Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 65 references

For measurement-based GHZ preparation, optimal decoding means maximizing the expected squared magnetization of the corrected state—and a syndrome-weighted matching algorithm comes within 87% of that ideal.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 01:11 UTC pith:A4OQDL5V

load-bearing objection The practical result—syndrome-weighted MWPM—is real and useful, but the 'optimal decoder' branding outruns the certification, and the off-diagonal gap-closing percentages sit on a yardstick the authors themselves flag as unresolved. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2608.00160 v1 pith:A4OQDL5V submitted 2026-07-31 quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mech

Optimal Decoding for Measurement-Based GHZ State Preparation: The Maximum-Utility Decoder

Misha Yutushui , Theo Haas , Simon Trebst This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mech PACS 03.67.Pp
keywords maximum-utility decoderGHZ state preparationmeasurement-based quantum computingminimum-weight perfect matchingBayesian decision theoryrandom-bond Ising modelNishimori linedecoding threshold
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Measurement-based preparation of GHZ states leaves a random 'glassy' state whose long-range order must be restored by a classical decoder. This paper argues that the right decoding target is a continuous observable—the squared magnetization of the decoded state—not the binary logical recovery optimized by standard decoders such as minimum-weight perfect matching (MWPM). Framing decoding as minimum Bayesian risk inference, it defines a maximum-utility decoder (MUD) that provably maximizes per-shot decoded order, and a scalable two-stage approximation: a syndrome-weighted MWPM followed by a convolutional neural network refinement. The key reported result is that simply weighting the syndrome edges by their measured sign moves the decoding threshold close to the optimal limit, closing up to 87% of the threshold gap at systems up to 256×256 qubits. If correct, this recasts decoder design as a choice of utility function and makes near-optimal GHZ preparation computationally cheap.

Core claim

The central claim is that a decoder for measurement-based GHZ state preparation should maximize the expected squared magnetization ⟨M̂²⟩ of the corrected state rather than the probability of a correct logical recovery. Because the bit-flip correction τ enters only through τ_i σ_i, the expected utility is exactly the quadratic form (1/N²) τᵀ C(s) τ, where C_ij(s) = ⟨σ_i σ_j⟩_s is the spin-spin correlation matrix of the random-bond Ising model conditioned on the measured syndromes. Maximizing this form is the maximum-utility decoder (MUD); the paper shows it attains the highest possible per-shot decoded order. For scalability, the paper proposes a syndrome-weighted MWPM whose edge weights depe

What carries the argument

The central object is the maximum-utility decoder (MUD): given a measured syndrome configuration s, it returns the correction τ maximizing the expected squared magnetization, which reduces to maximizing τᵀ C(s) τ with C_ij(s)=⟨σ_i σ_j⟩_s, a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problem. Two concrete mechanisms carry the scalable approximation. First, syndrome-weighted MWPM assigns each edge a weight w_ij = J_+ (if s_ij=1) or |J_-| (if s_ij=-1), so the matching distinguishes ferromagnetic from antiferromagnetic bonds and removes most of the degeneracy of shortest correction paths. Second, a convolutional neural network takes the syndrome and the baseline correction chain as input

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark 'optimal threshold' used to measure near-optimality is the decoder-independent entanglement transition; if that entanglement threshold is not, in fact, the best achievable decoding threshold—something the paper's own finite-size extrapolation of the exact MUD hints at—then the reported closing fractions overestimate how close the scalable decoders come to optimal.

What would settle it

Extrapolate the exact MUD threshold to the thermodynamic limit using improved finite-size scaling (larger L via truncated MUD or better fits) along a fixed cut such as t_B=0.7 π/4; if the extrapolated MUD threshold lies clearly above the entanglement threshold extracted from I_c and C^(2)_c, then the entanglement benchmark is not the true decoding optimum and the reported 86% gap-closing overstates near-optimality. Alternatively, measure the MWPM threshold at two points with identical sin(2t_A) sin(2t_B); disagreement beyond numerical error would refute the leading-order gauge-oblivious bounda

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

If this is right

  • Away from the Nishimori line, the full syndrome configuration carries decoding information that gauge-invariant fluxes alone discard; weighting matching edges by syndrome sign exploits this at no extra cost beyond bare MWPM.
  • At N=256×256, the syndrome-weighted first stage alone closes up to 87% of the threshold gap between bare MWPM and the optimal entanglement-limited value, with the largest gain on the maximally gauge-broken diagonal t_A=t_B.
  • The hybrid-CNN decoder restores additional long-range order, especially on the Nishimori line where syndrome weights are trivial, and comes within about 3% of the exact MUD across the studied range.
  • Because MUD reduces to MWPM or MLD for binary utilities, the maximum-utility framework generalizes standard surface-code decoding and can be re-targeted by redefining the utility function, e.g., to bitwise MAP or operation-tailored goals.
  • The phase boundary of any gauge-oblivious decoder is set by the product sin(2t_A) sin(2t_B) = const to leading order, so threshold curves in the (t_A,t_B) plane should be circular around the strong-measurement point.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's near-optimality percentages use the decoder-independent entanglement threshold as the 'optimal' benchmark; the paper itself notes in Appendix D that its extrapolated exact-MUD threshold appears somewhat larger than that entanglement value, so the 87% figure could be an overestimate—or a hint of a genuine decodability–entanglement separation.
  • A direct test of the leading-order gauge-oblivious prediction: two parameter points (t_A,t_B) with the same value of sin(2t_A) sin(2t_B) should have identical MWPM thresholds up to corrections of order 10⁻³; measuring the difference would isolate gauge-symmetry breaking effects.
  • The utility-maximization framing suggests a design principle beyond GHZ states: for any decoding task with a continuous figure of merit—logical-gate fidelity, operation success probability, metrological sensitivity—one can define a custom utility and use the same QUBO-plus-refinement pipeline, with hardware noise in the feedback itself folded into the utility.
  • Because the bitwise magnetization utility yields the simple rule τ_i = sign⟨σ_i⟩_s and avoids the Heaviside nonlinearity of blockwise MLD, it is plausible that bitwise MUD delivers competitive logical fidelity at a fraction of the cost; the paper leaves this quantitative comparison for future work.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper frames decoding for measurement-based GHZ state preparation as minimum Bayesian risk inference with a continuous utility, specifically the squared magnetization of the decoded state. It shows that maximizing this utility is equivalent to a QUBO problem over the spin-spin correlation matrix, constructs an exact 'maximum-utility decoder' (MUD) for small systems, and proposes two scalable approximations: syndrome-weighted MWPM (SW-MWPM) and a hybrid CNN-refined decoder. The central quantitative claims are that SW-MWPM closes up to 87% of the threshold gap between bare MWPM and the optimal decoder, and that the hybrid-CNN decoder is within a few percent of the exact MUD's squared magnetization.

Significance. If the results hold, the maximum-utility framework is a genuinely useful generalization of decoding: it replaces binary logical-recovery utilities with a continuous, operationally motivated figure of merit and reduces to MLD/MWPM in known limits. The clean change of variables in App. A 1, the exact QUBO reformulation, the analytic gauge-oblivious threshold curve in App. E, and the large-scale SW-MWPM simulations are notable strengths. The numerical data are promised on Zenodo, and the paper is transparent about several finite-size and certification limitations. However, the headline 'near-optimal' threshold claim depends on an unresolved choice of benchmark, and the abstract's blanket 'highest possible per-shot' claim is stronger than the implemented certification procedure supports. These issues are local and repairable, but they affect the paper's central quantitative message.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eq. (17), Sec. V B, Apps. C-D] The central quantitative claim that SW-MWPM closes 86/85/64% of the gap to the optimal threshold for t_B=0.7/0.8/0.9 uses t_c^opt obtained from the decoder-independent entanglement transition (App. C). Yet App. D and Fig. 12 report that the extrapolated exact-MUD threshold does not coincide with this entanglement threshold away from t_A=t_B, and the paper itself states that the discrepancy is unresolved (linear-extrapolation curvature vs. a genuine separation). Eq. (17)'s denominator is therefore not established as the threshold of the decoder that maximizes the paper's own utility function. The diagonal 87% value is protected because the two benchmarks agree there, but the phase-diagram-wide 'near-optimal' statement and the 86/85/64% numbers are not robustly anchored. Please report T relative to the exact-MUD threshold where available, or explicitly treat the entanglement value as a bou
  2. [Abstract, Sec. IV A, App. A 2] The abstract claims the algorithm 'achieves the highest possible per-shot decoded quantum order.' The exact MUD is the argmax of the expected utility by definition, but the implemented solver solves an NP-hard QUBO: the local-search solution is certified only when the S matrix is positive semidefinite, and the certificate fails on 19.8%, 28.7%, and 27.0% of samples for L=8, 16, and 20, with branch-and-bound allowed to terminate without a proof. Thus the implemented decoder is not always proven to attain the global maximum. Please qualify the optimality claim (e.g., 'provably optimal in all certified cases; otherwise a heuristic') or provide additional verification for the uncertified instances, especially in the parameter regime where the GHZ state is recoverable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (17)] Define t_c^opt explicitly for the one-dimensional cuts: as written, it appears to be a point in the (t_A,t_B) plane rather than a threshold on a fixed-t_B sweep.
  2. [Figs. 2 and 4] State explicitly in all captions that measurement strengths are in units of pi/4 and that axes such as 1-t_A and 1-t_B run from strong measurement at 0 to weak measurement at the opposite corner.
  3. [App. D] The statement that the data for the optimal decoding threshold 'seem to have a little curvature' should be quantified. A short discussion of alternative extrapolation forms (e.g., including a quadratic term or restricting to larger L) would strengthen confidence in the threshold estimates used in Eq. (17).
  4. [Sec. V B] The phrase 'the threshold is an intrinsic property of a given decoder' is slightly misleading: the threshold is decoder-dependent and is extracted through finite-size extrapolation. Consider rewording to 'the threshold for a given decoder.'
  5. [Footnote [36]] The footnote equates a shot fidelity of 1 with <M^2>=1, but the relation to the standard state fidelity for mixed decoded states is not spelled out. A one-sentence clarification would help readers connect the utility to conventional figures of merit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the optimality claim is an explicitly derived consequence of the chosen utility, and the benchmark comparisons are external to the MUD construction.

full rationale

The paper's central identity, Eq. (A6) (equivalently Eqs. (9)-(13)), shows that the decoded squared magnetization equals the expected utility E[U] for the utility U(τ,σ)=(1/N Σ σ_i τ_i)^2. The maximum-utility decoder is then defined as the maximizer of this expected utility, so the statement that it achieves the highest possible expected ⟨M̂²⟩ is a direct consequence of the definition and is presented as such, not as an empirical prediction. The comparisons are not forced: bare MWPM minimizes a different objective (syndrome-chain weight), and SW-MWPM's weights are derived from the fully-polarized-energy expression, Eq. (14), with no fitting to the optimal decoder's output. The CNN is trained to maximize the same utility using simulated labels σ from the joint distribution, which is standard supervised learning rather than a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction. The 'optimal threshold' benchmark used in Eq. (17) is the decoder-independent entanglement transition computed in Appendix C; it is external to the utility-maximization construction. Appendix D openly reports that the exact-MUD threshold lies above this entanglement threshold away from the diagonal and states that the source of the discrepancy is unresolved; this is a benchmark-accuracy caveat, not a circular step. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [25], [52], [54], [38]) provide background models and numerical methods, but the key derivations and calculations are reproduced in the present paper (Appendices A-E), and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the central result. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own input beyond the transparent definitional optimality of MUD.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's theoretical contribution is the decoder design; it imports the RBIM mapping (Ref. [25]), the entanglement-transition observables (Ref. [52]), the Kac-Ward machinery, and the hybrid two-stage decoder concept (Ref. [38]) from prior literature, much of it the authors' own group. The new algorithmic elements — syndrome-weighted matching (Eq. 15), the MUD-utility QUBO, and the CNN refinement — introduce no new physical entities and no fitted physical parameters; the only fitted quantities are ML hyperparameters and the correlation-truncation radius. The single externally anchored number is the literature value p_c = 0.103 used in the gauge-oblivious threshold curve (App. E), which the paper does not fit to new data.

free parameters (4)
  • Correlation-matrix truncation radius r_max (truncated MUD) = 4 (lattice spacings)
    Hand-chosen: C_ij = 0 for |i−j| > r_max to cut runtime; justified by correlation decay away from the strong-measurement limit (App. A 2, Fig. 11); affects the truncated-MUD thresholds in Fig. 11.
  • CNN learned weights and loss-schedule hyperparameters = 990,401 parameters; λ ramp (0.3,0.3,0.2)→(1.0,0.02,0.04)
    12 FiLM residual blocks, 64 channels, 3×3 kernel (App. B). Trained on simulated data to minimize L_M = −⟨M̂²⟩ plus BCE/alignment regularizers; neither the architecture nor the schedule was tuned to the benchmark thresholds.
  • Nishimori error rate p_c imported for the gauge-oblivious threshold curve = 0.103 (→ sin(2t_A)sin(2t_B) = 0.794 = 1−2p_c)
    App. E's 'analytic' MWPM threshold curve obtains its constant from the literature value p_c, so the curve is not parameter-free nor fitted to the new data; the numerical agreement is then presented as support.
  • Expanding-window 1/L threshold extrapolation = L_0 = 7–20, linear fits in 1/L
    All threshold values (Figs. 4, 10, 11) are linear extrapolations; Appendix D concedes possible curvature in the MUD threshold data, one candidate explanation of the entanglement-vs-MUD threshold discrepancy.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Gate imperfections are modeled exactly as asymmetric coherent rotations R_ZZ(2t_A/B), yielding the joint spin-syndrome distribution Eq. (5) and the RBIM Hamiltonian Eq. (4).
    The entire decoder design and threshold analysis depends on this noise model (Sec. III, from Zhu et al. [25]); incoherent errors, readout noise, and measurement imperfections are not included, so quantitative transfer to hardware with different dominant errors is not guaranteed.
  • domain assumption The correlation matrix C_ij(s) is rank-1 dominant with a large spectral gap in the ordered phase, making the exact-MUD QUBO solvable in polynomial time.
    Stated as an empirical finding (App. A 2, Fig. 6) without proof; load-bearing for the claim that an exact 'optimal' MUD is achievable and for extrapolating the MUD threshold to L > 20.
  • domain assumption The decoder-independent entanglement transition (from I_c and C_c^(2)) is the optimal decoding threshold.
    Appendix C-D; the paper itself reports the entanglement threshold is somewhat smaller than the extrapolated exact-MUD threshold and cannot rule out a genuine separation (Ref. [55]); the headline gap-closing percentages (Eq. 17) use the entanglement value as t_opt.
  • standard math Optimal decoding = maximizing expected utility over the posterior P(σ|s) (Eq. 1).
    Textbook Bayesian decision theory (Ref. [34]); this axiom defines MUD and is not a physical assumption.
  • standard math The Kac-Ward formula computes all two-point spin correlations of the 2D RBIM exactly.
    Used to assemble C_ij(s) for the exact MUD (App. A 2); a standard exact method (Refs. [45-49]) for these models.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22414 in / 34011 out tokens · 372745 ms · 2026-08-04T01:11:02.308603+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The meticulous preparation of macroscopic Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) states provides a foundational resource for quantum technologies such as metrology, cryptography, and fault-tolerant codes. While state-of-the-art measurement-based protocols offer efficient low-depth execution, their performance can be bottlenecked by conventional decoders, such as minimum weight perfect matching (MWPM) or even maximum-likelihood decoding (MLD), which optimize for $binary$ logical recovery and fail to maximize the $continuous$ long-range order characteristic of a GHZ state for two-dimensional geometries. Here we overcome this limitation by framing the decoding problem as minimum Bayesian risk inference, introducing a general paradigm that maximizes the expected ${utility}$ of the decoded state. Implementing this maximum-utility approach, we construct an algorithm that achieves the highest possible per-shot decoded quantum order and thereby establish an optimal decoding strategy for measurement-based GHZ state preparation. To improve its computational efficiency, we design a scalable two-stage decoder, which first encodes the syndromes into the edge weights of MWPM and then refines the result with a convolutional neural network trained to maximize the expected utility, at a fraction of the cost of the optimal decoder. Remarkably, we find that the first stage alone$\unicode{x2014}$which makes the matching aware of the gauge choice at no cost beyond bare MWPM$\unicode{x2014}$already performs near-optimally up to the largest sizes we study, $N=256\times256$, closing up to $87\%$ of the gap between the bare-MWPM and optimal decoding thresholds. Generalizing MWPM and MLD, the maximum-utility decoder (MUD) establishes a versatile framework that can be explicitly tailored to the operational demands of specific experiments by redefining the utility function.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00160 by Misha Yutushui, Simon Trebst, Theo Haas.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    (9), and the expected utility in Eq

    The expected utility as a quantum expectation value We first explicitly derive the relation between the quantum expectation value of the magnetization squared, Eq. (9), and the expected utility in Eq. (12). Using the gauge symmetry, the partition function ˜Z[s,τ]of the Hamiltonian Eq. (10) can be explicitly rewritten as ˜Z[s,τ] = X σ eβ P ⟨ij⟩ Jsij τiσiτj...

  2. [2]

    The expected utility in the form Eq

    Exact MUD The equivalence of quantum and classical expectation val- ues allows us to reformulate the exact MUD decision in terms of a standard computational problem—the quadratic uncon- strained binary optimization [37], which in general is strongly NP-hard. The expected utility in the form Eq. (A5) can be expressed in terms of the spin-spin correlation f...

  3. [3]

    The former two we study for the lin- ear system sizes of up toL= 20andL= 32, respectively, while the latter two are amenable to the lattice sizesL= 256 andL= 64, respectively

    Performance of the optimal and truncated MUD decoders The exact optimal and truncated MUD decoders are much more numerically demanding than the SW-MWPM or even hybrid-CNN decoders. The former two we study for the lin- ear system sizes of up toL= 20andL= 32, respectively, while the latter two are amenable to the lattice sizesL= 256 andL= 64, respectively. ...

  4. [4]

    9.Second momentC (2) c and domain-wall entropyI c.The data are presented along the radial linet A =t B =π/4−t rad

    Model and training details Model.—Specifically, we use the residual CNN with Feature-Wise Linear Modulation (FiLM) to encode the infor- 11 (a) (b) second moment Cc (2) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 tc = 0.625 𝜋/4 𝜈 = 1.59 measurement strength t[𝜋/4] 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 domain-wall entropy Ic 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 tc = 0.627 𝜋/4 𝜈 = 1.54 xL −1 0 1 xL −1 0 1 linear...

  5. [5]

    Therefore, for a specific configurations, we computeC s as a contraction of the tensor network closely following Ref

    Numerical technique Since we are interested in the nonlinear moments ofC s, we cannot use the procedure defined in the main text, which relies on computing averages of the joint distributionP(σ,s). Therefore, for a specific configurations, we computeC s as a contraction of the tensor network closely following Ref. [25]. We define the tensor network on a(L...

  6. [6]

    Finite-size analysis BothI c andC (2) c exhibit threshold behavior shown in Fig. 9. However, even on the Nishimori line, the thresholds obtained from the data collapse forL≤20deviate from the value reported in the literature. We attribute this discrepancy to finite-size effects and open boundary contributions. We extrapolate the data to the thermodynamic ...

  7. [7]

    For concrete- ness, we assume that the logical state is|1⟩ L, and the logical information is restored by the decoder if⟨ ˆMz⟩dec >0

    Maximum likelihood decoder In the repetition code, the logical information is preserved if, after the correction, the majority of the data qubits point in the same direction as the original logical state. For concrete- ness, we assume that the logical state is|1⟩ L, and the logical information is restored by the decoder if⟨ ˆMz⟩dec >0. Given the observed ...

  8. [8]

    This choice of utility function is analytically intractable due to the nonlinearity of theθ-function

    Maximum-utility decoder The MLD for the 2D repetition code can be formulated as MUD with expected utility given by the logical recovery prob- ability PL(τ|s) = X σ U(τ,σ)P(σ|s),(F4) and the utility function UMLD(τ,σ) =θ X i σiτi ! ,(F5) whereθ(x)is a Heaviside step function. This choice of utility function is analytically intractable due to the nonlineari...

  9. [9]

    D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, Going Be- yond Bell’s Theorem, inBell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1989) pp. 69–72

    1989

  10. [10]

    J. J. . Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and D. J. Heinzen, Optimal frequency measurements with maximally correlated states, Phys. Rev. A54, R4649 (1996)

    1996

  11. [11]

    Leibfried, M

    D. Leibfried, M. D. Barrett, T. Schaetz, J. Britton, J. Chiaverini, W. M. Itano, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, and D. J. Wineland, To- ward Heisenberg-Limited Spectroscopy with Multiparticle En- tangled States, Science304, 1476 (2004)

    2004

  12. [12]

    Giovannetti, S

    V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum-Enhanced Measurements: Beating the Standard Quantum Limit, Science 306, 1330 (2004)

    2004

  13. [13]

    Giovannetti, S

    V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quan- tum metrology, Nature Photonics5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  14. [14]

    C. D. Marciniak, T. Feldker, I. Pogorelov, R. Kaubruegger, D. V . Vasilyev, R. van Bijnen, P. Schindler, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and T. Monz, Optimal metrology with programmable quantum sensors, Nature603, 604 (2022)

    2022

  15. [15]

    Hillery, V

    M. Hillery, V . Bužek, and A. Berthiaume, Quantum secret shar- ing, Phys. Rev. A59, 1829 (1999)

    1999

  16. [16]

    Cleve, D

    R. Cleve, D. Gottesman, and H.-K. Lo, How to Share a Quan- tum Secret, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 648 (1999)

    1999

  17. [17]

    Chen, A.-N

    Y .-A. Chen, A.-N. Zhang, Z. Zhao, X.-Q. Zhou, C.-Y . Lu, C.- Z. Peng, T. Yang, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental Quantum Se- cret Sharing and Third-Man Quantum Cryptography, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 200502 (2005)

    2005

  18. [18]

    L. K. Grover, Quantum Telecomputation (1997), arXiv:quant- ph/9704012

    arXiv 1997

  19. [19]

    J. I. Cirac, A. K. Ekert, S. F. Huelga, and C. Macchiavello, Dis- tributed quantum computation over noisy channels, Phys. Rev. A59, 4249 (1999)

    1999

  20. [20]

    de Bone, R

    S. de Bone, R. Ouyang, K. Goodenough, and D. Elkouss, Pro- tocols for Creating and Distilling Multipartite GHZ States With Bell Pairs, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering1, 1 (2020)

    2020

  21. [21]

    P. W. Shor, Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum com- puter memory, Phys. Rev. A52, R2493 (1995)

    1995

  22. [22]

    P. W. Shor, Fault-tolerant quantum computation, inProceedings of 37th conference on foundations of computer science(IEEE,

  23. [23]

    Guillaud and M

    J. Guillaud and M. Mirrahimi, Repetition Cat Qubits for Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation, Phys. Rev. X9, 041053 (2019)

    2019

  24. [24]

    Takeda, A

    K. Takeda, A. Noiri, T. Nakajima, T. Kobayashi, and S. Tarucha, Quantum error correction with silicon spin qubits, Nature608, 682 (2022)

    2022

  25. [25]

    Bergamaschi and Y

    T. Bergamaschi and Y . Liu, On Fault Tolerant Single-Shot Log- ical State Preparation and Robust Long-Range Entanglement, in16th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Confer- ence (ITCS 2025), Leibniz International Proceedings in Infor- matics (LIPIcs), V ol. 325, edited by R. Meka (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Dagstuhl, German...

    2025

  26. [26]

    Putterman, K

    H. Putterman, K. Noh, C. T. Hann, G. S. MacCabe, S. Aghaeimeibodi, R. N. Patel, M. Lee, W. M. Jones, H. Moradinejad, R. Rodriguez, N. Mahuli, J. Rose, J. C. Owens, H. Levine, E. Rosenfeld, P. Reinhold, L. Moncelsi, J. A. Alcid, N. Alidoust, P. Arrangoiz-Arriola, J. Barnett, P. Bienias, H. A. Carson, C. Chen, L. Chen, H. Chinkezian, E. M. Chisholm, M.-H. C...

    2025

  27. [27]

    Bravyi, M

    S. Bravyi, M. B. Hastings, and F. Verstraete, Lieb-Robinson Bounds and the Generation of Correlations and Topological Quantum Order, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 050401 (2006)

    2006

  28. [28]

    M. B. Hastings, Locality in quantum systems, inQuantum The- ory from Small to Large Scales: Lecture Notes of the Les Houches Summer School: V olume 95, August 2010, edited by J. Frohlich, M. Salmhofer, V . Mastropietro, W. De Roeck, and L. F. Cugliandolo (Oxford University Press, 2012)

    2010

  29. [29]

    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

  30. [30]

    Raussendorf and H

    R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A One-Way Quantum Com- puter, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5188 (2001)

    2001

  31. [31]

    Verresen, N

    R. Verresen, N. Tantivasadakarn, and A. Vishwanath, Ef- ficiently preparing Schrödinger’s cat, fractons and non- Abelian topological order in quantum devices (2021), arXiv:2112.03061

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    T.-C. Lu, L. A. Lessa, I. H. Kim, and T. H. Hsieh, Measurement as a Shortcut to Long-Range Entangled Quantum Matter, PRX Quantum3, 040337 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    G.-Y . Zhu, N. Tantivasadakarn, A. Vishwanath, S. Trebst, and R. Verresen, Nishimori’s Cat: Stable Long-Range Entangle- ment from Finite-Depth Unitaries and Weak Measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 200201 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    J. Y . Lee, W. Ji, Z. Bi, and M. Fisher, Decoding measurement- prepared quantum phases and transitions: From Ising model to gauge theory, and beyond (2022), arXiv:2208.11699

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    E. H. Chen, G.-Y . Zhu, R. Verresen, A. Seif, E. Bäumer, D. Lay- den, N. Tantivasadakarn, G. Zhu, S. Sheldon, A. Vishwanath, S. Trebst, and A. Kandala, Nishimori transition across the error threshold for constant-depth quantum circuits, Nature Physics 21, 161 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    Dennis, A

    E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Topological quantum memory, Journal of Mathematical Physics43, 4452 (2002)

    2002

  37. [37]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum compu- tation, Phys. Rev. A86, 032324 (2012)

    2012

  38. [38]

    deMarti iOlius, P

    A. deMarti iOlius, P. Fuentes, R. Orús, P. M. Crespo, and J. Etxezarreta Martinez, Decoding algorithms for surface codes, Quantum8, 1498 (2024)

    2024

  39. [39]

    Kolmogorov, Blossom V: A New Implementation of a Min- imum Cost Perfect Matching Algorithm, Mathematical Pro- gramming Computation1, 43 (2009)

    V . Kolmogorov, Blossom V: A New Implementation of a Min- imum Cost Perfect Matching Algorithm, Mathematical Pro- gramming Computation1, 43 (2009)

    2009

  40. [40]

    Higgott and C

    O. Higgott and C. Gidney, Sparse Blossom: Correcting a Mil- lion Errors per Core Second with Minimum-Weight Matching, Quantum9, 1600 (2025)

    2025

  41. [41]

    Nishimori, Exact results and critical properties of the Ising model with competing interactions, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics13, 4071 (1980)

    H. Nishimori, Exact results and critical properties of the Ising model with competing interactions, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics13, 4071 (1980)

    1980

  42. [42]

    J. O. Berger,Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analy- sis, 2nd ed. (Springer, 1985)

    1985

  43. [43]

    Bravyi, M

    S. Bravyi, M. Suchara, and A. Vargo, Efficient algorithms for maximum likelihood decoding in the surface code, Phys. Rev. A90, 032326 (2014)

    2014

  44. [44]

    A shot fidelity isF= 1for a perfectly decoded shot (⟨ ˆM 2⟩=

  45. [45]

    It corresponds to the utility function UF (τ,σ) =θ 1 N P i σiτi −1 , whose Heaviside nonlinear- ity renders it analytically intractable

    andF= 0otherwise. It corresponds to the utility function UF (τ,σ) =θ 1 N P i σiτi −1 , whose Heaviside nonlinear- ity renders it analytically intractable

  46. [46]

    Lewis and F

    M. Lewis and F. Glover, Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Opti- mization Problem Preprocessing: Theory and Empirical Anal- ysis (2017), arXiv:1705.09844 [cs.AI]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    Meinerz, C.-Y

    K. Meinerz, C.-Y . Park, and S. Trebst, Scalable Neural Decoder for Topological Surface Codes, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 080505 (2022)

    2022

  48. [48]

    The Binder cumulant is defined asU= 3 2 1− ⟨ ˆM 4⟩ 3⟨ ˆM 2⟩2

  49. [49]

    Eastin and E

    B. Eastin and E. Knill, Restrictions on Transversal Encoded Quantum Gate Sets, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 110502 (2009)

    2009

  50. [50]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gul- lans, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti´c, and M. D. Lukin, Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  51. [51]

    Horsman, A

    D. Horsman, A. G. Fowler, S. Devitt, and R. V . Meter, Sur- face code quantum computing by lattice surgery, New Journal of Physics14, 123011 (2012)

    2012

  52. [52]

    Litinski, A Game of Surface Codes: Large-Scale Quantum Computing with Lattice Surgery, Quantum3, 128 (2019)

    D. Litinski, A Game of Surface Codes: Large-Scale Quantum Computing with Lattice Surgery, Quantum3, 128 (2019)

    2019

  53. [53]

    Optimal De- coding for Measurement-Based GHZ State Preparation: The Maximum-Utility Decoder

    M. Yutushui, T. Haas, and S. Trebst, Datasets for “Optimal De- coding for Measurement-Based GHZ State Preparation: The Maximum-Utility Decoder" (2026)

    2026

  54. [54]

    P. W. Kasteleyn, Dimer Statistics and Phase Transitions, Journal of Mathematical Physics4, 287 (1963)

    1963

  55. [55]

    Y . L. Loh and E. W. Carlson, Efficient Algorithm for Random- Bond Ising Models in 2D, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 227205 (2006)

    2006

  56. [56]

    C. K. Thomas and A. A. Middleton, Exact algorithm for sam- pling the two-dimensional Ising spin glass, Phys. Rev. E80, 046708 (2009)

    2009

  57. [57]

    Kager, M

    W. Kager, M. Lis, and R. Meester, The Signed Loop Approach to the Ising Model: Foundations and Critical Point, Journal of Statistical Physics152, 353 (2013)

    2013

  58. [58]

    Chelkak, D

    D. Chelkak, D. Cimasoni, and A. Kassel, Revisiting the com- binatorics of the 2D Ising model, Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré D4, 309 (2017)

    2017

  59. [59]

    A. H. Land and A. G. Doig, An Automatic Method of Solving Discrete Programming Problems, Econometrica28, 497 (1960)

    1960

  60. [60]

    Krislock, J

    N. Krislock, J. Malick, and F. Roupin, BiqCrunch: a semidef- inite branch-and-bound method for solving binary quadratic problems, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software43, Article No. 32 (2017)

    2017

  61. [61]

    M. Pütz, S. J. Garratt, H. Nishimori, S. Trebst, and G.-Y . Zhu, Learning Transitions in Classical Ising Models and Deformed Toric Codes, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 190402 (2026)

    2026

  62. [62]

    Wan, X.-D

    Z.-Q. Wan, X.-D. Dai, and G.-Y . Zhu, Revisiting Nishimori multicriticality through the lens of information measures, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 023059 (2026)

    2026

  63. [63]

    Mukherjee and S

    R. Mukherjee and S. Trebst, Nishimori Threshold Estimation for Bayesian Inference andZ q Surface Code Decoding (2026), arXiv:2607.18374 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  64. [64]

    Roser, H

    F. Roser, H. P. Büchler, and N. Lang, Decoding the projective transverse field Ising model, Phys. Rev. B107, 214201 (2023)

    2023

  65. [65]

    This parametrization is unique modulo total sign flipr→ −r