Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Trapping Sets of Detector Error Models

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A finite search over small leafless trapping sets in a circuit-level detector model predicts the error floor of iterative quantum decoders.

desk verdict First exhaustive LETS enumeration on a circuit-level DEM, with a genuine RelayBP error-floor match; the general claim rests on one code and one clean match, but the paper is honest about that. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11516 v1 pith:4AUFDXRJ submitted 2026-08-12 quant-ph

Michele Pacenti , Nithin Raveendran , Bane Vasic This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P7094B35 PACS 03.67.Pp
keywords trappingsetsdetectorerrormodelfloorquantumLDPCcodesiterativedecodingcircuit-levelnoisebivariatebicyclecodemessage-passingdecoders
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 tries to establish that the rare failures of iterative quantum decoders under circuit-level noise can be predicted without Monte Carlo simulation, by enumerating the small graph structures that support them. The authors apply an exhaustive leafless elementary trapping-set search directly to the detector error model of a [[144,12,12]] bivariate bicycle code, then exhaustively inject every weight-three and weight-four fault pattern supported on those structures and sum the probabilities of the patterns that defeat each decoder. The resulting lower-bound estimate reproduces the simulated error floor for RelayBP and stays within one order of magnitude for ImpulseBP and for the paper's own ELMS decoder. If correct, this converts extremely rare logical failure analysis into a finite, reusable structural catalog and quantifies a gap between circuit-level distance and practical decoding.

What carries the argument

The central object is the leafless elementary trapping set (LETS): a set of fault-variable nodes in the detector error model whose induced subgraph has every check of degree one or two, and whose normal-graph representation has no leaf. The carrying mechanism is the dpl-search algorithm, which grows LETS instances from short cycles using dot, path, and lollipop expansions controlled by a completeness table, enumerating all instances up to a_max=5 and b_max=5. The second half of the machinery is exhaustive injection: every weight-one through weight-four fault pattern supported on the union of LETS supports is decoded once, and the per-pattern probabilities of the failures are summed through Eq. (1), giving the lower-bound estimate of the logical error rate per round.

What would settle it

Run the same three decoders at a physical error rate near p = $10^{-4}$, collect every Monte Carlo failure, and check whether each failing fault pattern is supported on an enumerated LETS with a_max=5; discovering any failing weight-four pattern whose support lies only in a non-elementary, leaf-containing, or size-six-or-larger structure would falsify the completeness claim for that decoder.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the low-weight error floor of circuit-level iterative decoders is governed by a finite set of leafless elementary trapping sets in the detector error model, and that exhaustive enumeration followed by exhaustive fault-pattern injection turns the floor into a weighted sum. For the [[144,12,12]] code the search found 92,088,583 LETS instances through (5,5); from their supports the authors built all distinct weight-one through weight-four fault supports and decoded each once. No decoder failed on weight-one or weight-two patterns, RelayBP and ImpulseBP failed on weight-four patterns, and ELMS also failed on weight-three patterns. The summed probabilities of the failing supports give a lower bound on the round logical error rate; for RelayBP it tracks the Monte Carlo curve, and for ImpulseBP and ELMS it lies within one order of magnitude. The paper also shows harmfulness is highly concentrated in a few topology classes, with the same three topologies most harmful for RelayBP and ImpulseBP and still highly ranked for ELMS.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every dominant low-weight failure in the low-error regime is supported on one of the enumerated leafless elementary trapping sets of size at most five; if an important fault pattern lives on a larger, leaf-containing, or non-elementary configuration, the lower-bound estimate misses it and the predicted floor is too low.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same LETS catalog can be reused to estimate the floor of a decoder at any physical error rate by reweighting fault-support probabilities, so extremely low-rate regimes become accessible without direct simulation.
  • All three decoders fail on weight-three or weight-four patterns even though the circuit-level distance is 12, so the gap between code distance and iterative-decoding performance is not an artifact of one heuristic.
  • Harmful failures concentrate in a small set of LETS topology classes; the top three are identical for RelayBP and ImpulseBP and remain highly ranked for ELMS, giving concrete targets for decoder redesign.
  • The estimate is a lower bound, so the shortfall seen for ImpulseBP and ELMS points to failures supported on structures outside the enumerated LETS universe, such as larger or non-elementary trapping sets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the completeness of LETS enumeration carries over to other QLDPC code families, the same pipeline could rank decoders by their structural weaknesses before expensive low-rate Monte Carlo runs; the growing number of LETS instances would likely force pruning by topology class rather than full enumeration.
  • The priors in the estimate are fixed at the p0 = 10^-3 operating point, so at substantially different physical error rates the relative importance of the identified supports could change and the lower bound would need rechecking.
  • One testable extension is to modify a decoder to penalize or escape the identified weight-three and weight-four failure supports; if the error floor drops accordingly, the causal role of the LETSs is confirmed.
  • The cross-decoder overlap of harmful topologies hints at intrinsic DEM subgraphs that are hard for message passing regardless of heuristic; characterizing those subgraphs algebraically could lead to code-design rules that avoid creating them.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a framework for analyzing low-error-rate failures of iterative decoders under circuit-level noise by applying leafless elementary trapping set (LETS) enumeration directly to the detector error model (DEM) of a [[144,12,12]] bivariate bicycle code. The authors enumerate 92,088,583 LETSs with a_max = b_max = 5, exhaustively inject weight-three and weight-four fault patterns supported on these structures, and compute a lower bound on the logical error rate from the noise model without fitting any parameter to simulation. The resulting estimate is compared with Monte Carlo simulations of three decoders: RelayBP, ImpulseBP, and a new ensemble layered min-sum decoder (ELMS). The estimate closely matches the RelayBP curve, lies within one order of magnitude for ImpulseBP and ELMS, and the failure statistics are strongly concentrated in a small number of LETS topology classes that are partly shared across decoders.

Significance. If the central claim is sustained, the framework offers a decoder-agnostic structural route to error-floor estimation that avoids the prohibitive cost of direct Monte Carlo simulation in the low-error regime, with no free parameters fitted to the simulated curves. The paper ships its enumeration code and dataset, inherits a proof of exhaustive enumeration of LETSs from the classical LDPC literature by Hashemi and Banihashemi, and provides a new simple decoder (ELMS) as a benchmark. The topology-level analysis, showing that only a small fraction of enumerated LETS structures are harmful and that certain topologies are harmful across decoders with very different heuristics, is a concrete and useful structural insight for decoder design. The main limitation is that the predictive claim rests on a single code and on a completeness assumption that the paper itself shows is violated for two of the three decoders; the strength of the claims in the abstract and introduction should be aligned with the actual evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section I.A and Section V.A; Eq. (3)] The paper's abstract and introduction assert that trapping-set analysis 'predicts' the error floor, but the evidence supports this only for RelayBP on the [[144,12,12]] code. For ImpulseBP and ELMS, Figures 2 and 3 show the LETS estimate systematically below the Monte Carlo curve, and the text attributes the gap to structures outside the enumerated universe (a=6, ETS with leaves, or non-elementary TS). Since Eq. (3) is only a lower bound unless the omitted support mass is negligible, the completeness of the LETS universe is exactly the load-bearing assumption that converts the bound into a prediction. Please either temper the abstract and Section I claims to 'lower-bound prediction' and 'partial structural characterization', or provide quantitative evidence on the missing mass, for example by a partial enumeration at a=6 or by estimating the contribution of non-LETS supports. Without this, the 'practical framework for predicting error floors' claim is not supported by the reported data.
  2. [Section IV.B and Figures 1-3] No error bars or confidence intervals are reported for either the Monte Carlo data or the LETS estimates. For the randomized decoders (RelayBP and ELMS), Eq. (5) is a single Bernoulli draw per fault support; Eq. (6) gives a variance bound but is never evaluated, and the figures show a single realization of the estimator. The statement that the RelayBP estimate 'closely agrees' with simulation is therefore not a statistical statement. Please add (a) the physical error-rate range and the number of trials/failures for each Monte Carlo point, (b) confidence bands or standard errors for the estimates, and (c) a statement of how many independent realizations of the randomized estimator are shown. This is necessary for the reader to judge whether the discrepancy between the estimate and simulation is significant.
  3. [Section V and Section IV.C; Eq. (7)] The figures display per-round logical error rates down to 10^-15, yet the Monte Carlo protocol described in Section V uses at least 10,000 trials per point, which cannot produce 100 failures at such low rates. It is unclear over which physical error rates the Monte Carlo curves were actually simulated and which parts, if any, are extrapolations; if extrapolated, the fitting procedure should be stated. In addition, Eq. (7) converts the experiment-level logical failure probability over r=12 rounds into a per-round rate under a memoryless assumption, while the DEM contains faults spanning multiple rounds and hence correlated failures. Please clarify whether this conversion is used only for display and whether it materially affects the comparison, or present the experiment-level probabilities directly.
  4. [Section II.E] ELMS is a new decoder introduced in this work and is one of the three anchors of the empirical claims, but its specification is incomplete. The layer partition of the check nodes is not defined, the 'minimum-weight estimate among converged' selection rule is ambiguous in the presence of degenerate syndrome-valid estimates, and the choices of 20 constituent decoders, 100 iterations, and damping alpha=0.95 are given without motivation or a sensitivity check. Please provide a complete pseudocode, or a reference to a public implementation, so that the ELMS results are fully reproducible.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IV and Conclusions] There is an internal inconsistency in the failure-weight statements: Section IV says RelayBP and ImpulseBP fail at weight four and ELMS also at weight three, while the Conclusions say 'all the analyzed decoders fail on some weight-three and weight-four fault patterns'. Please reword the conclusion to match the reported weight-specific observations.
  2. [Section IV.A and Figures 1-3] The decoder priors are fixed at p0=10^-3 for every physical error rate p. Since the LETS estimate and the Monte Carlo simulation both use the same fixed priors, the comparison is internally consistent, but the choice of p0 is arbitrary. A sentence reporting the sensitivity of the estimate (and of the MC comparison) to p0 would strengthen confidence in the results.
  3. [Appendix B] Algorithm numbering is confusing: the qualitative sketch in Section III.C is named Algorithm 1, the full dpl-search in Appendix B is Algorithm 2, and the expansion-table generation in Ref. [13] is also Algorithm 1. Use distinct labels, for example 'Algorithm 1 (sketch)' and 'Algorithm 2 (full search)'.
  4. [Table V and Table VII] The statement that the same three topologies form the top-three set for RelayBP and ImpulseBP is based on unweighted instance counts N_fail(tau). The text already notes this, but the caption of Table V should state explicitly that these are instance-level structural statistics and are not weighted by the physical probabilities of the injected fault patterns.
  5. [Section III.C] The paper would benefit from a short note connecting the failure-spectrum approach of Ref. [28] with the LETS lower bound, for example whether the weight-four failures identified here are also found by the 'fail fast' search of Ref. [28]. This would help the reader place the two methods relative to each other.
  6. [Equation (1)] In Eq. (1), the product over j not in S includes the probability that all other DEM fault variables are absent; for a DEM with many fault variables this factor is close to unity in the low-error regime, but for very large p it can be non-negligible. A brief remark that the estimator is dominated by the first product in the error-floor regime would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the LETS-based error-floor estimate is a self-contained lower bound computed from enumerated structures and decoder runs, then validated against independent Monte Carlo; the acknowledged completeness gaps are a validity limitation, not a circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained relative to its stated goal. The paper enumerates leafless elementary trapping sets (LETSs) structurally using the external dpl-search algorithm of Hashemi and Banihashemi, then exhaustively injects weight-three and weight-four fault patterns on their supports, runs the three decoders on those patterns, and records failures. The error-floor estimate is formed by summing the physical probabilities of the failing supports using the circuit-level DEM fault probabilities (Eqs. (1), (3), (4) and (5)); no constant is fit to the Monte Carlo curves, and the decoder priors are fixed at p0=1e-3 for both the estimate and the simulation. The estimate is, by the paper's own statement, a lower bound: 'It remains a lower bound on the complete logical failure probability because failures outside the tested support universe are not included.' The comparison with Monte Carlo is therefore an empirical test of whether the omitted supports are negligible, not a derivation that presupposes the simulated answer. The fact that RelayBP matches well while ImpulseBP and ELMS fall short is consistent with the lower-bound construction, and the paper explicitly identifies the source of the shortfall as an incomplete support universe ('there exist failures of ImpulseBP that are not currently captured by our LETS analysis; it could be possible that, to fully approach the simulated curve, one needs to extend the search to structures with a=6, ETS with leaves or non-elementary TS'). This is a completeness/validity limitation, not circularity. The load-bearing enumeration algorithm is external [13,14]; self-citations to the authors' earlier trapping-set work are background or negative results and do not force the central claim. No equation reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces no fitted parameters; all probabilities come from the circuit-level noise model. The main imported assumptions are the completeness of dpl-search, the validity of the DEM as a noise model, and the restriction to small leafless elementary trapping sets. Decoder hyperparameters are fixed by hand but not fit to the target curves.

free parameters (4)
  • LETS search bounds (a_max, b_max) = (5, 5)
    Search space limited to a<=5, b<=5 due to memory constraints; defines the universe of tested fault supports and therefore the lower-bound estimate.
  • Decoder prior reference level p0 = 10^-3
    Initial decoder priors fixed at p0=10^-3 for the entire physical-error-rate sweep, a hand-chosen operating point that affects all three decoders.
  • ELMS damping alpha = 0.95
    Hand-set damping for the new ELMS decoder; influences its failure behavior and hence the ELMS error-floor estimate.
  • ELMS ensemble size and max iterations = 20, 100
    Hand-set ensemble size and iteration limit for the new ELMS decoder; part of the decoder definition used in the benchmark.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption dpl-search completeness: dot, path, and lollipop expansions generate all LETS within (a,b) bounds.
    Imported from Hashemi and Banihashemi [13]; the paper does not re-prove completeness for irregular DEM Tanner graphs. The enumeration is the substrate for all failure-support testing.
  • domain assumption The circuit-level DEM faithfully represents the physical noise and its fault variables are independent.
    Eq. (1) multiplies per-fault probabilities; this relies on the standard DEM construction from [29,32] where compressed fault mechanisms are independent.
  • ad hoc to paper Restriction to LETS of size <=5 captures the dominant low-weight failure mechanisms.
    This is the paper's core hypothesis. If false, failing weight-3/4 supports outside the LETS universe are missed, which the authors identify as the likely cause of the shortfall for ImpulseBP and ELMS.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Trapping Sets of Detector Error Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4AUFDXRJ

@misc{pith2026260811516,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Trapping Sets of Detector Error Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4AUFDXRJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11516}
}
read the original abstract

Message-passing decoders are among the most promising candidates for scalable quantum error correction, yet their behavior in the low-error-rate regime remains poorly understood under realistic circuit-level noise. In this work, we introduce a systematic framework for identifying the graph structures that govern decoder failures and for using them to predict the resulting error floor. We apply exhaustive trapping-set enumeration directly to the detector error model of a bivariate bicycle code and test all low-weight fault configurations supported on the resulting structures. This converts the analysis of extremely rare logical failures into a finite structural search, avoiding the prohibitive cost of direct Monte Carlo simulation. We evaluate the framework on three iterative decoders with substantially different architectures and decoding heuristics. Remarkably, for \texttt{RelayBP}, the resulting prediction accurately reproduces the simulated error floor; for the others, it remains within the same order of magnitude. Despite their differences, leafless elementary trapping sets capture a substantial part of the low-weight error-floor contribution for all three decoders. Moreover, each decoder admits failures caused by fault configurations well below the correction capability implied by the circuit-level distance, revealing a substantial gap between code distance and practical iterative-decoding performance. These results establish trapping-set analysis as a practical framework for predicting error floors, exposing the structural weaknesses of iterative decoders, and guiding the joint design of decoding algorithms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11516 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between the Monte Carlo simulation of RelayBP and the error-floor estimate obtained from weight-three and weight-four fault patterns supported on the enumerated LETSs. Both curves show the effective logical error rate per syndrome-extraction round. Class NTS Nfail fTS (%) Ntop Nharm (4, 0) 39 995 0 0 16 0 (4, 2) 176 256 0 0 26 0 (4, 3) 524 088 0 0 63 0 (4, 4) 1 398 780 23 751 1.6980 85 1 (4, 5) 2 496 600 … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison between the Monte Carlo simulation of ELMS and the error-floor estimate obtained from weight-three and weight-four fault patterns supported on the enumerated LETSs. Both curves show the effective logical error rate per syndrome-extraction round. coders fail, ImpulseBP has a smaller failing-instance frac￾tion than RelayBP, with reductions ranging from approx￾imately a factor of 2.5 to a factor of 4. Howeve… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Canonical representatives of the three LETS topology classes forming the top-three set for both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Canonical representatives of the three topology classes associated with the largest numbers of failing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Panteleev and G

    P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, Degenerate Quantum LDPC Codes With Good Finite Length Performance, Quantum5, 585 (2021)

    2021

  2. [2]

    K. Yin, X. Fang, J. Ruan, H. Zhang, D. Tullsen, A. Sornborger, C. Liu, A. Li, T. Humble, and Y. Ding, SymBreak: Mitigating Quantum Degeneracy Issues in QLDPC Code Decoders by Breaking Symmetry (2024), arXiv:2412.02885

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Tsubouchi, H

    K. Tsubouchi, H. Yamasaki, and S. Tamiya, Degeneracy Cutting: A Local and Efficient Post-Processing for Belief Propagation Decoding of Quantum Low-Density Parity- Check Codes (2026), arXiv:2510.08695

    arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    Müller, T

    T. Müller, T. Alexander, M. E. Beverland, M. Bühler, B. R. Johnson, T. Maurer, and D. Vandeth, Improved belief propagation is sufficient for real-time decoding of quantum memory (2025), arXiv:2506.01779

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    M. Ye, D. Wecker, and N. Delfosse, Beam search decoder for quantum low-density parity-check codes, PRX Quan- tum7, 033002 (2026)

    work page 2026

  6. [6]

    Valentini, D

    L. Valentini, D. Forlivesi, A. Talarico, and M. Chiani, Restart Belief: A General Quantum LDPC Decoder (2025), arXiv:2511.13281

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    A.S.Maan, F.M.GarciaHerrero, A.Paler,andV.Savin, Decoding correlated errors in quantum LDPC codes, Na- ture Communications17, 3965 (2026)

    work page 2026

  8. [8]

    Bhatnagar, M

    S. Bhatnagar, M. Pacenti, N. Raveendran, D. Declercq, and B. Vasić, Impulse decoding of quantum ldpc codes: Equivalence of degeneracy and code-shortening (2026), arXiv:2606.18240

    arXiv 2026

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Raveendran and B

    N. Raveendran and B. Vasić, Trapping Sets of Quantum LDPC Codes, Quantum5, 562 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Vasić, S

    B. Vasić, S. K. Chilappagari, D. V. Nguyen, and S. K. Planjery, Trapping set ontology, in2009 47th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton)(2009) pp. 1–7

    2009

  3. [11]

    C. Di, D. Proietti, I. Telatar, T. Richardson, and R. Ur- banke, Finite-length analysis of low-density parity-check codes on the binary erasure channel, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory48, 1570 (2002)

    2002

  4. [12]

    Amiri, C.-W

    B. Amiri, C.-W. Lin, and L. Dolecek, Asymptotic distri- bution of absorbing sets and fully absorbing sets for reg- ular sparse code ensembles, IEEE Transactions on Com- munications61, 455 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Hashemi and A

    Y. Hashemi and A. H. Banihashemi, Characterization of Elementary Trapping Sets in Irregular LDPC Codes and the Corresponding Efficient Exhaustive Search Al- gorithms, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory64, 3411 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Hashemi and A

    Y. Hashemi and A. H. Banihashemi, New Characteriza- tion and Efficient Exhaustive Search Algorithm for Leaf- lessElementaryTrappingSetsofVariable-RegularLDPC Codes, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory62, 6713 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    S. K. Planjery, D. Declercq, L. Danjean, and B. Va- sic, Finite Alphabet Iterative Decoders—Part I: Decod- ing Beyond Belief Propagation on the Binary Symmet- ric Channel, IEEE Transactions on Communications61, 4033 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    Declercq, B

    D. Declercq, B. Vasic, S. K. Planjery, and E. Li, Finite Alphabet Iterative Decoders—Part II: Towards Guaran- teed Error Correction of LDPC Codes via Iterative De- coder Diversity, IEEE Transactions on Communications 61, 4046 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Zhang and C

    S. Zhang and C. Schlegel, Controlling the Error Floor in LDPCDecoding,IEEETransactionsonCommunications 61, 3566 (2013). 16

    2013

  10. [18]

    D. V. Nguyen, S. K. Chilappagari, M. W. Marcellin, and B. Vasic, On the construction of structured ldpc codes free of small trapping sets, IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory58, 2280 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Battaglioni, F

    M. Battaglioni, F. Chiaraluce, M. Baldi, M. Pacenti, and D. G. M. Mitchell, Optimizing quasi-cyclic spa- tially coupled LDPC codes by eliminating harmful ob- jects, EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking2023, 67 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    J. Wang, L. Dolecek, Z. Zhang, and R. Wesel, Absorbing set spectrum approach for practical code design, in2011 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory Proceedings(2011) pp. 2726–2730

    2011

  13. [21]

    A. K. Pradhan, N. Raveendran, N. Rengaswamy, X. Xiao, and B. Vasić, Learning to decode trapping sets in qldpc codes, in2023 12th International Symposium on Topics in Coding (ISTC)(2023) pp. 1–5

    2023

  14. [22]

    A. K. Pradhan, N. Raveendran, N. Rengaswamy, and B. Vasić, Linear time iterative decoders for hypergraph- product and lifted-product codes, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory72, 4618 (2026)

    2026

  15. [23]

    Chytas, M

    D. Chytas, M. Pacenti, N. Raveendran, M. F. Flanagan, and B. Vasić, Enhanced Message-Passing Decoding of Degenerate Quantum Codes Utilizing Trapping Set Dy- namics, IEEE Communications Letters28, 444 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Chytas, N

    D. Chytas, N. Raveendran, and B. Vasić, Collective Bit Flipping-Based Decoding of Quantum LDPC Codes, IEEE Transactions on Communications73, 5566 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Chytas, N

    D. Chytas, N. Raveendran, and B. Vasić, Enhanced Min- Sum Decoding of Quantum Codes with Iteration Dynam- ics Memory, in2025 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT)(2025) pp. 1–6

    2025

  18. [26]

    Chytas, P

    D. Chytas, P. N. Fessatidis, B. A. Bash, and B. Vasić, Edge-Based Anisotropic Decoding for Generalized Bicy- cle Codes (2026), arXiv:2605.03218

    2026 arXiv

  19. [27]

    K. D. Morris, T. Pllaha, and C. A. Kelley, Absorbing Sets in Quantum LDPC Codes (2024), arXiv:2307.14532

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    M. E. Beverland, M. Carroll, A. W. Cross, and T. J. Yo- der, Fail fast: techniques to probe rare events in quantum error correction (2025), arXiv:2511.15177

    2025

  21. [29]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, High-Threshold and Low- Overhead Fault-Tolerant Quantum Memory, Nature 627, 778 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Error-Correction-Lab, dem_trapping_sets: Trapping- set enumeration for circuit-level detector error mod- els,https://github.com/Error-Correction-Lab/dem_ trapping_sets(2026), gitHub repository

    2026

  23. [31]

    A. R. Calderbank and P. W. Shor, Good Quantum Error- Correcting Codes Exist, Physical Review A54, 1098 (1996)

    1996

  24. [32]

    Hillmann, G

    T. Hillmann, G. Dauphinais, I. Tzitrin, and M. Vasmer, Single-shot and measurement-based quantum error cor- rection via fault complexes, Phys. Rev. A112, L040401 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    G. B. Kyung and C.-C. Wang, Finding the exhaustive list of small fully absorbing sets and designing the corre- sponding low error-floor decoder, IEEE Transactions on Communications60, 1487 (2012)

    2012

  26. [34]

    Raveendran, D

    N. Raveendran, D. Declercq, and B. Vasić, A sub-graph expansion-contraction method for error floor computa- tion, IEEE Transactions on Communications68, 3984 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    A. Gong, S. Cammerer, and J. M. Renes, Toward Low- latency Iterative Decoding of QLDPC Codes Under Circuit-Level Noise (2024), arXiv:2403.18901

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    whitened

    M. Pacenti, A. K. Pradhan, S. K. Borah, and B. Vasić, Turbo-AnnihilationofHookErrorsinStabilizerMeasure- ment Circuits, in2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 01 (2025) pp. 148–157. Appendix A: Structure of the DEM In this Appendi...

    2025

  29. [37]

    For each cycleQ, letS= Var(Q)be its variable- node support andChk(Q)its check-node set

    Enumeration of simple cycles Algorithm 3, denoted byenumerate_cycles, enumer- ates all chordless simple cycles containingkvariable nodes, or equivalently having Tanner-graph length2k. For each cycleQ, letS= Var(Q)be its variable- node support andChk(Q)its check-node set. The c...

  30. [38]

    A nodev /∈Sis con- sidered only if|N(v)∩No(S)|≥2andN(v)∩N e(S) =∅

    Dot expansion Algorithm 4, denoted bydot_expansion, adds one variable node to a supportS∈Ia,b k . A nodev /∈Sis con- sidered only if|N(v)∩No(S)|≥2andN(v)∩N e(S) =∅. The first condition ensures thatvis connected to the parent through at least two unsatisfied checks, while the s...

  31. [39]

    The parametermdenotes the number of new variable nodes

    Path expansion Algorithm 5, denoted bypath_expansion, connects two distinct checks inN o(S)through a new alternat- ing path. The parametermdenotes the number of new variable nodes. A path expansion therefore has the formp= (c 0,v 1,c 1,...,c m−1,vm,cm), wherec 0,cm ∈ No(S)are ...

  32. [40]

    The parameter mdenotes the total number of variable nodes introduced by the expansion

    Lollipop expansion Algorithm 6, denoted bylollipop_expansion, con- nects a supportS∈I a,b k to a simple cycleCcontainingc variable nodes through a path, orstem. The parameter mdenotes the total number of variable nodes introduced by the expansion. Definingd=m+ 1−c, the cycle c...

  33. [41]

    The resulting cycles are classi- fied by their values ofkandband inserted into the cor- responding collectionsI k,b k

    Complete exhaustive-search procedure Algorithm 2 first invokesenumerate_cyclesfork= g/2,g/2 + 1,...,a max. The resulting cycles are classi- fied by their values ofkandband inserted into the cor- responding collectionsI k,b k . For each initial cycle size k, the structures are ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.