Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Quantum Resilience: Canadian Innovations in Quantum Error Correction and Quantum Error Mitigation

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

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

Pith's one-line read A review of Canadian contributions argues that Canada has been central to both quantum error correction and quantum error mitigation, from the 1996 five-qubit perfect code to today's photonic and superconducting efforts.

desk verdict A readable, celebratory overview of Canadian QEC/QEM work, but the 'leadership' claim outruns the evidence: the heatmap is unreproducible and the highlight list is handpicked and partly self-authored. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20534 v1 pith:LWJR72BA submitted 2025-05-26 quant-ph

Gaurav Saxena , Jack S. Baker , Pablo Díez Valle , William E. Salazar , Kevin Ferreira , Thi Ha Kyaw This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumerrorcorrectionmitigationCanadacomputingKnill-Laflammeconditionsstabilizercodeszero-noiseextrapolationrandomizedcompiling
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 is a review written for the 2025 International Year of Quantum Science and Technology. It seeks to establish that Canada, through its universities, research institutes, startups, and established companies, has been and remains a leading contributor to both strategies for taming noise in quantum computers: quantum error correction, which encodes information so errors can be detected and fixed, and quantum error mitigation, which extracts accurate answers from today's imperfect machines without full error correction. The reason to care is that noise is the central obstacle between current small quantum processors and any practically useful quantum computation, so a country's role in solving it helps set the pace of the whole field. The paper's evidence is a curated list of Canadian-affiliated milestones, from the 1996 five-qubit perfect code and the Knill–Laflamme conditions through recent low-overhead codes, bosonic hardware, and mitigation methods such as randomized compiling and constant-runtime quasi-probabilistic schemes.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a curated two-track catalogue of Canadian-affiliated results rather than by a single theorem. In the correction track, the load-bearing items are the five-qubit perfect code and the Knill–Laflamme conditions, which are criteria for when a set of states forms a valid quantum code, along with the stabilizer formalism, the GKP continuous-variable code, and threshold and decoding theory. In the mitigation track, the load-bearing items are zero-noise extrapolation, randomized compiling, symmetry-based post-selection, quasi-probabilistic error cancellation variants, and neural error mitigation. A Web of Science affiliation scan of papers from 1990 to 2025 supplies the geographical frame, while the catalogue itself supplies the evidence for Canadian leadership.

What would settle it

Run the same Web of Science affiliation query from 1990 to 2025 for all countries, count QEC and QEM publications and major firsts, and check whether Canada's share and timeline of firsts match the paper's claim of leadership; a reproducible count placing several other countries clearly ahead would refute it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a single national ecosystem supplied the theoretical foundations of quantum error correction and continues to supply both codes and practical error-reduction tools. It traces the QEC lineage to 1996, when the five-qubit perfect code and the accompanying certification conditions were introduced, followed by the first experimental demonstration of error correction on nuclear spins, the stabilizer formalism, the GKP code for oscillator systems, and threshold and decoding results showing that error rates below about one percent per physical qubit allow logical errors to shrink as systems scale. On the mitigation side, it credits Canadian groups with advancing zero-noise extrapolation, randomized compiling, symmetry-based post-selection, quasi-probabilistic methods, and neural-network mitigation, and it points to industrial efforts around photonic GKP qubits, low-density parity-check codes, and bosonic grid states as the current frontier. The paper concludes that these two tracks, correction and mitigation, will converge in the near term on existing hardware.

Load-bearing premise

The leadership claim collapses if the handpicked highlights and the undocumented Web of Science affiliation map are not a representative sample of the global field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the Canadian-affiliated milestones are as central as the paper claims, the path to fault tolerance will run through descendants of the five-qubit perfect code, stabilizer and GKP codes, low-overhead QLDPC codes, and adaptive decoding algorithms.
  • The error-mitigation toolkit the paper describes should let today's noisy processors return physically meaningful results in chemistry and physics while full error correction remains out of reach.
  • The paper's near-term milestone is the integration of error mitigation with error-correcting codes on existing hardware, implying a staged route from today's noisy devices to early fault tolerance.
  • According to the paper, Canadian government investment and university-industry collaborations position photonic and superconducting platforms for the first demonstrations of fault tolerance at useful scale.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The leadership claim is implicitly comparative but never defines a quantitative yardstick; a natural extension is a reproducible bibliometric benchmark that applies the same affiliation rules to all countries.
  • The paper's strong emphasis on GKP bosonic encoding and QLDPC codes suggests that the Canadian ecosystem is betting on low-overhead encodings, which, if they mature, could lower the physical-qubit counts usually quoted for fault tolerance.
  • The described mitigation schemes, especially the constant-runtime and zero-noise extrapolation variants, could plausibly be composed with error detection as an intermediate layer on the way to full error correction, a path the paper mentions but does not develop.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper is a community-focused overview, written for the 2025 International Year of Quantum Science and Technology, which argues that Canada has been and remains a global leader in quantum error correction (QEC) and quantum error mitigation (QEM). It summarizes early theoretical contributions (Laflamme, Gottesman, Poulin), and then presents a curated list of Canadian academic, industrial, and governmental activities in QEC and QEM, including recent developments at Xanadu, Photonic Inc., Nord Quantique, and the University of Waterloo's ecosystem. The paper's central claim is that Canada is 'at the forefront' of these efforts, supported by a Web of Science-based geographical distribution of papers (Fig. 1) and by a list of 'handpicked' highlights. The manuscript contains no original derivations or experiments; it is a review with an evidentiary argument for a national-leadership claim.

Significance. If the leadership claim were properly substantiated, this review would be a useful reference for the IYQ narrative and a convenient entry point to recent Canadian QEC/QEM activity, especially because it includes very recent preprints and company efforts that are not yet widely cited. The paper also correctly identifies several genuinely influential Canadian contributions, such as the five-qubit perfect code, stabilizer codes, randomized compiling, and neural decoders. However, the central quantitative evidence for 'leadership' consists of a single unnormalized, undocumented bibliometric figure, and the qualitative evidence is an explicitly non-exhaustive list that includes the authors' own methods. The paper therefore currently establishes that Canada is an active and visible contributor, but it does not establish the stronger 'forefront/leadership' claim stated in the abstract and conclusion. With a described methodology and a global comparison, or with the claims appropriately weakened, the review could be a valuable community resource.

major comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1 and Data Availability] The only quantitative evidence for the paper's central 'leadership' claim is Fig. 1, but its construction is not described. The caption specifies neither the Web of Science query string, the inclusion/exclusion criteria, the affiliation-disambiguation procedure, nor the normalization (e.g., per capita, per institution, or relative to total papers globally). The Data Availability statement says the data are 'available upon request,' which is not a reproducibility mechanism. Without a global baseline or a released dataset, the figure cannot distinguish 'Canada produces many QEC/QEM papers' from 'Canada is a leader relative to other countries,' and the abstract's 'at the forefront' claim is therefore not supported. I recommend either releasing the full methodology and data (query, dates, disambiguation, normalization) and adding a comparison with at least the other major quantum-computing countries, or softening the global-leadership language to 'an active and significant contributor.'
  2. [§2 (Early Canadian Breakthroughs)] The sentence about David Poulin states that he 'developed efficient decoding algorithms and showed, via threshold theorems, that if each physical qubit's error drops below ~1%, scaling up will actually make logical errors rarer [16].' This conflates Poulin's work on decoders with the quantum threshold theorem, which was established by several groups (e.g., Aharonov–Ben-Or, Kitaev, and Knill–Laflamme–Zurek) and is not proved in Ref. [16]. Moreover, the '~1%' figure is code-dependent and is not a universal bound. This is a factual attribution error in a review, and it directly feeds the narrative that Canadian researchers provided a foundational theoretical basis for QEC. The passage should be corrected to name the actual threshold-theorem authors and to describe Poulin's specific contribution (e.g., efficient decoding algorithms) without claiming he proved the threshold theorem.
  3. [§1 (Introduction)] The first paragraph asserts that Canada is home to 'the first quantum hardware company (D-Wave) and the first quantum software company (1QBit), in the world,' without any citation. 'First' claims of this kind require a source and a definition (first to sell a commercial quantum annealer? first to offer quantum software services? first to be incorporated?). As written, these unsupported superlatives are not load-bearing for the technical content, but they contribute to a promotional tone and are contestable. Please add a reference for each claim or qualify the statements to what can actually be sourced.
  4. [§3 (handpicked highlights)] The 'handpicked highlights' list is presented as evidence of Canadian innovation, but the selection criteria are not stated, and the list includes EMRE [52] and PIE [53], which are authored by this paper's own authors. It also includes entries where the text itself only claims Canadian participation or collaboration, not Canadian leadership (e.g., vnCDR [43] is described as 'developed with the participation of the University of Waterloo,' and Mitiq [60] as 'developed in collaboration with Canadian researchers'). Because the selection overlaps with the authors' own work and the leadership-versus-participation distinction is not applied consistently, the list cannot by itself support the strong 'leadership' claim. I recommend stating an explicit selection protocol (e.g., criteria for inclusion, whether 'Canadian' means first/corresponding author affiliation, and how leadership is determined) and labeling entries as 'Canadian-led' or 'Canada-involved' as appropriate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2] The text says Daniel Gottesman, 'who was affiliated with the Perimeter Institute, formalized stabilizer codes [13].' The stabilizer formalism was developed in his Caltech thesis before he joined Perimeter Institute; please rephrase to 'later affiliated with the Perimeter Institute' to avoid chronological inaccuracy.
  2. [§2] The description of the five-qubit code as 'the smallest possible scheme that corrects any single-qubit error' should specify the context: it is the smallest code for encoding one logical qubit with distance 3. Without that qualifier, the sentence is imprecise because other code parameters exist.
  3. [Remarks and Well-Wishes] The sentence 'While beyond-threshold computation has now been performed at small scales [2]' overstates the Google result. Reference [2] demonstrates suppression of logical errors by scaling a surface code, not a 'beyond-threshold computation' at scale; please rephrase to 'beyond-threshold error suppression' or similar.
  4. [Throughout] Several minor grammatical and formatting issues should be corrected: 'a team comprising of researchers' should be 'a team comprising researchers' or 'a team consisting of researchers'; 'Simon-Fraser University' should be 'Simon Fraser University'; 'keysight technologies' should be 'Keysight Technologies'; the Fig. 2(a) caption has a grammar issue ('apply U_CZ gate in between each qubit' should be 'apply a U_CZ gate between each pair of qubits'); and the Data Availability statement should read 'The data are available upon request.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: this is a narrative review with no equations or fitted predictions; self-citations indicate selection bias, not circularity.

full rationale

This manuscript is a community-focused review, not a derivation. It contains no equations, no fitted parameters, no predictions, and no formal chain of reasoning whose conclusion is equivalent to its inputs. The central claim that Canada shows 'leadership' in quantum error correction and mitigation is supported by a curated, explicitly 'handpicked' list of highlights and by a Web of Science–based geographic heatmap whose methodology is not described. A few highlighted items, notably EMRE [52] and PIE [53], are authored by the present paper's own authors. Listing one's own prior work in a review is self-citation, but it is not circular: the cited papers are external artifacts whose validity does not depend on this manuscript, and no load-bearing argument here reduces to those citations. The absence of a documented bibliometric procedure, comparator countries, or normalization means the leadership claim is difficult to verify, but that is an evidentiary limitation rather than a circularity. No instance of self-definition, fitted input called prediction, uniqueness imported from authors, ansatz smuggled via citation, or renaming of a known result was found. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

No free parameters or invented entities. The review rests on standard QEC background and on the assumption that its curated bibliography is representative; the latter is unverified.

assumptions (3)
  • standard math Quantum error correction theory, including stabilizer codes, thresholds, and Knill-Laflamme conditions, is presumed correct as background.
    The review relies on these established results without derivation.
  • domain assumption The selected references and affiliations accurately represent the Canadian QEC/QEM landscape.
    The leadership claim depends on the representativeness of the curated list; the paper admits it is 'handpicked' and does not disclose selection criteria.
  • domain assumption Affiliation data from Web of Science correctly attribute papers to Canadian institutions.
    Fig. 1's heatmap is built on this assumption, but no methodology is given for the query or disambiguation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Resilience: Canadian Innovations in Quantum Error Correction and Quantum Error Mitigation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LWJR72BA

@misc{pith2026250520534,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Resilience: Canadian Innovations in Quantum Error Correction and Quantum Error Mitigation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LWJR72BA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20534}
}
read the original abstract

In celebration of the 2025 International Year of Quantum Science and Technology, this article highlights the pioneering achievements and ongoing innovations in quantum error correction and quantum error mitigation by Canadian institutions, academia and industry alike. Emphasizing Canada's central role in advancing these two related areas, we summarize landmark theoretical breakthroughs, cutting-edge experiments, and emerging techniques aimed at reducing and/or eliminating errors incurred when using a quantum computer. This community-focused overview underscores Canada's leadership in addressing the critical challenge of noise in quantum information science.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20534 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Geographical distribution of Quantum Error Correction and Quantum Error Mitigation papers, based on Canadian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) The five-qubit quantum error correcting code, the smallest QECC that can correct one arbitrary quantum error, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Poulin, Optimal and efficient decoding of concate- nated quantum block codes, Phys

    D. Poulin, Optimal and efficient decoding of concate- nated quantum block codes, Phys. Rev. A74, 052333 (2006)

    work page 2006

  2. [52]

    Constant Runtime Error Mitigation via Restricted Evolution

    G. Saxena and T. H. Kyaw, Error mitigation by restricted evolution (2024), arXiv:2409.06636 [quant-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  3. [53]

    D ´ ıez-Valle, G

    P. D ´ ıez-Valle, G. Saxena, J. S. Baker, J.-H. Lee, and T. H. Kyaw, Physically motivated extrapolation for quantum error mitigation (2025), arXiv:2505.07977 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [43]

    A. Lowe, M. H. Gordon, P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio, Unified approach to data-driven quantum error mitigation, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 033098 (2021)

    2021

  5. [60]

    LaRose, A

    R. LaRose, A. Mari, S. Kaiser, P. J. Karalekas, A. A. Alves, P. Czarnik, M. El Mandouh, M. H. Gordon, Y. Hindy, A. Robertson, P. Thakre, M. Wahl, D. Samuel, R. Mistri, M. Tremblay, N. Gardner, N. T. Stemen, N. Shammah, and W. J. Zeng, Mitiq: A software pack- age for error mitigation on noisy quantum computers, Quantum6, 774 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [1]

    J. M. Martinis, Saving superconducting quantum pro- cessors from decay and correlated errors generated by gamma and cosmic rays, npj Quantum Inf.7, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [2]

    GoogleQuantumAI, Suppressing quantum errors by scal- ing a surface code logical qubit, Nature614, 676 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [3]

    T. A. Brun, Quantum Error Correction, Cambridge Uni- versity Press 10.1017/CBO9781139034807 (2013), [On- line; accessed 20. May 2025]

    doi:10.1017/cbo9781139034807 2013

Show all 62 references
  1. [4]

    Roffe, Quantum error correction: an introductory guide, Contemp

    J. Roffe, Quantum error correction: an introductory guide, Contemp. Phys. (2019)

    2019

  2. [5]

    Campbell, A series of fast-paced advances in Quantum Error Correction, Nat

    E. Campbell, A series of fast-paced advances in Quantum Error Correction, Nat. Rev. Phys.6, 160 (2024)

    2024

  3. [6]

    P. Kaye, R. Laflamme, and M. Mosca, An Introduction to Quantum Computing, Oxford University Press (2007)

    2007

  4. [7]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Com- putation and Quantum Information: 10th An- niversary Edition, Cambridge University Press 10.1017/CBO9780511976667 (2010)

    2010 doi

  5. [8]

    Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Hug- gins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, Quantum error mitigation, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 045005 (2023). 6

    2023

  6. [9]

    Laflamme, C

    R. Laflamme, C. Miquel, J. P. Paz, and W. H. Zurek, Per- fect Quantum Error Correcting Code, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 198 (1996)

    1996

  7. [10]

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. A54, 3824 (1996)

    1996

  8. [11]

    Knill and R

    E. Knill and R. Laflamme, A Theory of Quantum Error- Correcting Codes, arXiv 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.2525 (1996), quant-ph/9604034

    1996 arXiv

  9. [12]

    D. G. Cory, M. D. Price, W. Maas, E. Knill, R. Laflamme, W. H. Zurek, T. F. Havel, and S. S. Somaroo, Experimen- tal Quantum Error Correction, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 2152 (1998)

    1998

  10. [13]

    D. E. Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction, Caltech PhD thesis (1997)

    1997

  11. [14]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Phys. Rev. A64, 012310 (2001)

    2001

  12. [15]

    Konno, W

    S. Konno, W. Asavanant, F. Hanamura, H. Nagayoshi, K. Fukui, A. Sakaguchi, R. Ide, F. China, M. Yabuno, S. Miki, H. Terai, K. Takase, M. Endo, P. Marek, R. Filip, P. van Loock, and A. Furusawa, Logical states for fault- tolerant quantum computation with propagating light, Scie...

    2024

  13. [17]

    Bacon, J

    D. Bacon, J. Kempe, D. A. Lidar, and K. B. Wha- ley, Universal fault-tolerant quantum computation on decoherence-free subspaces, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 1758 (2000)

    2000

  14. [18]

    Grassl, T

    M. Grassl, T. Beth, and M. R¨ otteler, On optimal quantum codes, International Jour- nal of Quantum Information02, 55 (2004), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219749904000079

    2004 doi

  15. [19]

    Khodjasteh and D

    K. Khodjasteh and D. A. Lidar, Fault-tolerant quan- tum dynamical decoupling, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 180501 (2005)

    2005

  16. [20]

    Kribs, R

    D. Kribs, R. Laflamme, and D. Poulin, Unified and gener- alized approach to quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 180501 (2005)

    2005

  17. [21]

    Aliferis, D

    P. Aliferis, D. Gottesman, and J. Preskill, Quantum accu- racy threshold for concatenated distance-3 codes, Quan- tum Info. Comput.6, 97–165 (2006)

    2006

  18. [22]

    Raussendorf and J

    R. Raussendorf and J. Harrington, Fault-tolerant quan- tum computation with high threshold in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 190504 (2007)

    2007

  19. [23]

    Raussendorf, J

    R. Raussendorf, J. Harrington, and K. Goyal, Topologi- cal fault-tolerance in cluster state quantum computation, New Journal of Physics9, 199 (2007)

    2007

  20. [24]

    Broadbent, J

    A. Broadbent, J. Fitzsimons, and E. Kashefi, Univer- sal blind quantum computation, 2009 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science , 517 (2009)

    2009

  21. [25]

    A. G. Fowler, A. M. Stephens, and P. Groszkowski, High- threshold universal quantum computation on the surface code, Phys. Rev. A80, 052312 (2009)

    2009

  22. [26]

    Poulin, J

    D. Poulin, J. Tillich, and H. Ollivier, Quantum serial turbo codes, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory55, 2776 (2009)

    2009

  23. [27]

    Duclos-Cianci and D

    G. Duclos-Cianci and D. Poulin, Fast decoders for topo- logical quantum codes, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 050504 (2010)

    2010

  24. [28]

    Giurgica-Tiron, Y

    T. Giurgica-Tiron, Y. Hindy, R. LaRose, A. Mari, and W. J. Zeng, Digital zero noise extrapolation for quan- tum error mitigation, IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , 306 (2020)

    2020

  25. [29]

    Koenig, G

    R. Koenig, G. Kuperberg, and B. W. Reichardt, Quan- tum computation with Turaev–Viro codes, Ann. Phys. 325, 2707 (2010)

    2010

  26. [30]

    T. H. Kyaw, D. A. Herrera-Mart ´ ı, E. Solano, G. Romero, and L.-C. Kwek, Creation of quantum error correcting codes in the ultrastrong coupling regime, Phys. Rev. B 91, 064503 (2015)

    2015

  27. [31]

    B. W. Walshe, B. Q. Baragiola, H. Ferretti, J. Gefaell, M. Vasmer, R. Weil, T. Matsuura, T. Jaeken, G. Panta- leoni, Z. Han, T. Hillmann, N. C. Menicucci, I. Tzitrin, and R. N. Alexander, Linear-optical quantum computa- tion with arbitrary error-correcting codes, Physical Re- ...

    2025

  28. [32]

    Government of Canada, Supporting Canada’s leadership in quantum computing to grow the economy and cre- ate jobs,https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news- release s/2023/01/23/supporting- canadas- leadership- q uantum-computing-grow-economy-and(2023), prime Minister’s Office press release...

    2023

  29. [33]

    A. J. Malcolm, A. N. Glaudell, P. Fuentes, D. Chan- dra, A. Schotte, C. DeLisle, R. Haenel, A. Ebrahimi, J. Roffe, A. O. Quintavalle, S. J. Beale, N. R. Lee-Hone, and S. Simmons, Computing efficiently in qldpc codes, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07150 (2025), photonic Inc. techni...

    2025

  30. [34]

    Baspin and A

    N. Baspin and A. Krishna, Connectivity constrains quan- tum codes, Quantum6, 711 (2022), 2106.00765v4

    2022 arXiv

  31. [35]

    Lemonde, D

    M.-A. Lemonde, D. Lachance-Quirion, G. Duclos- Cianci, N. E. Frattini, F. Hopfmueller, C. Gauvin- Ndiaye, J. Camirand-Lemyre, and P. St-Jean, Hardware- efficient fault tolerant quantum computing with bosonic grid states in superconducting circuits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05...

    2024 arXiv

  32. [36]

    Lachance-Quirion, M.-A

    D. Lachance-Quirion, M.-A. Lemonde, J. O. Simoneau, L. St-Jean, P. Lemieux, S. Turcotte, W. Wright, A. Lacroix, J. Fr´ echette-Viens, R. Shillito, F. Hopf- mueller, M. Tremblay, N. E. Frattini, J. C. Le- myre, and P. St-Jean, Autonomous quantum error correction of Gottesman-Ki...

    2023 doi arXiv

  33. [37]

    S. Puri, L. St-Jean, J. A. Gross, A. Grimm, N. E. Frat- tini, P. S. Iyer, A. Krishna, S. Touzard, L. Jiang, A. Blais, S. T. Flammia, and S. M. Girvin, Bias-preserving gates with stabilized cat qubits, Sci. Adv.6, 10.1126/sci- adv.aay5901 (2020)

    2020 doi

  34. [38]

    Kubica and M

    A. Kubica and M. Vasmer, Single-shot quantum error correction with the three-dimensional subsystem toric code, Nature Communications13, 6272 (2022), intro- duces the 3D subsystem toric code with single-shot error correction

    2022

  35. [39]

    Krinner, N

    S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, A. Remm, A. Di Paolo, E. Genois, C. Leroux, C. Hellings, S. Lazar, F. Swiadek, J. Her- rmann, 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

  36. [40]

    Ginsberg and V

    T. Ginsberg and V. Patel, Quantum error detection for early term fault-tolerant quantum algorithms (2025), arXiv:2503.10790 [quant-ph]. 7

    2025 arXiv

  37. [41]

    Torlai and R

    G. Torlai and R. G. Melko, Neural decoder for topolog- ical codes, Physical Review Letters119, 030501 (2017), arXiv:1610.04238 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [42]

    Chamberland and M

    C. Chamberland and M. E. Beverland, Flag fault-tolerant error correction with arbitrary distance codes, Quantum 2, 53 (2018), arXiv:1708.02246 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [44]

    Raymond, M

    J. Raymond, M. H. Amin, A. D. King, R. Harris, W. Bernoudy, A. J. Berkley, K. Boothby, A. Smirnov, F. Altomare, M. Babcock, C. Baron, J. Connor, M. H. Dehn, C. Enderud, E. Hoskinson, S. Huang, M. W. Johnson, E. Ladizinsky, T. Lanting, A. J. R. MacDon- ald, G. Marsden, R. Molav...

    2025

  40. [45]

    A. Ijaz, C. H. Alderete, F. Sauvage, L. Cincio, M. Cerezo, and M. L. Goh, More buck-per-shot: Why learning trumps mitigation in noisy quantum sensing, Materials Today Quantum6, 100042 (2025)

    2025

  41. [46]

    J. J. Wallman and J. Emerson, Noise tailoring for scalable quantum computation via randomized compiling, Phys. Rev. A94, 052325 (2016)

    2016

  42. [47]

    Hashim, R

    A. Hashim, R. K. Naik, A. Morvan, J.-L. Ville, B. Mitchell, J. M. Kreikebaum, M. Davis, E. Smith, C. Iancu, K. P. O’Brien, I. Hincks, J. J. Wallman, J. Emerson, and I. Siddiqi, Randomized compiling for scalable quantum computing on a noisy superconducting quantum processor, Ph...

    2021

  43. [48]

    Winick, J

    A. Winick, J. J. Wallman, D. Dahlen, I. Hincks, E. Ospadov, and J. Emerson, Concepts and conditions for error suppression through randomized compiling (2022), arXiv:2212.07500 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [49]

    S. J. Beale and J. J. Wallman, Randomized compiling for subsystem measurements (2023), arXiv:2304.06599 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [50]

    Miguel-Ramiro, Z

    J. Miguel-Ramiro, Z. Shi, L. Dellantonio, A. Chan, C. A. Muschik, and W. D¨ ur, Superposed quantum error mitigation, Physical Review Letters131, 10.1103/phys- revlett.131.230601 (2023)

    2023 doi

  46. [51]

    Ferracin, A

    S. Ferracin, A. Hashim, J.-L. Ville, R. Naik, A. Carignan- Dugas, H. Qassim, A. Morvan, D. I. Santiago, I. Siddiqi, and J. J. Wallman, Efficiently improving the performance of noisy quantum computers, Quantum8, 1410 (2024)

    2024

  47. [54]

    E. R. Bennewitz, F. Hopfmueller, B. Kulchytskyy, J. Car- rasquilla, and P. Ronagh, Neural error mitigation of near- term quantum simulations, Nature Machine Intelligence 4, 618–624 (2022)

    2022

  48. [55]

    M. Liao, Y. Zhu, G. Chiribella, and Y. Yang, Noise- agnostic quantum error mitigation with data augmented neural models, npj Quantum Inf.11, 1 (2025)

    2025

  49. [56]

    D. Su, R. Israel, K. Sharma, H. Qi, I. Dhand, and K. Br´ adler, Error mitigation on a near-term quantum photonic device, Quantum5, 452 (2021)

    2021

  50. [57]

    adamantaneland

    V. K. Prasad, F. Cheng, U. Fekl, and H.-A. Jacobsen, Applications of noisy quantum computing and quantum error mitigation to “adamantaneland”: a benchmarking study for quantum chemistry, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 26, 4071 (2024)

    2024

  51. [58]

    Hagge and N

    T. Hagge and N. Wiebe, Error mitigation via error detection using generalized superfast encodings (2023), arXiv:2309.11673 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [59]

    J. Lin, J. J. Wallman, I. Hincks, and R. Laflamme, In- dependent state and measurement characterization for quantum computers, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 033285 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    J. Lee, D. W. Berry, C. Gidney, W. J. Huggins, J. R. Mc- Clean, N. Wiebe, and R. Babbush, Even more efficient quantum computations of chemistry through tensor hy- percontraction, PRX Quantum2, 030305 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    Suzuki, S

    Y. Suzuki, S. Endo, K. Fujii, and Y. Tokunaga, Quantum error mitigation as a universal error reduction technique: Applications from the nisq to the fault-tolerant quantum computing eras, PRX Quantum3, 010345 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

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