming disorder in superconducting globally driven quantum computing, Physical Review A113, 012616 (2026)

    2026

  43. [51]

    Roffe, D

    J. Roffe, D. R. White, S. Burton, and E. Campbell, Decoding across the quantum low-density parity-check code landscape, Physical Review Research2, 043423 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, Quantum low-density parity-check codes, PRX Quantum2, 040101 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Panteleev and G

    P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, Quantum ldpc codes with almost linear minimum distance, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory68(2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, Balanced product quan- tum codes, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory67(2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    B. Gu, T. Noszko, V. Steffan, J. N. Eberhardt, J. Roffe, J. Eisert, and S. Koutsioumpas, Nearest-neighbour gates are all you need: High-rate quantum low-density parity-check codes on a planar grid, arXiv:2606.19482 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  48. [56]

    G. M. Nixon, C. K. McLauchlan, and C. C. van Rest, Vine codes: Low-overhead quantum ldpc codes on a planar square grid, arXiv:2606.20263 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  49. [57]

    G. P. Geher, D. Byfield, and A. Ruban, Directional codes: a 7 new family of quantum ldpc codes on hexagonal-and square- grid connectivity hardware, arXiv:2507.19430 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Tillich and G

    J.-P. Tillich and G. Z ´emor, Quantum ldpc codes with positive rate and minimum distance proportional to the square root of the block length, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory60 (2014)

    2014

  51. [59]

    A. A. Kovalev and L. P. Pryadko, Quantum hypergraph-product ldpc codes with finite rate, Physical Review A88, 012311 (2013)

    2013

  52. [60]

    M. B. Hastings, J. Haah, and R. O’Donnell, Fiber bundle codes: Breaking then 1/2 polylog(n)barrier for quantum ldpc codes, arXiv:2102.10042 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Bergonzoni, R

    M. Bergonzoni, R. R. Riso, and G. Pupillo, Fast quantum gates for neutral atoms separated by a few tens of micrometers, Phys. Rev. Res. (2026)

    2026

  54. [62]

    Ildefonso, A

    P. Ildefonso, A. Byun, A. Konovalov, J. Kazemi, M. Schuler, and W. Lechner, Expanding the neutral atom gate set: Native iswap and exchange gates from dipolar rydberg interactions, arXiv:2512.05037 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Z. Zhu, Y. Kiefer, S. Jele, M. Gachter, G. Bisson, K. Viebahn, and T. Esslinger, Splitting and connecting singlets in atomic quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. X15, 041032 (2025)

    2025

  56. [64]

    Kiefer, Z

    Y. Kiefer, Z. Zhu, L. Fischer, S. Jele, M. Gachter, G. Bisson, K. Viebahn, and T. Esslinger, Protected quantum gates using qubit doublons in dynamical optical lattices, Nature652, 609 (2026)

    2026

  57. [65]

    Kiefer, L

    Y. Kiefer, L. Fischer, Z. Zhu, K. Viebahn, and T. Esslinger, Digital programming of spin correlations in a fermionic lattice quantum simulator, arXiv:2606.13772 (2026)

    2026

  58. [66]

    Calliari, C

    G. Calliari, C. Fromonteil, F. Cesa, T. V. Zache, P. M. Preiss, R. Ott, and H. Pichler, Programmable fermionic quantum pro- cessors with globally controlled lattices, arXiv:2604.13160 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Caravelli, A

    F. Caravelli, A. Abedi, R. Menta and V. Giovannetti, manuscript in preparation (2026)

    2026

  60. [68]

    I. A. Simakov, I. S. Besedin, and A. V. Ustinov, Simulation of the five-qubit quantum error correction code on superconducting qubits, Physical Review A105, 032409 (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    P. Zhao, D. Lan, P. Xu, G. Xue, M. Blank, X. Tan, H. Yu, and Y. Yu, Suppression of static zz interaction in an all- transmon quantum processor, Physical Review Applied16, 024037 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    A flux line allows one to tune the internal frequencies of super- conducting qubits. In particular, for flux-tunable qubits (such as SQUID-based transmons or flux qubits), the qubit frequency is given byω q(t) =ω q(Φ(t)) = p 8ECEJ(Φ), whereE C is the charging energy, determine...

  63. [71]

    8 END MATTER Universality of the globally controlled ring Universality of the scheme follows from a simple property of theconnectivity graphof the architecture, shown in Fig

    We note that the architecture requires at most four global control lines (one per qubit species), but this number can be reduced to three by introducing types-dependent static frequency offsets. 8 END MATTER Universality of the globally controlled ring Universality of the sche...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.