Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 50 references

Radiation-Induced Fault Detection in Superconducting Quantum Devices

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Radiation-induced faults in superconducting quantum chips can be detected and localised at runtime from syndrome measurements alone.

desk verdict A genuinely novel runtime radiation detector for surface codes, but the 100% numbers are only demonstrated inside the simulation loop built around the same model. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16834 v1 pith:SKBQIDXW submitted 2025-06-20 quant-ph

Marzio Vallero , Gioele Casagranda , Flavio Vella , Paolo Rech This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Pp85.25.-j
keywords quantumerrorcorrectionsyndromedecodingradiationfaultscosmicrayssuperconductingqubitssurfacecodefaultdetectioninjection
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 argues that the syndrome stream of a quantum error correction code carries enough of a cosmic-ray strike's signature to detect it at runtime, locate its impact point, and estimate its affected area with negligible overhead. The authors introduce REI, a QEC-agnostic routine that accumulates recent syndrome measurements, filters for spatially clustered per-qubit defect rates, and returns a weighted centroid and radius. Across more than 11 million simulated Rotated Surface code shots using a physics-derived radiation model, REI detects 100% of injected faults regardless of impact position, with overhead below 0.3% of decoding time. The paper then uses that information to flip stabiliser measurements inside the affected area before minimum-weight perfect matching decoding, a step they call RadMatching, which lowers logical error by roughly a quarter compared with radiation-unaware decoders. If the results transfer to real devices, radiation-aware decoding becomes a practical software complement to shielding and other hardware mitigations.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the Radiation Event Identification (REI) subroutine, built around the physics-derived erasure model P(Δs, Δt_g, t) = S(Δs) · T(Δt_g, t), where the spatial falloff is S(Δs) = 1/(Δs+1)^2, the temporal erasure probability is T(Δt_g, t) = 1 − exp(−Δt_g/τ_rad(t)), and the radiation-shortened coherence time is τ_rad(t) = τ_1 exp(10((t−t_rad)/Δ_t_rad − 1)). REI turns this expected signature into a detection rule: it accumulates the last K_max syndrome rounds, converts them into per-qubit defect incidence rates, prunes values below $\alpha$ = 1/((rounds+1)·S), verifies spatial correlation through the average nearest-neighbour distance, and estimates the impact centre as the defect-squared-weighted centroid with radius equal to twice the weighted average distance. RadMatching then applies the identified circular area to invert stabiliser measurements before MWPM decoding, giving the decoder a pre-cleaned syndrome.

What would settle it

Take a superconducting chip instrumented with a co-located cosmic-ray detector or a known radiation source, record the real syndrome stream during confirmed strikes, and run REI to compare its detection rate, impact centre, and radius against the known events; a detection rate below 100%, false alarms outside the strike window, or a systematic bias in the estimated centre would falsify the claim that syndrome correlations alone identify radiation events.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that radiation-induced correlated errors can be detected and localised solely from syndrome information before decoding, by exploiting the spatial and temporal correlation of the fault: per-qubit defect rates near the impact point rise above the intrinsic-noise level and stay elevated across consecutive syndrome rounds. REI keeps a FIFO backlog of the last K_max syndrome vectors, normalises per-qubit defect incidence over time, prunes qubits below a threshold, checks that the surviving qubits are spatially clustered, and returns a weighted centroid and a radius estimate for the event. On simulated Rotated Surface codes of distance 5 to 19, with faults injected at central and peripheral positions, REI detects 100% of injected faults with no false positives outside the fault window, regardless of code basis or impact position. Feeding the estimated affected area into a minimum-weight perfect matching decoder as bit flips on affected stabiliser measurements yields RadMatching, which reduces logical error rate by upwards of 25% relative to standard MWPM and other graph-based decoders at the fault's most intense phase.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the radiation model in Equations 1 to 4 faithfully describing real cosmic-ray strikes: if actual events decay with a different time profile, spread across the chip differently, or corrupt syndrome measurements in a way not proportional to S times T, then the 100% detection rate and the localization accuracy are not guaranteed to transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • REI can be inserted before any graph-based decoder with under 0.3% overhead, so radiation awareness is compatible with real-time decoding time constraints.
  • Because REI is designed to be agnostic to the QEC code and the error basis, similar syndrome-correlation pre-processing should transfer to stabiliser codes beyond the Rotated Surface code.
  • Larger code distances dilute a radiation event across more stabilisers, so higher-distance codes preserve a lower fraction of corrupted stabilisers and stay detectable for a shorter tail of the event.
  • RadMatching lowers logical error by upwards of 25% at peak intensity relative to MWPM, while all four radiation-unaware graph decoders studied exceed roughly 50% logical error during the event.
  • On a chip hosting several distance-15 surface codes, correlated logical-error spikes track proximity to the impact point, with equidistant codes spiking together.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If real cosmic-ray events match the model's temporal and spatial profile, REI's output could trigger hardware-level responses such as pausing correction, flagging affected QEC rounds as unreliable, or dynamically remapping logical qubits away from the damaged region.
  • The correlated multi-code error spikes imply that future large chips should schedule or place logical qubits with radiation geometry in mind, for example by duplicating logical qubits in well-separated regions rather than clustering them around one chip area.
  • REI's radius and centroid could be used to adjust decoder edge weights continuously during a radiation transient, not just to flip binary stabiliser measurements, which might capture partial erasures more accurately than RadMatching's thresholded flip.
  • The 100% detection number is a simulation result tied to the injected model; a natural next test is to run REI on real syndrome streams from a chip with a co-located cosmic-ray detector and measure the true detection rate and localisation bias.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Radiation Event Identification (REI), a runtime algorithm that analyzes syndrome measurements of a Rotated Surface code to detect cosmic-ray-induced correlated errors, estimate the impact centre, and identify the affected area. The authors also introduce RadMatching, a radiation-aware pre-processing step that flips stabiliser measurements in the estimated affected region before feeding the syndrome to a MWPM decoder. The claims—100% fault detection, accurate centre/area identification, sub-0.3% decoding overhead, and up to 20–25% improvement in decoder output correctness—are supported by a large STIM-based simulation campaign (over 11 million shots) using a physics-derived radiation model specified by Equations 1–4.

Significance. The topic is timely and practically relevant: radiation-induced correlated errors are a recognized obstacle to fault-tolerant superconducting quantum computing, and algorithmic mitigation at the decoder level would complement hardware shielding approaches. The paper's strengths include the scale of the simulation campaign, the explicit goal of runtime integration, the low overhead of REI, and the concrete proposal of a radiation-aware decoding step. If the claims hold, this would be a useful step toward radiation-aware QEC. However, the significance is contingent on the transferability of the results from the assumed physics model to real device behaviour; the current evidence is entirely simulation-based and the detector is matched to the model that generates its test data.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3 (Eqs. 1–4) and Algorithm 1] The REI detection logic (FIFO temporal correlation, spatial clustering test, weighted centroid, radius formula) is constructed to recognize exactly the correlated signatures generated by the paper's own radiation model: exp(10) coherence collapse, single-gate erasure probability, inverse-square spatial falloff, and product form. The manuscript tests the detector on this same model, so the reported 100% detection and localization accuracy may be an artifact of this closed loop. No sensitivity analysis over model parameters (e.g., the temporal decay exponent, the spatial falloff exponent, or event duration) is provided, and there is no validation on experimental correlated-error data such as those in McEwen et al. [36] or Wilen et al. [45]. This is load-bearing for the central claim; please add a systematic robustness study or an experimental benchmark.
  2. [Sections 5.1 and 5.2] The abstract claims that REI "accurately identify[ies] both the radiation impact centre and the area affected," but the evaluation never compares the returned (x, y) and radius against the injected locus. The reported metrics are detection rate and afflicted-stabiliser ratio over time; there is no quantitative localization error metric. Without e.g. the mean/median absolute error in centre coordinates and radius, as a function of time, code distance, and injection site, the localization claim is unsupported.
  3. [Section 5.5 and Figure 7] RadMatching is evaluated only for one configuration: d=9, central fault, 384 shots. The abstract's "up to 20%" improvement conflicts with the text's "upwards of 25%" in Section 5.5 and "about 25%" in the Conclusion. The improvement should be reported as an average over a meaningful ensemble with error bars, and should be tested across multiple fault positions, code distances, and radiation intensities to support the general claim. It should also be clarified whether the improvement is measured relative to MWPM alone or to all the compared decoders, since the comparison set matters for the abstract's wording.
  4. [Abstract, Figures 3 and 4] The claim that the technique "detects 100% of injected faults" is ambiguous. The detection-rate plots in Figures 3 and 4 show 100% only near event onset, with the rate falling before the end of the 1 ms event (earlier for peripheral faults and higher-distance codes). If the intended claim is that every injected event is detected at least once during its lifetime, this should be stated explicitly and supported with per-event detection counts. If the claim is a per-syndrome detection rate, it is contradicted by the presented data.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5.3] The abstract states overhead "lower than 0.3% the decoding time," but Section 5.3 reports measured overheads between 0.1% and 0.2% for distances 3–19. These numbers should be reconciled.
  2. [Section 5.5 and Conclusion] The improvement figure is reported inconsistently: "up to 20%" in the abstract, "upwards of 25%" in Section 5.5, and "about 25%" in the Conclusion. Use a single, precisely defined quantity.
  3. [References] Reference [5] is an anonymous placeholder URL with "to be disclosed after the review process." This is not acceptable for reproducibility; please provide a working repository link or a data-availability statement.
  4. [Table 1] The table caption contains a typo: "Instrinsic noise model" should be "Intrinsic noise model."
  5. [Figures 3 and 4] The detection-rate plots claim "no false positives" without reporting a quantitative false-positive rate. Please state the number of false-positive detections or the false-positive rate outside the event window.
  6. [Section 1 and Section 5] The 11 million shot figure is not reconciled with the reported sample sizes (128–512 per configuration). Please provide a breakdown of how the total number of shots is accumulated.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Closed-loop validation: REI is a matched filter for the paper's own radiation model, so the 100% detection/localization claim is a consistency check rather than an independent prediction.

  1. other [Section 4 (Algorithm 1: temporal FIFO, spatial clustering, weighted centroid/radius), validated in Sections 5.1-5.2; abstract claim]
    "Given the radiation fault model presented in Section 3.3, we know that high energy events show correlations in space, over neighbouring qubits on the quantum chip, and in time, across time spans that last for thousands of QEC shots. ... Given the properties of radiation faults described in Section 3.3, we expect the affected area to be circle-shaped and centred on the injection point."

    The injected faults in the evaluation are generated by the paper's own model (Eqs. 1-4): P(Δs,Δt,t)=S(Δs)T(Δt,t) with S=1/(Δs+1)^2 and T=1-exp(-Δt/τ_rad(t)). REI's FIFO window, spatial clustering threshold (correlation_factor ≤ 2*device_avg_min_dist), and weighted centroid/radius (Algorithm 1, lines 28-38) are explicitly adapted to that correlated space-time signature. A fault drawn from Eq. 4 therefore produces, by construction, the clustered, persistent defect pattern that REI is designed to flag; the reported 100% detection and the 'circle-shaped' area expectation are consequences of this model-detector match, not independent empirical predictions. No sensitivity analysis over the model parameters or comparison with experimental correlated-error data is provided.

full rationale

The central detection and localization claims are not backed by an independent benchmark: REI is hand-constructed from the same physics model used to generate the injected faults. The temporal FIFO, spatial clustering test, and weighted centroid/radius formulas are matched to the exact temporal decay and inverse-square spatial falloff of Eqs. 1-4, so the 100% detection rate and accurate-area statements are largely a self-consistency check. This is partial circularity, not a definitional identity, because the RadMatching decoder comparison and the logical-error-rate measurements retain independent content: whether flipping identified stabilisers improves decoding is not logically forced by the model-detector match. The paper contains self-citations, but they are background and not load-bearing. The main weakness is the closed-loop evaluation and the absence of a quantitative localization-error metric against the injected ground truth; these are validation gaps as much as circularity. Score 6 reflects that the headline detection/localization prediction reduces by construction to the model-detector match, while the decoder-improvement claim does not.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumed fidelity of the radiation model, the assumed separation between intrinsic noise and radiation signatures, the representative topology, and the heuristic validity of flipping syndrome bits before decoding. The REI algorithm contributes no new physical entities but introduces several hand-chosen numerical constants (Kmax, alpha, exponent 2, radius factor 2, correlation threshold) that are not derived from first principles and are not tested for sensitivity.

free parameters (5)
  • K_max (FIFO length)
    Backlog size in Algorithm 1 line 4; value never specified, controls how many syndrome rounds are correlated in time. Detection sensitivity depends on it.
  • alpha pruning threshold = 1/((rounds+1)*K)
    Algorithm 1 line 15; hand-chosen to separate radiation defects from intrinsic noise, no derivation or sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • error weighting exponent = 2
    Algorithm 1 line 34 squares defect rates before centroid computation; arbitrary choice that affects center and radius estimates.
  • radius multiplier = 2
    Algorithm 1 line 38 estimates affected radius as twice the weighted mean distance; no independent justification is given.
  • correlation threshold factor = 2*device_avg_min_dist
    Algorithm 1 line 31 rejects events if the mean nearest-neighbor distance exceeds twice the device average; threshold chosen by hand.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Radiation faults follow the spatio-temporal model of Equations 1-4: tau_rad(t)=tau1*exp(10((t-t_rad)/Delta_t_rad-1)), T=1-exp(-Delta_t_g/tau_rad(t)), S=1/(Delta_s+1)^2, P=S*T.
    Load-bearing for REI detection; the algorithm is designed around spatially and temporally correlated defect patterns that this model generates. No experimental validation of these functional forms is provided.
  • domain assumption Intrinsic noise is depolarizing Pauli noise at constant p=1e-5, uncorrelated across qubits and rounds.
    Used to set REI's alpha threshold and to establish the false-positive baseline. Real devices have position- and time-dependent noise.
  • domain assumption The 760-qubit chip topology and surface-code mapping, with no SWAP operations, are representative of real devices.
    Detection localization depends on planar coordinates and distances on this assumed topology. Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption Flipping stabiliser bits in the REI-identified area before MWPM decoding is a valid correction for radiation effects.
    RadMatching relies on the conjecture that corrupted stabiliser measurements in the area should be inverted; no theoretical derivation, only empirical improvement in simulation. Section 5.5.
  • domain assumption The affected area is approximately circular and centered at the weighted centroid, with radius 2 times the weighted mean distance.
    Observation II and Algorithm 1 lines 35-38; no goodness-of-fit or validation against the true affected area beyond simulation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radiation-Induced Fault Detection in Superconducting Quantum Devices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SKBQIDXW

@misc{pith2026250616834,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radiation-Induced Fault Detection in Superconducting Quantum Devices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SKBQIDXW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16834}
}
abstract

The quest for universal superconducting quantum computing is hindered by noise and errors. It has been proven that Quantum Error Correction (QEC) codes will lay at the foundation of fault tolerant quantum computing. However, cosmic-ray induced correlated errors, which are the most detrimental events that can impact superconducting quantum computers, are yet to be efficiently tackled. In order to reach fault tolerance, we must also develop radiation aware methods to complement QEC. In this paper, we propose the first algorithm to effectively exploit syndrome information for the efficient detection of radiation events in superconducting quantum devices at runtime. We perform a thorough analysis of simulated Rotated Surface codes injecting over 11 million physics-modeled radiation-induced faults. We consider the properties of the X and Z check bases, the impact of code distance, and the decoder's time to solution constraints. Our technique detects $100\%$ of injected faults, regardless of the impact's position. Moreover, we accurately identify both the radiation impact centre and the area affected, with an overhead lower than $0.3\%$ the decoding time. Additionally, we use the fault identification information to propose a radiation fault correction technique that improves of up to $20\%$ the output correctness compared to existing decoders.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16834 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Quantum chip topology. The structure of the quan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The information processing scheme of the REI subroutine. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Code distance relation with radiation area-of-effect detection. We consider the Rotated Surface code, both in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radiation area-of-effect detection. We consider the Rotated Surface code (Z-basis) of distance 15 with 15 repetitions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Multi-code logical error. We show three independent loci of radiation (right, outlined in red), affecting a quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Overhead ratio of radiation detection and of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Decoder performance comparison. We considered the Rotated Surface code of distance 9 with 9 repetitions per round [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [36]

    Resolving catastrophic error bursts from cosmic rays in large arrays of superconducting qubits

    Matt McEwen et al. “Resolving catastrophic error bursts from cosmic rays in large arrays of superconducting qubits”. In: Nature Physics 18.1 (Jan. 2022), pp. 107–111. issn: 1745-2481. doi: 10.1038/s41567-021-01432-8. url: https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41567-021-01432-8

    doi:10.1038/s41567-021-01432-8 2022

  2. [45]

    Correlated charge noise and re- laxation errors in superconducting qubits

    Christopher D Wilen et al. “Correlated charge noise and re- laxation errors in superconducting qubits”. In:Nature 594.7863 (2021), pp. 369–373. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03557-5. url: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03557-5

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03557-5 2021

  3. [1]

    Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold

    Rajeev Acharya et al. “Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold”. In: Nature 638.8052 (Feb. 2025), pp. 920–926. issn: 1476-4687. doi: 10 . 1038 / s41586 - 024 - 08449-y. url: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08449-y

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08449-y 2025

  4. [2]

    Suppressing quantum errors by scal- ing a surface code logical qubit

    Rajeev Acharya et al. “Suppressing quantum errors by scal- ing a surface code logical qubit”. In: Nature 614.7949 (Feb. 2023), pp. 676–681. issn: 1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022- 05434-1. url: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05434-1

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022- 2023

  5. [3]

    Fast scalable and low-power quantum circuit simulation on the cluster of GPUs platforms

    Armin Ahmadzadeh and Hamid Sarbazi-Azad. “Fast scalable and low-power quantum circuit simulation on the cluster of GPUs platforms”. In: Optical and Quantum Electronics 56.10 (Sept. 2024), p. 1646. issn: 1572-817X. doi: 10.1007/s11082- 024-07492-3. url: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11082-024-07492- 3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11082- 2024

  6. [4]

    Superconducting Qubits above 20 GHz Operating over 200 mK

    Alexander Anferov et al. “Superconducting Qubits above 20 GHz Operating over 200 mK”. In: PRX Quantum 5 (3 Sept. 2024), p. 030347. doi: 10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.030347. url: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.030347

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.030347 2024

  7. [5]

    Work repository to be disclosed after the review process

    Anonymous Author. Work repository to be disclosed after the review process. https://github.com/. 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [6]

    A real-time, scalable, fast and resource- efficient decoder for a quantum computer

    Ben Barber et al. “A real-time, scalable, fast and resource- efficient decoder for a quantum computer”. In: Nature Elec- tronics 8.1 (Jan. 2025), pp. 84–91. issn: 2520-1131. doi: 10. 1038/s41928- 024- 01319- 5. url: https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41928-024-01319-5

    work page 2025

Show all 50 references
  1. [7]

    Real-time decoding for fault-tolerant quan- tum computing: progress, challenges and outlook

    F Battistel et al. “Real-time decoding for fault-tolerant quan- tum computing: progress, challenges and outlook”. In: Nano Futures 7.3 (Aug. 2023), p. 032003. doi: 10.1088/2399-1984/ aceba6. url: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2399-1984/aceba6

    2023 doi

  2. [8]

    Soft errors in advanced computer sys- tems

    Robert Baumann. “Soft errors in advanced computer sys- tems”. In: IEEE Design Test of Computers 22.3 (May 2005), pp. 258–266. issn: 0740-7475. doi: 10.1109/MDT.2005.69

    2005 doi

  3. [9]

    Learning high-accuracy error de- coding for quantum processors

    Johannes Bausch et al. “Learning high-accuracy error de- coding for quantum processors”. In: Nature 635.8040 (Nov. 2024), pp. 834–840. issn: 1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024- 08148-8. url: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08148-8

    2024 doi

  4. [10]

    Optimal resources for topological two-dimensional stabilizer codes: Comparative study

    H. Bombin and M. A. Martin-Delgado. “Optimal resources for topological two-dimensional stabilizer codes: Comparative study”. In: Physical Review A 76.1 (July 2007). issn: 1094-1622. doi: 10.1103/physreva.76.012305. url: http://dx.doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevA.76.012305

    2007 doi

  5. [11]

    High-threshold and low-overhead fault- tolerant quantum memory

    Sergey Bravyi et al. “High-threshold and low-overhead fault- tolerant quantum memory”. In: Nature 627.8005 (Mar. 2024), pp. 778–782. issn: 1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07107-

    2024 doi

  6. [12]

    url: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07107-7

    doi

  7. [13]

    Disentangling the sources of ionizing ra- diation in superconducting qubits

    L. Cardani et al. “Disentangling the sources of ionizing ra- diation in superconducting qubits”. In: The European Phys- ical Journal C 83.1 (Jan. 2023), p. 94. issn: 1434-6052. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11199-2. url: https://doi.org/10. 1140/epjc/s10052-023-11199-2

    2023 doi

  8. [14]

    Reducing the impact of radioactivity on quantum circuits in a deep-underground facility

    Laura Cardani et al. “Reducing the impact of radioactivity on quantum circuits in a deep-underground facility”. In: Nature communications 12.1 (2021), p. 2733

    2021

  9. [15]

    Understanding the Contributions of Terrestrial Radiation Sources to Error Rates in Quantum Devices

    Gioele Casagranda et al. “Understanding the Contributions of Terrestrial Radiation Sources to Error Rates in Quantum Devices”. In: IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science (2025), pp. 1–1. doi: 10.1109/TNS.2025.3537036

    2025

  10. [16]

    Understanding the Impact of Cutting in Quantum Circuits Reliability to Transient Faults

    Nadir Casciola et al. “Understanding the Impact of Cutting in Quantum Circuits Reliability to Transient Faults”. In:2022 IEEE 28th International Symposium on On-Line Testing and Robust System Design (IOLTS) . 2022, pp. 1–7. doi: 10.1109/ IOLTS56730.2022.9897308

    2022

  11. [17]

    Quantum Error Correction For Dummies

    Avimita Chatterjee, Koustubh Phalak, and Swaroop Ghosh. “Quantum Error Correction For Dummies”. In: 2023 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineer- ing (QCE). Vol. 01. 2023, pp. 70–81. doi: 10.1109/QCE57702. 2023.00017

    2023

  12. [18]

    Christopher T. Chubb. General tensor network decoding of 2D Pauli codes . 2021. arXiv: 2101.04125 [quant-ph]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.04125. Vallero et al

    2021 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Toward a Union-Find Decoder for Quantum LDPC Codes

    Nicolas Delfosse, Vivien Londe, and Michael E. Beverland. “Toward a Union-Find Decoder for Quantum LDPC Codes”. In: IEEE Transactions on Information Theory68.5 (2022), pp. 3187–

    2022

  14. [20]

    Paths, Trees, and Flowers

    Jack Edmonds. “Paths, Trees, and Flowers”. In: Canadian Journal of Mathematics 17 (1965), pp. 449–467. doi: 10.4153/ CJM-1965-045-4

    1965

  15. [21]

    Almost-linear time decoding algorithm for topological codes

    Nicolas Delfosse and Naomi H. Nickerson. “Almost-linear time decoding algorithm for topological codes”. In:Quantum 5 (Dec. 2021), p. 595. issn: 2521-327X. doi: 10.22331/q-2021- 12-02-595. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-12-02- 595

    2021 doi

  16. [22]

    Minimum weight perfect matching of fault-tolerant topological quantum error correction in aver- age O(1) parallel time

    Austin G. Fowler. “Minimum weight perfect matching of fault-tolerant topological quantum error correction in aver- age O(1) parallel time”. In: Quantum Info. Comput. 15.1–2 (Jan. 2015), pp. 145–158. issn: 1533-7146

    2015

  17. [23]

    Tensor Networks and Quantum Error Correction

    Andrew J. Ferris and David Poulin. “Tensor Networks and Quantum Error Correction”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (3 July 2014), p. 030501. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.030501. url: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.030501

    2014 doi

  18. [24]

    Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator

    Craig Gidney. “Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator”. In: Quantum 5 (July 2021), p. 497.issn: 2521-327X. doi: 10.22331/ q-2021-07-06-497. url: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-07- 06-497

    2021 doi

  19. [25]

    Modeling and simulating the noisy behavior of near- term quantum computers

    Konstantinos Georgopoulos, Clive Emary, and Paolo Zu- liani. “Modeling and simulating the noisy behavior of near- term quantum computers”. In: Phys. Rev. A 104 (6 Dec. 2021), p. 062432. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.104.062432. url: https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.104.062432

    2021 doi

  20. [26]

    Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Cor- rection

    Daniel Gottesman. Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Cor- rection. 1997. arXiv: quant- ph/9705052 [quant-ph]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9705052

    1997

  21. [27]

    Bench- marking the Planar Honeycomb Code

    Craig Gidney, Michael Newman, and Matt McEwen. “Bench- marking the Planar Honeycomb Code”. In: Quantum 6 (Sept. 2022), p. 813. issn: 2521-327X. doi: 10.22331/q-2022-09-21-

    2022 doi

  22. [28]

    PyMatching: A Python Package for Decod- ing Quantum Codes with Minimum-Weight Perfect Match- ing

    Oscar Higgott. “PyMatching: A Python Package for Decod- ing Quantum Codes with Minimum-Weight Perfect Match- ing”. In: ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing 3.3 (June 2022). doi: 10.1145/3505637. url: https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3505637

    2022 doi

  23. [29]

    Improved decoding of circuit noise and fragile boundaries of tailored surface codes

    Oscar Higgott et al. Improved decoding of circuit noise and fragile boundaries of tailored surface codes . 2023. arXiv: 2203. 04948 [quant-ph]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.04948

    2023

  24. [30]

    Harrington et al

    Patrick M. Harrington et al. Synchronous Detection of Cosmic Rays and Correlated Errors in Superconducting Qubit Arrays

  25. [31]

    Implementation of scalable suspended superinductors

    Christian Jünger et al. “Implementation of scalable suspended superinductors”. In: Applied Physics Letters 126.4 (Jan. 2025), p. 044003. issn: 0003-6951. doi: 10.1063/5.0250341. eprint: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5. 0250341/20367496/044003\_1\_5.0250...

    2025 doi

  26. [32]

    Improved quan- tum hypergraph-product LDPC codes

    Alexey A. Kovalev and Leonid P. Pryadko. “Improved quan- tum hypergraph-product LDPC codes”. In:2012 IEEE Interna- tional Symposium on Information Theory Proceedings . IEEE, July 2012, pp. 348–352. doi: 10.1109/isit.2012.6284206. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISIT.2012.6284206

    2012

  27. [33]

    Comparative Benchmarking of Utility- Scale Quantum Emulators

    Anna Leonteva et al. Comparative Benchmarking of Utility- Scale Quantum Emulators. 2025. arXiv: 2504.14027[quant-ph]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.14027

    2025 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Measurement and Reporting of Alpha Particle and Terrestrial Cosmic Ray-Induced Soft Errors in Semiconductor Devices

    JEDEC. Measurement and Reporting of Alpha Particle and Terrestrial Cosmic Ray-Induced Soft Errors in Semiconductor Devices. Tech. rep. JESD89A. JEDEC Standard, 2006

    2006

  29. [35]

    Saving superconducting quantum proces- sors from decay and correlated errors generated by gamma and cosmic rays

    John M. Martinis. “Saving superconducting quantum proces- sors from decay and correlated errors generated by gamma and cosmic rays”. In: npj Quantum Information 7.1 (2021), p. 90. doi: 10.1038/s41534-021-00431-0. url: https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41534-021-00431-0

    2021 doi

  30. [37]

    QuFI: a Quantum Fault Injector to Measure the Reliability of Qubits and Quantum Circuits

    Daniel Oliveira et al. “QuFI: a Quantum Fault Injector to Measure the Reliability of Qubits and Quantum Circuits”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.07183 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Abatement of ionizing radiation for super- conducting quantum devices

    B. Loer et al. “Abatement of ionizing radiation for super- conducting quantum devices”. In: Journal of Instrumenta- tion 19.09 (Sept. 2024), P09001. doi: 10.1088/1748- 0221/ 19 / 09 / P09001.url: https : / / dx . doi . org / 10 . 1088 / 1748 - 0221/19/09/P09001

    2024 doi

  32. [39]

    LDPC: Python tools for low density parity check codes

    Joschka Roffe. LDPC: Python tools for low density parity check codes. 2022. url: https://pypi.org/project/ldpc/

    2022

  33. [40]

    Reinforcement learning decoders for fault-tolerant quantum computation

    Ryan Sweke et al. “Reinforcement learning decoders for fault-tolerant quantum computation”. In: Machine Learn- ing: Science and Technology 2.2 (Dec. 2020), p. 025005. doi: 10.1088/2632-2153/abc609. url: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 2632-2153/abc609

    2020 doi

  34. [41]

    State of prac- tice: Evaluating GPU performance of state vector and tensor network methods

    Marzio Vallero, Paolo Rech, and Flavio Vella. “State of prac- tice: Evaluating GPU performance of state vector and tensor network methods”. In: Future Generation Computer Systems 174 (2026), p. 107927. issn: 0167-739X. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.future.2025.107927. url: h...

    2026

  35. [42]

    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond

    John Preskill. “Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond”. In: Quantum 2 (Aug. 2018), p. 79. issn: 2521-327X. doi: 10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79. url: http://dx.doi.org/10. 22331/q-2018-08-06-79

    2018 doi

  36. [43]

    Understanding Logical-Shift Error Propagation in Quanvolutional Neural Networks

    Marzio Vallero et al. “Understanding Logical-Shift Error Propagation in Quanvolutional Neural Networks”. In: IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 5 (2024), pp. 1–14. doi: 10.1109/TQE.2024.3372880

    2024

  37. [44]

    Impact of ionizing radiation on su- perconducting qubit coherence

    Antti P. Vepsäläinen et al. “Impact of ionizing radiation on su- perconducting qubit coherence”. In: Nature 584.7822 (2020), pp. 551–556. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2619-8. url: https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2619-8. Radiation-Induced Fault Detection in Superconducting Quant...

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    On the Efficacy of Surface Codes in Compensating for Radiation Events in Superconducting De- vices

    Marzio Vallero et al. “On the Efficacy of Surface Codes in Compensating for Radiation Events in Superconducting De- vices”. In: SC24: International Conference for High Perfor- mance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis . 2024, pp. 1–15. doi: 10.1109/SC41406.2024.00075

    2024 arXiv

  39. [50]

    A single quantum cannot be cloned

    W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek. “A single quantum cannot be cloned”. In: Nature 299.5886 (Oct. 1982), pp. 802–803.issn: 1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/299802a0. url: https://doi.org/10. 1038/299802a0

    1982 doi

  40. [813]

    url: http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2022-09-21-813

    2022 doi

  41. [2024]

    arXiv: 2402.03208 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

  42. [3199]

    doi: 10.1109/TIT.2022.3143452

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.