Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 63 references

Q3DE: A fault-tolerant quantum computer architecture for multi-bit burst errors by cosmic rays

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes a fault-tolerant quantum computing architecture that detects cosmic-ray multi-bit burst errors from syndrome statistics alone, then expands the code and rolls back the decoder to cut the exposed period by roughly 1,000…

desk verdict Novel architecture-level mitigation for cosmic-ray burst errors with solid component evaluation, but the headline 1000x/10x numbers rest on an unmodeled code-expansion latency assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00331 v1 pith:GFOCGFGQ submitted 2024-12-31 quant-ph cs.AR

Yasunari Suzuki , Takanori Sugiyama , Tomochika Arai , Wang Liao , Koji Inoue , Teruo Tanimoto This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.AR
keywords fault-tolerantquantumcomputingmulti-bitbursterrorscosmicrayssurfacecodesanomalydetectioncodedeformationdecoderrollbackerrorcorrection
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

The paper claims that the catastrophic multi-bit burst errors caused by cosmic rays in superconducting qubits can be contained at the architecture level instead of by permanently enlarging every surface code. Its proposal, Q3DE, watches the stream of syndrome values and flags a burst when the count of active syndrome nodes in a sliding window exceeds a confidence threshold derived from a normal approximation. On detection it responds with two orthogonal actions: it temporarily grows the code distance of the affected logical qubit via code deformation, and it rolls the decoder back to just before the burst and re-runs the matching with the anomalous region's position known. Simulations in the paper report that this cuts the time a logical qubit is exposed to a burst by about $10^3$ and halves the burst's effective region, which translates into up to a tenfold reduction in physical qubits needed for a logical error rate below $10^{-10}$, with a moderate classical hardware overhead.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the syndrome active-node counter: for each position it keeps the number of odd-parity nodes in the latest $c_{\mathrm{win}}$ cycles, and the detection threshold follows from the normal approximation $V_{i,t,c_{\mathrm{win}}} \sim N(c_{\mathrm{win}}\mu, c_{\mathrm{win}}\sigma^2)$, with $\mu$ and $\sigma$ determined in calibration. The two response mechanisms are the op_expand instruction, which performs code deformation to grow the code distance using unused qubit blocks, and decoder rollback, which re-runs matching with edge weights $-\log(p/(1-p))$ outside and $-\log(p_{\mathrm{ano}}/(1-p_{\mathrm{ano}}))$ inside the anomalous region. The quantitative engine is the first-order scaling $p_L(d) \propto (p/p_{\mathrm{th}})^{\lfloor d/2\rfloor+1}$, from which a burst of size $d_{\mathrm{ano}}$ reduces the effective code distance by $2d_{\mathrm{ano}}$ without rollback and by only $d_{\mathrm{ano}}$ with rollback.

What would settle it

Measure on a real surface-code controller the wall-clock time and success probability of the code-expansion operation issued while an anomalous region is active; if the expansion takes longer than $c_{\mathrm{lat}}=30$ code cycles or fails at a rate comparable to the target logical error rate, the claimed $10^3$ exposure reduction is not physically realized.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that multi-bit burst errors can be detected from syndrome statistics alone, without any extra quantum measurement, and that the damage they cause can then be undone by two complementary reactions. The anomaly detector counts active syndrome nodes per position over $c_{\mathrm{win}}$ cycles and, using the central limit theorem for even-spaced samples, declares an anomaly when at least $n_{\mathrm{th}}$ positions exceed a threshold $V_{\mathrm{th}}$; this locates the burst in space and time. Dynamic code deformation then expands the code distance from $d$ to roughly $d+2d_{\mathrm{ano}}$ during the burst lifetime. Decoder re-execution rolls the syndrome queue, the Pauli frame (the record of recovery operations), and the classical register back by $c_{\mathrm{lat}}+d$ cycles and repeats the minimum-weight perfect matching on a graph whose edges inside the anomalous region carry strongly penalizing weights, recovering about half of the code-distance loss that the burst would otherwise incur. The paper's headline numbers are a factor-of-$10^3$ reduction in the exposed period and a halving of the effective anomaly size.

Load-bearing premise

The whole $10^3$-fold reduction of the exposed period rests on the assumption that the operation that enlarges the code distance finishes within the 30-cycle detection latency and does not itself fail; the paper does not simulate that operation's duration, waiting time, or failure probability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Chip designers can size the default code distance for ordinary background noise rather than for rare cosmic-ray strikes, since the burst is handled adaptively.
  • For a target logical error rate below $10^{-10}$, the required number of physical qubits per logical qubit drops by up to about ten times compared with a fixed-distance baseline.
  • Instruction throughput can be about twice the baseline in projected parameter regimes, because most instructions no longer pay the latency of an enlarged default code.
  • Because the scheme uses only syndrome statistics and standard topological-code operations, it applies to other temporally varying error sources such as trapped-ion leakage and calibration drift.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The detector's thresholds depend on calibrated $\mu$ and $\sigma$ for healthy qubits; an online estimator that tracks slow drift in these baselines would extend the scheme to the calibration-drift bursts the paper lists, though the paper does not develop one.
  • The $10^3$ exposure reduction is an idealization: it treats the detection latency as the only exposed period and does not model the wall-clock time or failure probability of the code-expansion operation itself, so a cycle-accurate simulation of that step would bound the real speedup.
  • The same anomaly detector could double as a non-destructive diagnostic for device physics, logging the position and timing of cosmic-ray strikes during normal QEC operation without any extra measurement.
  • Device-level quasiparticle mitigation and Q3DE attack different parts of the error budget, so their combination should compound; the paper notes compatibility but does not quantify the combined gain.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Q3DE, an FTQC architecture that mitigates multi-bit burst errors (MBBEs) caused by cosmic rays in superconducting qubit arrays. The architecture has three components: in-situ anomaly detection that identifies MBBEs from statistical changes in syndrome-active-node counts; dynamic code deformation that temporarily expands the surface-code distance of affected logical qubits; and optimized error decoding that rolls back the decoder state and re-executes matching with anomalous-region-aware edge weights. The authors evaluate the detection latency and error, the logical-error-rate improvement from decoder re-execution, the required qubit count and instruction throughput under MBBE stress, and the hardware overhead of the modified decoder via FPGA synthesis. The headline claims are a reduction of the MBBE-exposed period by about 10^3, a halving of the effective burst-error region, up to a 10x reduction in required qubit count at pL < 10^-10, and a doubling of instruction throughput relative to a fixed-distance baseline.

Significance. The paper addresses a real and urgent problem—cosmic-ray-induced correlated errors in superconducting qubit arrays—and does so with a system-level architecture that is largely compatible with standard surface-code FTQC designs. The anomaly-detection scheme is non-destructive and requires only classical post-processing; the code-deformation and decoder-rollback mechanisms are integrated into an instruction-set architecture; and the evaluation includes reproducible Monte-Carlo simulations, an artifact appendix with code, and a hardware overhead estimate from FPGA synthesis. The first-order analytic model is transparent and the numerical results are consistent with standard surface-code behaviour. However, the quantitative headline claims rely on a strong idealization about the speed and reliability of code expansion, and on an analytic scaling model whose numerical validation is incomplete precisely in the regimes used for the largest claims. These issues are addressable in revision and do not undermine the core architectural idea.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VIII-A (also Secs. I and VII-B)] The central quantitative claims—the reduction of the MBBE-exposed period by about 10^3 and the up-to-10x qubit-count reduction in Fig. 9—rest on the assumption stated in Sec. VIII-A that 'Q3DE reduces the period exposed to MBBEs to the latency of anomaly detection clat = 30 since it expands code distances to a sufficiently large value.' The paper does not model the time required to perform op_expand, the probability that the expansion fails, or the scheduling contention that Sec. VIII-B itself acknowledges (op_expand 'consumes unused qubit space on the qubit plane and blocks the following instructions such as ZZ_meas'). In a surface code, code deformation via the three steps of Sec. V-A does not instantaneously produce an expanded code with full error-correction capability: the new stabilizers must be measured and a syndrome history built up. If the expansion effectively completes after T_exp cycles, the exposed period is clat + T_exp plus any scheduler delay, not clat = 30, and both the 10^3 factor and the Fig. 9 curves shift. Please provide a timing/failure model for op_expand, or revise the headline claims to be explicitly conditional on an instantaneous-expansion assumption and quantify the sensitivity to T_exp.
  2. [Secs. IV-A and IV-B] The analytic confidence interval in Eqs. (2)-(3) is derived for a random variable that counts active syndromes only in even-numbered cycles, because the every-cycle count has statistical correlations that make the CLT argument inapplicable, as the paper itself notes. The implemented anomaly detection unit, however, counts active nodes in every cycle (Sec. IV-B: the counter is updated as V_{t+1} ← V_t + v_{t+1} − v_{t−cwin}). The paper then uses thresholds from the even-cycle derivation for this every-cycle counter. This is a gap between theory and implementation: the false-positive/true-negative rates for the implemented detector are not those guaranteed by Eq. (3). The numerical calibration in Sec. VII-B may be sufficient for the architecture's practical function, but the manuscript should either extend the analytic derivation to the every-cycle count (or justify empirically that the even-cycle thresholds transfer) and report the actual false-positive/negative rates of the implemented detector.
  3. [Secs. VI-A and VIII-A] The scalability analysis in Sec. VIII-A computes required qubit densities using the first-order scaling formula pL(d) = 0.1(p/pth)^((deff+1)/2) with deff determined by the distance-reduction rules of Sec. VI-A (2dano without rollback, dano with rollback). The numerical evidence in Fig. 8 supports the trend for dano = 2, but for dano = 4 the paper reports that convergence to the predicted reduction is not clearly observable, and for dano = 2 the converged reduction is 'slightly larger' than predicted. Since Fig. 9 and the 'up to 10x' claim are generated from the analytic model rather than from the full Monte-Carlo simulation, the uncertainty in the first-order exponents propagates directly into the headline number. Please add a sensitivity analysis that varies the distance-reduction c (or the prefactor in pL(d)) over the range consistent with Fig. 8 and show how the required-qubit-density curves change.
  4. [Secs. I and VIII-B] The contribution list in Sec. I states that Q3DE 'double[s] the instruction throughput' relative to the baseline, but Sec. VIII-B's own simulation shows that at the realistic parameters (dτcycfano ∼ 10^-5) the throughput is 'acceptable and better than the baseline,' and the doubling is attained only under the hypothetical condition 'if the frequencies and period of MBBEs are improved in the future.' The abstract repeats the same unsupported phrasing. Please reword the throughput claim to match the actual result, e.g., 'up to 2x in favorable parameter regimes.'
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. I and abstract] The phrase 'halves the size of their region' should be reworded to 'halves the effective code-distance penalty of the burst-error region (from 2dano to dano)', because the physical anomalous-region size dano is not changed by decoder re-execution.
  2. [Sec. VII-B] The sentence 'Since the code cycle is about 1 μs and the MBBEs last a few tens of milliseconds, the period for which logical qubits are exposed to MBBEs without any reaction becomes about 10^-3 times shorter' is ambiguous; it should specify that the reduction refers to the detection latency relative to the MBBE duration, and that the subsequent code-expansion time is assumed negligible.
  3. [Sec. IV-B and VII-B] The relationship among the confidence level α, the per-counter threshold Vth, the count threshold nth, and the heuristic choice nth = 20 in Sec. VII-B should be clarified; the inequality below Eq. (3) uses α and pL, but the numerical evaluation sets 1−α = 0.99 and then selects nth heuristically without connecting the two.
  4. [Eq. (4) and surrounding text] The definition of deff in Eq. (4) should be stated more explicitly, and the criterion for plotting points (standard error smaller than four) should specify the units and why that cutoff was chosen.
  5. [Sec. III-A, footnote 3] The assumption that fano is multiplied by ten to account for long-term applications with several hundred physical qubits per logical qubit is important for the quantitative claims and should be justified in the main text rather than left in a footnote.
  6. [Table I and Sec. VI-C] clat appears in Table I but is first used in Sec. VI-C; the symbol should be defined before its first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No material circularity: the detection threshold, first-order code-distance analysis, and scalability curves are derived or simulated rather than retrofitted; the op_expand timing assumption is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central claims are not circular. The anomaly-detection threshold in Sec. IV-A is derived from the central limit theorem applied to even-cycle syndrome counts, with mu and sigma taken as pre-calibrated quantities; the threshold is a statistical hypothesis test, not a fit to the MBBE-aware logical-error-rate reduction that it enables. The 1000x exposure-period reduction in Sec. VII-B is computed from the simulated detection latency (about 30 cycles) relative to the roughly 25 ms MBBE duration; that ratio is an evaluation result, not an input assumption, and Sec. VIII-A's use of clat=30 is an explicit modeling assumption that may be optimistic but is not a definitional identity with the claimed reduction. The 2*d_ano to d_ano effective-distance improvement in Sec. VI-A is a first-order counting argument based on minimum-weight logical Pauli paths with and without knowledge of the anomalous region, and it is checked against Monte Carlo data in Sec. VII-C using the diagnostic Eq. (4); the effective distance is not fitted to the headline factor. The scalability curves in Sec. VIII-A use the derived scaling law p_L(d)=0.1(p/p_th)^((d_eff+1)/2) with effective distances d-2c and d-c, so the up-to-10x qubit-count reduction follows from a 10^8-cycle simulation rather than from a retrofitted constant. Self-citations, such as QECOOL [56] as a decoder baseline, are used for implementation and benchmarking and are not load-bearing for the MBBE-mitigation claim. The main caveat, that op_expand is treated as instantaneous in Sec. VIII-A, is an unmodeled timing assumption and therefore a correctness or completeness risk, not a circular reduction of a prediction to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The listed free parameters are model settings and heuristics, not results fitted to the headline claims. No parameter is adjusted to reproduce the 1000x or 10x numbers; those follow from the derived formulas. The main axioms are the standard surface-code scaling law, the uniform anomalous-region noise model, and the availability of vacant qubit blocks for code deformation.

free parameters (7)
  • anomalous physical error rate p_ano = 0.5
    Used in numerical evaluations of logical error rates with MBBEs; set as a stress value rather than fitted to a target result.
  • anomaly detection window c_win = variable, e.g., 300 in memory overhead table
    Determined from simulation to keep detection errors below 1%; affects detection latency and buffer overhead.
  • anomaly detection threshold n_th = 20
    Heuristically chosen in Sec VII-B; used for the detection decision and in overhead estimates.
  • detection latency c_lat = 30 cycles
    Assumed in Sec VIII-A as the MBBE-exposed period after Q3DE reacts; supports the 1000x reduction claim.
  • scaling prefactor in pL(d) = 0.1
    Prefactor in pL(d)=0.1(p/pth)^... used for the scalability extrapolation in Fig 9.
  • expanded code distance factor = 2 (doubling)
    Assumed sufficient to cover 2 d_ano; used in the instruction throughput simulation of Sec VIII-B.
  • anomaly frequency f_ano = 1 Hz
    McEwen et al. reported once per 10 s in a 26-qubit region; multiplied by ten for larger chips per footnote 3.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Physical errors are independent, identically distributed stochastic Pauli errors each code cycle
    Needed for the central limit theorem in Sec IV-A and for the first-order analysis in Sec VI-A; correlated or non-stationary errors outside the model would break the detection confidence intervals.
  • domain assumption Logical error rate without anomalies scales as pL(d) proportional to (p/pth)^(floor(d/2)+1)
    Standard surface-code scaling invoked in Sec VI-A and used in Sec VIII-A for the scalability claims.
  • domain assumption Code deformation can expand and shrink a surface code fault-tolerantly using unused qubits
    Relies on Bombin and Martin-Delgado [7]; the paper does not model the execution latency or failure probability of the op_expand procedure.
  • domain assumption An anomalous region is contiguous with a uniform elevated error rate p_ano and known approximate position after detection
    Used for the detection procedure and for the weighted matching algorithm; real MBBE error profiles decay in space and time, which the uniform model only approximates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Q3DE: A fault-tolerant quantum computer architecture for multi-bit burst errors by cosmic rays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GFOCGFGQ

@misc{pith2026250100331,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Q3DE: A fault-tolerant quantum computer architecture for multi-bit burst errors by cosmic rays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GFOCGFGQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00331}
}
read the original abstract

Demonstrating small error rates by integrating quantum error correction (QEC) into an architecture of quantum computing is the next milestone towards scalable fault-tolerant quantum computing (FTQC). Encoding logical qubits with superconducting qubits and surface codes is considered a promising candidate for FTQC architectures. In this paper, we propose an FTQC architecture, which we call Q3DE, that enhances the tolerance to multi-bit burst errors (MBBEs) by cosmic rays with moderate changes and overhead. There are three core components in Q3DE: in-situ anomaly DEtection, dynamic code DEformation, and optimized error DEcoding. In this architecture, MBBEs are detected only from syndrome values for error correction. The effect of MBBEs is immediately mitigated by dynamically increasing the encoding level of logical qubits and re-estimating probable recovery operation with the rollback of the decoding process. We investigate the performance and overhead of the Q3DE architecture with quantum-error simulators and demonstrate that Q3DE effectively reduces the period of MBBEs by 1000 times and halves the size of their region. Therefore, Q3DE significantly relaxes the requirement of qubit density and qubit chip size to realize FTQC. Our scheme is versatile for mitigating MBBEs, i.e., temporal variations of error properties, on a wide range of physical devices and FTQC architectures since it relies only on the standard features of topological stabilizer codes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00331 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Design of our Q3DE architecture. Components in the blue region are classical computing units and those in the pink region are quantum computing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of d = 4 surface codes and the processing flow of syndrome values. Surface codes are allocated on the qubit plane. Z/X-syndrome values are extracted and stored in each buffer as 3D lattices in each surface code. Once a cosmic ray strikes the qubit plane, physical error rates of qubits around the hit position become high. increase effective logical error rates. We chose the parameters3 observed by M… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Logical error rates with and without an MBBE as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of Q3DE. The timeline of interactions between the qubit plane and the syndrome lattice is shown. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Three steps for op_expand instruction. These figures show a procedure to expand the code distance of a logical qubit from d to dexp and shrink it from dexp to d. its procedure. The code deformation is performed with unused data qubits indicated by white circles. First,…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Schematic diagrams showing the mechanism and analysis of decoder re-execution. We only show a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Numerical evaluation of the anomaly detection unit. (Left) Required window size cwin for 1% detection error rates and detection latency. (Right) The error of estimated positions of anomalous regions. units ignore correlations due to Pauli-Y errors and estimate the occu…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Logical error rates and effective reductions of code distances plotted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (Left) An example of two-qubit logical operations on a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits,

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, “Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits,” Physical Review A , vol. 70, no. 5, p. 052328, 2004

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Multi-scale Monte Carlo simulation of soft errors using PHITS-HyENEXSS code system,

    S. Abe, Y . Watanabe, N. Shibano, N. Sano, H. Furuta, M. Tsutsui, T. Uemura, and T. Arakawa, “Multi-scale Monte Carlo simulation of soft errors using PHITS-HyENEXSS code system,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science , vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 965–970, Aug. 2012. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/tns.2012.2187215

    work page arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor,

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y . Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin, S. Habegger, M. P. Harrigan, M. J. Hartmann, A. Ho, M. Hoffmann, T. Huang, T. ...

    2019

  4. [4]

    Encoding electronic spectra in quantum circuits with linear T complexity,

    R. Babbush, C. Gidney, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, J. McClean, A. Paler, A. Fowler, and H. Neven, “Encoding electronic spectra in quantum circuits with linear T complexity,” Physical Review X , vol. 8, no. 4, p. 041015, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Qubitization of arbitrary basis quantum chemistry leveraging sparsity and low rank factorization,

    D. W. Berry, C. Gidney, M. Motta, J. R. McClean, and R. Babbush, “Qubitization of arbitrary basis quantum chemistry leveraging sparsity and low rank factorization,” Quantum, vol. 3, p. 208, Dec. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2019-12-02-208

    doi:10.22331/q-2019-12-02-208 2019

  6. [6]

    Surface code compilation via edge-disjoint paths,

    M. Beverland, V . Kliuchnikov, and E. Schoute, “Surface code compilation via edge-disjoint paths,” PRX Quantum , vol. 3, p. 020342, May 2022. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PRXQuantum.3.020342

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Quantum measurements and gates by code deformation,

    H. Bomb ´ın and M. A. Martin-Delgado, “Quantum measurements and gates by code deformation,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, vol. 42, no. 9, p. 095302, 2009

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Correcting coherent errors with surface codes,

    S. Bravyi, M. Englbrecht, R. K ¨onig, and N. Peard, “Correcting coherent errors with surface codes,” npj Quantum Information , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary,

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y . Kitaev, “Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary,” arXiv preprint quant-ph/9811052 , 1998

    1998 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Universal quantum computing with twist-free and temporally encoded lattice surgery,

    C. Chamberland and E. T. Campbell, “Universal quantum computing with twist-free and temporally encoded lattice surgery,” PRX Quantum, vol. 3, no. 1, Feb. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/ prxquantum.3.010331

    2022

  3. [11]

    LILLIPUT: A lightweight low- latency lookup-table based decoder for near-term quantum error correc- tion,

    P. Das, A. Locharla, and C. Jones, “LILLIPUT: A lightweight low- latency lookup-table based decoder for near-term quantum error correc- tion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.06569 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A scalable decoder micro-architecture for fault-tolerant quantum computing,

    P. Das, C. A. Pattison, S. Manne, D. Carmean, K. Svore, M. Qureshi, and N. Delfosse, “A scalable decoder micro-architecture for fault-tolerant quantum computing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.06598 , 2020

    2001 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Almost-linear time decoding algo- rithm for topological codes,

    N. Delfosse and N. H. Nickerson, “Almost-linear time decoding algo- rithm for topological codes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.06218 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Topological quantum memory,

    E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, “Topological quantum memory,” Journal of Mathematical Physics , vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 4452– 4505, 2002

    2002

  7. [15]

    Measurements of macro- scopic quantum tunneling out of the zero-voltage state of a current- biased josephson junction,

    M. H. Devoret, J. M. Martinis, and J. Clarke, “Measurements of macro- scopic quantum tunneling out of the zero-voltage state of a current- biased josephson junction,” Physical review letters , vol. 55, no. 18, p. 1908, 1985

    1908

  8. [16]

    Ultra-low-vibration closed- cycle cryogenic surface-electrode ion trap apparatus,

    T. Dubielzig, S. Halama, H. Hahn, G. Zarantonello, M. Niemann, A. Bautista-Salvador, and C. Ospelkaus, “Ultra-low-vibration closed- cycle cryogenic surface-electrode ion trap apparatus,” Review of Scientific Instruments , vol. 92, no. 4, p. 043201, Apr. 2021. [Online]. Availab...

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    Virtualized logical qubits: A 2.5 D architecture for error-corrected quantum com- puting,

    C. Duckering, J. M. Baker, D. I. Schuster, and F. T. Chong, “Virtualized logical qubits: A 2.5 D architecture for error-corrected quantum com- puting,” in 2020 53rd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO). IEEE, 2020, pp. 173–185

    2020

  10. [18]

    Paths, trees, and flowers,

    J. Edmonds, “Paths, trees, and flowers,” Canadian Journal of mathemat- ics, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 449–467, 1965

    1965

  11. [19]

    Practical quantum error mitigation for near-future applications,

    S. Endo, S. C. Benjamin, and Y . Li, “Practical quantum error mitigation for near-future applications,” Physical Review X, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 031027, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Low overhead quantum computation using lattice surgery,

    A. G. Fowler and C. Gidney, “Low overhead quantum computation using lattice surgery,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.06709 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation,

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, “Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation,” Physical Review A, vol. 86, no. 3, p. 032324, 2012

    2012

  14. [22]

    Towards practical classical processing for the surface code,

    A. G. Fowler, A. C. Whiteside, and L. C. Hollenberg, “Towards practical classical processing for the surface code,” Physical review letters , vol. 108, no. 18, p. 180501, 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    A microarchitecture for a superconducting quantum processor,

    X. Fu, M. A. Rol, C. C. Bultink, J. van Someren, N. Khammassi, I. Ashraf, R. F. L. Vermeulen, J. C. de Sterke, W. J. Vlothuizen, R. N. Schouten, C. G. Almudever, L. DiCarlo, and K. Bertels, “A microarchitecture for a superconducting quantum processor,” IEEE Micro, vol. 38, no....

    2018

  16. [24]

    A control microar- chitecture for fault-tolerant quantum computing,

    X. Fu, L. Lao, K. Bertels, and C. G. Almudever, “A control microar- chitecture for fault-tolerant quantum computing,” Microprocessors and Microsystems, vol. 70, pp. 21–30, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    eQASM: An executable quantum instruction set architecture,

    X. Fu, L. Riesebos, M. A. Rol, J. van Straten, J. van Someren, N. Khammassi, I. Ashraf, R. F. L. Vermeulen, V . Newsum, K. K. L. Loh, J. C. de Sterke, W. J. Vlothuizen, R. N. Schouten, C. G. Almud ´ever, L. DiCarlo, and K. Bertels, “eQASM: An executable quantum instruction set...

    2019

  18. [26]

    High-fidelity universal gate set for 9Be+ ion qubits,

    J. P. Gaebler, T. R. Tan, Y . Lin, Y . Wan, R. Bowler, A. C. Keith, S. Glancy, K. Coakley, E. Knill, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, “High-fidelity universal gate set for 9Be+ ion qubits,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 117, p. 060505, Aug 2016. [Online]. Available: https://link.ap...

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    Characterization of addressability by simultaneous randomized benchmarking,

    J. M. Gambetta, A. D. C ´orcoles, S. T. Merkel, B. R. Johnson, J. A. Smolin, J. M. Chow, C. A. Ryan, C. Rigetti, S. Poletto, T. A. Ohki, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, “Characterization of addressability by simultaneous randomized benchmarking,” Physical Review Letters , vol. ...

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    Dynamic compensation of stray electric fields in an ion trap using machine learning and adaptive algorithm,

    M. Ghadimi, A. Zappacosta, J. Scarabel, K. Shimizu, E. W. Streed, and M. Lobino, “Dynamic compensation of stray electric fields in an ion trap using machine learning and adaptive algorithm,” Scientific Reports , vol. 12, no. 1, Apr. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/1...

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits,

    C. Gidney and M. Eker ˚a, “How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits,” Quantum, vol. 5, p. 433, 2021

  22. [30]

    NISQ+: Boosting quantum computing power by approximating quantum error correction,

    A. Holmes, M. R. Jokar, G. Pasandi, Y . Ding, M. Pedram, and F. T. Chong, “NISQ+: Boosting quantum computing power by approximating quantum error correction,” in2020 ACM/IEEE 47th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 556– 569

    2020

  23. [31]

    Fault-tolerant weighted union-find decoding on the toric code,

    S. Huang, M. Newman, and K. R. Brown, “Fault-tolerant weighted union-find decoding on the toric code,” Physical Review A , vol. 102, no. 1, Jul. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva. 102.012419

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    Phonon downconversion to suppress correlated errors in superconducting qubits,

    V . Iaia, J. Ku, A. Ballard, C. Larson, E. Yelton, C. Liu, S. Pa- tel, R. McDermott, and B. Plourde, “Phonon downconversion to suppress correlated errors in superconducting qubits,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.06586, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Impact of scaling on neutron-induced soft error in SRAMs from a 250 nm to a 22 nm design rule,

    E. Ibe, H. Taniguchi, Y . Yahagi, K. ichi Shimbo, and T. Toba, “Impact of scaling on neutron-induced soft error in SRAMs from a 250 nm to a 22 nm design rule,” IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 1527–1538, Jul. 2010. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org...

    2010

  26. [34]

    Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction,

    A. Y . Kitaev, “Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction,” Russian Mathematical Surveys , vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 1191–1249, 1997

    1997

  27. [35]

    Improved fault-tolerant quantum simulation of condensed-phase correlated electrons via trotterization,

    I. D. Kivlichan, C. Gidney, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, J. McClean, W. Sun, Z. Jiang, N. Rubin, A. Fowler, A. Aspuru-Guzik, H. Neven, and R. Babbush, “Improved fault-tolerant quantum simulation of condensed-phase correlated electrons via trotterization,” Quantum, vol. 4, p. 296, Ju...

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    Blossom V: a new implementation of a minimum cost perfect matching algorithm,

    V . Kolmogorov, “Blossom V: a new implementation of a minimum cost perfect matching algorithm,” Mathematical Programming Computation, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 43–67, 2009

    2009

  29. [37]

    Realizing repeated quantum error correction in a distance-three surface code,

    S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, A. Remm, A. D. Paolo, E. Genois, C. Leroux, C. Hellings, S. Lazar, F. Swiadek, J. Herrmann, G. J. Norris, C. K. Andersen, M. M ¨uller, A. Blais, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, “Realizing repeated quantum error correction in a distance-three surface code,”...

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    Even more efficient quantum computations of chemistry through tensor hypercontraction,

    J. Lee, D. W. Berry, C. Gidney, W. J. Huggins, J. R. McClean, N. Wiebe, and R. Babbush, “Even more efficient quantum computations of chemistry through tensor hypercontraction,” PRX Quantum , vol. 2, no. 3, Jul. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/ prxquantum.2.030305

    2021

  31. [39]

    A game of surface codes: Large-scale quantum computing with lattice surgery,

    D. Litinski, “A game of surface codes: Large-scale quantum computing with lattice surgery,” Quantum, vol. 3, p. 128, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Quasiparticle poisoning of superconducting qubits from resonant absorption of pair-breaking photons,

    C.-H. Liu, D. C. Harrison, S. Patel, C. D. Wilen, O. Rafferty, A. Shearrow, A. Ballard, V . Iaia, J. Ku, B. L. T. Plourde, and R. McDermott, “Quasiparticle poisoning of superconducting qubits from resonant absorption of pair-breaking photons,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https:...

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Minimization of the micromotion of trapped ions with artificial neural networks,

    Y . Liu, Q. feng Lao, P. fei Lu, X. xin Rao, H. Wu, T. Liu, K. xu Wang, Z. Wang, M. shen Li, F. Zhu, and L. Luo, “Minimization of the micromotion of trapped ions with artificial neural networks,” Applied Physics Letters , vol. 119, no. 13, p. 134002, Sep. 2021. [Online]. Avail...

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    Saving superconducting quantum processors from decay and correlated errors generated by gamma and cosmic rays,

    J. M. Martinis, “Saving superconducting quantum processors from decay and correlated errors generated by gamma and cosmic rays,” npj Quantum Information, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    Resolving catastrophic error bursts from cosmic rays in large arrays of supercon- ducting qubits,

    M. McEwen, L. Faoro, K. Arya, A. Dunsworth, T. Huang, S. Kim, B. Burkett, A. Fowler, F. Arute, J. C. Bardin, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, B. B. Buckley, N. Bushnell, Z. Chen, R. Collins, S. Demura, A. R. Derk, C. Erickson, M. Giustina, S. D. Harrington, S. Hong, E. Jeffrey, J. Kel...

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Spectroscopy of energy-level splitting between two macroscopic quantum states of charge coherently superposed by josephson coupling,

    Y . Nakamura, C. D. Chen, and J. S. Tsai, “Spectroscopy of energy-level splitting between two macroscopic quantum states of charge coherently superposed by josephson coupling,” Physical review letters , vol. 79, no. 12, p. 2328, 1997

    1997

  37. [45]

    Quantum computation and quantum information,

    M. A. Nielsen and I. Chuang, “Quantum computation and quantum information,” 2002

    2002

  38. [46]

    Engineering superconducting qubits to reduce quasiparticles and charge noise,

    X. Pan, H. Yuan, Y . Zhou, L. Zhang, J. Li, S. Liu, Z. H. Jiang, G. Cate- lani, L. Hu, and F. Yan, “Engineering superconducting qubits to reduce quasiparticles and charge noise,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.01435, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Improved quantum error correction using soft information,

    C. A. Pattison, M. E. Beverland, M. P. da Silva, and N. Delfosse, “Improved quantum error correction using soft information,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13589, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    New material platform for superconducting transmon qubits with coherence times exceeding 0.3 milliseconds,

    A. P. M. Place, L. V . H. Rodgers, P. Mundada, B. M. Smitham, M. Fitzpatrick, Z. Leng, A. Premkumar, J. Bryon, A. Vrajitoarea, S. Sussman, G. Cheng, T. Madhavan, H. K. Babla, X. H. Le, Y . Gang, B. J¨ack, A. Gyenis, N. Yao, R. J. Cava, N. P. de Leon, and A. A. Houck, “New mate...

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation with high threshold in two dimensions,

    R. Raussendorf and J. Harrington, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation with high threshold in two dimensions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 98, p. 190504, May 2007. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.98.190504

    2007

  42. [50]

    Pauli frames for quantum computer architectures,

    L. Riesebos, X. Fu, S. Varsamopoulos, C. G. Almudever, and K. Bertels, “Pauli frames for quantum computer architectures,” in Proceedings of the 54th Annual Design Automation Conference 2017 , 2017, pp. 1–6

    2017

  43. [51]

    Soft error rate improvements in 14-nm technology featuring second-generation 3D tri-gate transistors,

    N. Seifert, S. Jahinuzzaman, J. Velamala, R. Ascazubi, N. Patel, B. Gill, J. Basile, and J. Hicks, “Soft error rate improvements in 14-nm technology featuring second-generation 3D tri-gate transistors,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science , vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 2570–2577, Dec

  44. [52]

    Quantum computing is scalable on a planar array of qubits with fabrication defects,

    A. Strikis, S. C. Benjamin, and B. J. Brown, “Quantum computing is scalable on a planar array of qubits with fabrication defects,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.06432, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Efficient simulation of quantum error correction under coherent error based on the nonunitary free- fermionic formalism,

    Y . Suzuki, K. Fujii, and M. Koashi, “Efficient simulation of quantum error correction under coherent error based on the nonunitary free- fermionic formalism,” Physical review letters , vol. 119, no. 19, p. 190503, 2017

    2017

  46. [54]

    Fundamental limitations of quantum error mitigation,

    R. Takagi, S. Endo, S. Minagawa, and M. Gu, “Fundamental limitations of quantum error mitigation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.04457 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Error mitigation for short- depth quantum circuits,

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, “Error mitigation for short- depth quantum circuits,” Physical review letters , vol. 119, no. 18, p. 180509, 2017

    2017

  48. [56]

    QECOOL: On-line quantum error correction with a superconducting decoder for surface code,

    Y . Ueno, M. Kondo, M. Tanaka, Y . Suzuki, and Y . Tabuchi, “QECOOL: On-line quantum error correction with a superconducting decoder for surface code,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.07526 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Impact of ionizing radiation on superconducting qubit coherence,

    A. P. Veps ¨al¨ainen, A. H. Karamlou, J. L. Orrell, A. S. Dogra, B. Loer, F. Vasconcelos, D. K. Kim, A. J. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, J. L. Yoder, S. Gustavsson, J. A. Formaggio, B. A. VanDevender, and W. D. Oliver, “Impact of ionizing radiation on superconducting qubit cohe...

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    Confinement-higgs transition in a disordered gauge theory and the accuracy threshold for quantum memory,

    C. Wang, J. Harrington, and J. Preskill, “Confinement-higgs transition in a disordered gauge theory and the accuracy threshold for quantum memory,” Annals of Physics , vol. 303, no. 1, pp. 31–58, 2003

    2003

  51. [59]

    Correlated charge noise and relaxation errors in superconducting qubits,

    C. D. Wilen, S. Abdullah, N. A. Kurinsky, C. Stanford, L. Cardani, G. D’Imperio, C. Tomei, L. Faoro, L. B. Ioffe, C. H. Liu, A. Opremcak, B. G. Christensen, J. L. DuBois, and R. McDermott, “Correlated charge noise and relaxation errors in superconducting qubits,” Nature, vol. ...

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    Experimental issues in coherent quantum-state manipulation of trapped atomic ions,

    D. Wineland, C. Monroe, W. Itano, D. Leibfried, B. King, and D. Meekhof, “Experimental issues in coherent quantum-state manipulation of trapped atomic ions,” Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology , vol. 103, no. 3, p. 259, May 1998. [Online]...

    1998 doi

  53. [61]

    Distributed quantum error correction for chip- level catastrophic errors,

    Q. Xu, A. Seif, H. Yan, N. Mannucci, B. O. Sane, R. Van Meter, A. N. Cleland, and L. Jiang, “Distributed quantum error correction for chip- level catastrophic errors,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.16488 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Realization of an error-correcting surface code with superconducting qubits,

    Y . Zhao, Y . Ye, H.-L. Huang, Y . Zhang, D. Wu, H. Guan, Q. Zhu, Z. Wei, T. He, S. Cao, F. Chen, T.-H. Chung, H. Deng, D. Fan, M. Gong, C. Guo, S. Guo, L. Han, N. Li, S. Li, Y . Li, F. Liang, J. Lin, H. Qian, H. Rong, H. Su, L. Sun, S. Wang, Y . Wu, Y . Xu, C. Ying, J. Yu, C....

    2021 arXiv

  55. [2015]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/tns.2015.2495130

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/tns.2015.2495130

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.