pith. the verified trust layer for science. sign in

arxiv: 2509.25326 · v1 · submitted 2025-09-29 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.str-el

Error detection without post-selection in adaptive quantum circuits

Eli Chertkov , Andrew C. Potter , David Hayes , Michael Foss-Feig This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 12:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.str-el
keywords quantum error detectionopen quantum systemsnon-equilibrium phase transitionslogical qubitsadaptive quantum circuitspost-selection freedissipative dynamics
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Error detection in quantum simulations of open systems can avoid post-selection by turning errors into the resets the dynamics already requires.

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

The paper demonstrates that error detection can be applied to simulations of open quantum systems without the exponential overhead of post-selection. By encoding the system in the [[4,2,2]] code and converting any detected errors into random resets, the method keeps the simulation consistent with the target dissipative evolution. This approach allows logical simulations to achieve performance close to unencoded runs at short times when studying non-equilibrium phase transitions. The key benefit is that error detection no longer requires discarding most of the data, making it practical for current hardware.

Core claim

Simulations of a non-equilibrium phase transition using the [[4,2,2]] code achieve near break-even performance with unencoded simulations at short times by converting detected errors into random resets that form part of the intended dissipative dynamics, without any post-selection.

What carries the argument

The [[4,2,2]] error-detecting code together with a mapping that turns detected errors into random resets matching the dissipative terms of the open-system model.

If this is right

  • Error detection becomes feasible for dissipative simulations because the overhead stays linear instead of exponential.
  • Logical encodings can extend the usable simulation time before noise dominates in models with built-in resets.
  • Adaptive quantum circuits for open systems gain practical error detection when dissipation includes random reset operations.
  • Non-equilibrium phase transitions can be studied with reduced bias from undetected errors at accessible evolution times.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same error-to-reset conversion could apply to other open-system models whose dissipation naturally includes projective measurements or reinitializations.
  • This method points toward hybrid strategies that combine detection with mitigation for near-term devices simulating noisy environments.
  • Extending the comparison to longer times or different critical points would test how far the break-even performance holds before accumulated errors affect the transition.

Load-bearing premise

Mapping detected errors to random resets preserves the intended dissipative quantum dynamics and does not bias the non-equilibrium phase transition.

What would settle it

Compare the time-dependent order parameter or correlation functions from encoded runs with error-to-reset conversion against unencoded runs; any systematic deviation in the location or character of the phase transition would falsify the claim that the mapping leaves the dynamics unbiased.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.25326 by Andrew C. Potter, David Hayes, Eli Chertkov, Michael Foss-Feig.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. How error detection can be used to remove errors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: a shows a heatmap of the active-site density pro￾file obtained from the logical circuits (right) compared with exact classical density matrix simulations (left). Vi￾sually, we see that the agreement is quite good with the logical circuit clearly displaying quantitatively accurate sub-ballistic spreading of active sites. Fig. 3c shows the number of active sites versus time measured for the logi￾cal and phys… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: b. The resulting reset probabilities are more ho￾mogeneous and closer to p = 0.2, however certain points significantly deviate from this target value, which we at￾tribute to imperfections in the calibration due to either statistical errors from finite sampling or drift in the un￾derlying error model between the calibration and main runs (which were always run back-to-back in time). In an attempt to fix the… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Current quantum computers are limited by errors, but have not yet achieved the scale required to benefit from active error correction in large computations. We show how simulations of open quantum systems can benefit from error detection. In particular, we use Quantinuum's H2 quantum computer to perform logical simulations of a non-equilibrium phase transition using the [[4,2,2]] code. Importantly, by converting detected errors into random resets, which are an intended part of the dissipative quantum dynamics being studied, we avoid any post-selection in our simulations, thereby eliminating the exponential cost typically associated with error detection. The encoded simulations perform near break-even with unencoded simulations at short times.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript demonstrates an experimental implementation on Quantinuum's H2 trapped-ion processor in which the [[4,2,2]] code is used to simulate a non-equilibrium phase transition in an open quantum system. Detected errors are converted into random resets that are treated as part of the target dissipative dynamics, thereby eliminating post-selection and its associated exponential sampling cost. The encoded runs are reported to reach near break-even performance relative to unencoded simulations at short evolution times.

Significance. If the central claim is substantiated, the work shows a concrete route to incorporate error detection into open-system simulations without incurring post-selection overhead. This is relevant for extending the accessible system sizes and evolution times of current hardware when studying dissipative phase transitions and non-equilibrium steady states.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods / Experimental protocol] The weakest assumption identified in the stress-test note is load-bearing: the mapping of detected errors in the [[4,2,2]] code to random resets must reproduce the intended open-system Liouvillian without shifting the location or character of the non-equilibrium transition. The manuscript should contain an explicit derivation or numerical benchmark (e.g., in the Methods or Supplementary Information) showing that the effective jump operators and rates remain unchanged under the adaptive feedback protocol.
  2. [Results / Figure 3 or equivalent] The abstract states that the encoded simulations 'perform near break-even' at short times, yet the provided text does not report quantitative metrics, error bars, or the precise time window over which this comparison holds. A table or figure quantifying the distance to the unencoded result (with statistical uncertainties) is required to support the central performance claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure captions] Clarify in the caption of the main results figure whether the plotted quantities are expectation values of logical operators or of the underlying physical qubits after decoding.
  2. [Methods] The manuscript should state the total number of shots per data point and the criteria used to exclude runs (if any) so that the absence of post-selection can be verified by the reader.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. The comments help clarify the presentation of our central claims regarding error mapping and performance quantification. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate the requested clarifications and additions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / Experimental protocol] The weakest assumption identified in the stress-test note is load-bearing: the mapping of detected errors in the [[4,2,2]] code to random resets must reproduce the intended open-system Liouvillian without shifting the location or character of the non-equilibrium transition. The manuscript should contain an explicit derivation or numerical benchmark (e.g., in the Methods or Supplementary Information) showing that the effective jump operators and rates remain unchanged under the adaptive feedback protocol.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit validation strengthens the manuscript. The original text notes that resets form an intended component of the target dissipative dynamics, but we have now added a dedicated numerical benchmark in the Methods section. This benchmark simulates the effective Liouvillian both with and without the adaptive error-to-reset mapping for the [[4,2,2]] code, confirming that the jump operators, rates, and location of the non-equilibrium transition remain unchanged within statistical precision. The benchmark is performed on the same parameter regime as the experiment and is included as a new subsection with supporting plots. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results / Figure 3 or equivalent] The abstract states that the encoded simulations 'perform near break-even' at short times, yet the provided text does not report quantitative metrics, error bars, or the precise time window over which this comparison holds. A table or figure quantifying the distance to the unencoded result (with statistical uncertainties) is required to support the central performance claim.

    Authors: We accept this point. The revised manuscript now includes a new table (Table 1) that reports the quantitative distance between encoded and unencoded results for key observables, together with statistical uncertainties obtained from repeated experimental runs. We have also updated Figure 3 to display error bars and explicitly state the time window (t ≤ 2 in dimensionless units) over which near break-even performance is observed. These additions directly support the abstract claim with the requested metrics. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in experimental demonstration

full rationale

The paper reports an experimental implementation on Quantinuum's H2 device that performs logical simulations of a non-equilibrium phase transition in the [[4,2,2]] code, converting detected errors into random resets to eliminate post-selection. The central result—near break-even performance of encoded versus unencoded runs at short times—is an empirical comparison against hardware benchmarks rather than a derived prediction. No equations or first-principles steps reduce a claimed output to a fitted input, self-citation chain, or definitional tautology; the error-to-reset mapping is a physical protocol whose validity is tested by the same runs, not presupposed by the result itself. The work remains self-contained against external hardware data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions about the [[4,2,2]] code's error-detection capability and the equivalence of reset operations to the target dissipative dynamics; no new entities or heavily fitted parameters are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The [[4,2,2]] code detects the relevant errors in the adaptive quantum circuits used for the simulation.
    Invoked to justify that detected errors can be converted to resets without missing undetected errors that would corrupt the dynamics.
  • domain assumption Random resets produced by error detection are statistically equivalent to the dissipative resets already present in the open-system model.
    Required for the mapping to preserve the intended non-equilibrium phase transition.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5639 in / 1305 out tokens · 37958 ms · 2026-05-18T12:40:02.299347+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Opportunities and challenges in scaling quantum error detection on hardware

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Hardware benchmarks of repetition and triangular color codes for quantum error detection show promise for scaling despite exponential sample costs and embedding overheads.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Error detection without post-selection in adaptive quantum circuits

    The classical contact process is a stochastic process, similar to a cellular automaton, that describes how a disease spreads in a population. The model has been found to exhibit a non-equilibrium phase transition, a type of phase transition that occurs far from thermal equilibrium 15–18, in the directed percolation (DP) uni- versality class 16,19. Recent ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    For a FT operation, there is a pseudo-threshold pc = A/B , which indicates the value of p below which the logical operation outperforms the physical one

    In the context of the [[4, 2, 2]] code, a FT operation is one in which any sin- gle circuit fault causes a detectable error, i.e., which has a logical fidelity after post-selection that scales as ∼ Bp2 when physical errors happen with probability ∼ Ap for smallp. For a FT operation, there is a pseudo-threshold pc = A/B , which indicates the value of p belo...

    work page

  3. [3]

    active” phase and active sites proliferate over time. For p > pc, the model is in the “absorbing

    However, QEC codes can still suppress errors for operations that are non-FT. If a logical opera- tion is not FT and fails with probability ∼ Cp, that op- eration can in principle still outperform the physical one if C <A. This inequality tends to be reversed for high- distance QEC codes whose logical operations have many more gates than their unencoded ph...

    work page 1940

  4. [4]

    using the pdetect(r,t ) obtained in the calibration run shown in Fig. 4b. The resulting reset probabilities are more ho- mogeneous and closer to p = 0. 2, however certain points significantly deviate from this target value, which we at- tribute to imperfections in the calibration due to either statistical errors from finite sampling or drift in the un- derl...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computa- tion with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A 71, 022316 (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    A. D. C´ orcoles, E. Magesan, S. J. Srinivasan, A. W. Cross, M. Steffen, J. M. Gambetta, and J. M. Chow, Demonstration of a quantum error detection code using a square lattice of four superconducting qubits, Nat. Com- mun. 6, 6979 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [9]

    N. M. Linke, M. Gutierrez, K. A. Landsman, C. Figgatt, S. Debnath, K. R. Brown, and C. Monroe, Fault-tolerant quantum error detection, Sci. Adv. 3, e1701074 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [11]

    Y. Wang, S. Simsek, T. M. Gatterman, J. A. Gerber, K. Gilmore, D. Gresh, N. Hewitt, C. V. Horst, M. Ma- theny, T. Mengle, et al. , Fault-tolerant one-bit addition with the smallest interesting color code, Sci. Adv. 10, eado9024 (2024)

    work page 2024

  9. [12]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature 626, 58 (2024)

    work page 2024

  10. [15]

    Z. He, D. Amaro, R. Shaydulin, and M. Pistoia, Perfor- mance of quantum approximate optimization with quan- tum error detection, Commun. Phys. 8 (2025)

    work page 2025

  11. [16]

    Y. Jin, Z. He, T. Hao, D. Amaro, S. Tannu, R. Shaydulin, and M. Pistoia, Iceberg beyond the tip: Co-compilation of a quantum error detection code and a quantum algo- rithm, arXiv:2504.21172 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [17]

    S. Dasu, S. Burton, K. Mayer, D. Amaro, J. A. Gerber, K. Gilmore, D. Gresh, D. DelVento, A. C. Potter, and D. Hayes, Breaking even with magic: demonstration of a high-fidelity logical non-clifford gate, arXiv:2506.14688 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  13. [18]

    T. E. Harris, Contact interactions on a lattice, Ann. Prob. 2, 969 (1974)

    work page 1974

  14. [19]

    Marro and R

    J. Marro and R. Dickman, Nonequilibrium Phase Tran- sitions in Lattice Models , Collection Alea-Saclay: Mono- graphs and Texts in Statistical Physics (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 1999)

    work page 1999

  15. [20]

    Hinrichsen, Non-equilibrium critical phenomena and phase transitions into absorbing states, Adv

    H. Hinrichsen, Non-equilibrium critical phenomena and phase transitions into absorbing states, Adv. Phys. 49, 815 (2000)

    work page 2000

  16. [21]

    ´Odor, Universality classes in nonequilibrium lattice systems, Rev

    G. ´Odor, Universality classes in nonequilibrium lattice systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 663 (2004)

    work page 2004

  17. [22]

    Hinrichsen, Non-equilibrium phase transitions, Phys- ica A 369, 1 (2006)

    H. Hinrichsen, Non-equilibrium phase transitions, Phys- ica A 369, 1 (2006)

    work page 2006

  18. [23]

    Jensen, Low-density series expansions for directed pe r- colation: I

    I. Jensen, Low-density series expansions for directed pe r- colation: I. a new efficient algorithm with applications to the square lattice, J. Phys. A 32, 5233 (1999)

    work page 1999

  19. [24]

    Marcuzzi, M

    M. Marcuzzi, M. Buchhold, S. Diehl, and I. Lesanovsky, Absorbing state phase transition with competing quan- tum and classical fluctuations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 245701 (2016)

    work page 2016

  20. [25]

    Carollo, E

    F. Carollo, E. Gillman, H. Weimer, and I. Lesanovsky, Critical behavior of the quantum contact process in one dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 100604 (2019)

    work page 2019

  21. [26]

    Gillman, F

    E. Gillman, F. Carollo, and I. Lesanovsky, Numerical simulation of critical dissipative non-equilibrium quan- tum systems with an absorbing state, New J. Phys. 21, 093064 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [27]

    M. Jo, J. Lee, K. Choi, and B. Kahng, Absorbing phase transition with a continuously varying exponent in a quantum contact process: A neural network approach, Phys. Rev. Research 3, 013238 (2021)

    work page 2021

  23. [28]

    Chertkov, Z

    E. Chertkov, Z. Cheng, A. C. Potter, S. Gopalakrishnan, T. M. Gatterman, J. A. Gerber, K. Gilmore, D. Gresh, A. Hall, A. Hankin, M. Matheny, T. Mengle, D. Hayes, 7 B. Neyenhuis, R. Stutz, and M. Foss-Feig, Character- izing a non-equilibrium phase transition on a quantum computer, Nat. Phys. 19, 1799 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [29]

    Skinner, J

    B. Skinner, J. Ruhman, and A. Nahum, Measurement- induced phase transitions in the dynamics of entangle- ment, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031009 (2019)

    work page 2019

  25. [30]

    A. C. Potter and R. Vasseur, Entanglement dynamics in hybrid quantum circuits, in Entanglement in Spin Chains (Springer International Publishing, 2022) p. 211–249

    work page 2022

  26. [31]

    Buchhold, T

    M. Buchhold, T. M¨ uller, and S. Diehl, Revealing measurement-induced phase transitions by pre-selection, arXiv:2208.10506 (2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  27. [32]

    Ravindranath, Y

    V. Ravindranath, Y. Han, Z.-C. Yang, and X. Chen, En- tanglement steering in adaptive circuits with feedback, Phys. Rev. B 108, L041103 (2023)

    work page 2023

  28. [33]

    O’Dea, A

    N. O’Dea, A. Morningstar, S. Gopalakrishnan, and V. Khemani, Entanglement and absorbing-state transi- tions in interactive quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. B 109, L020304 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [34]

    Sierant and X

    P. Sierant and X. Turkeshi, Controlling entanglement at absorbing state phase transitions in random circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 120402 (2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [35]

    Sierant and X

    P. Sierant and X. Turkeshi, Entanglement and absorbing state transitions in (d+1)-dimensional stabilizer circuits , Acta Phys. Pol. A 144, 474 (2023)

    work page 2023

  31. [36]

    Qian and J

    D. Qian and J. Wang, Steering-induced phase transi- tion in measurement-only quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. B 109, 024301 (2024)

    work page 2024

  32. [37]

    LeMaire, A

    C. LeMaire, A. A. Allocca, J. H. Pixley, T. Iadecola, and J. H. Wilson, Separate measurement- and feedback- driven entanglement transitions in the stochastic control of chaos, arXiv:2309.04520 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [38]

    Vaidman, L

    L. Vaidman, L. Goldenberg, and S. Wiesner, Error pre- vention scheme with four particles, Phys. Rev. A 54, R1745 (1996)

    work page 1996

  34. [39]

    Grassl, T

    M. Grassl, T. Beth, and T. Pellizzari, Codes for the quan- tum erasure channel, Phys. Rev. A 56, 33 (1997)

    work page 1997

  35. [43]

    Gottesman, Opportunities and challenges in fault- tolerant quantum computation, arXiv:2210.15844 (2022)

    D. Gottesman, Opportunities and challenges in fault- tolerant quantum computation, arXiv:2210.15844 (2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  36. [44]

    Eastin and E

    B. Eastin and E. Knill, Restrictions on transversal en- coded quantum gate sets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 110502 (2009)

    work page 2009

  37. [47]

    I. H. Kim, Holographic quantum simulation, arXiv:1702.02093 (2017)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [48]

    Foss-Feig, D

    M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, J. M. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, J. P. Gaebler, S. A. Moses, J. M. Pino, and A. C. Potter, Holographic quantum algorithms for simulating corre- lated spin systems, Phys. Rev. Research 3, 033002 (2021)

    work page 2021

  39. [49]

    Barratt, J

    F. Barratt, J. Dborin, M. Bal, V. Stojevic, F. Pollmann, and A. G. Green, Parallel quantum simulation of large systems on small NISQ computers, npj Quantum Inf. 7 (2021)

    work page 2021

  40. [50]

    Chertkov, J

    E. Chertkov, J. Bohnet, D. Francois, J. Gaebler, D. Gresh, A. Hankin, K. Lee, D. Hayes, B. Neyenhuis, R. Stutz, A. C. Potter, and M. Foss-Feig, Holographic dynamics simulations with a trapped-ion quantum com- puter, Nat. Phys. 18, 1074 (2022)

    work page 2022

  41. [51]

    D. Niu, R. Haghshenas, Y. Zhang, M. Foss-Feig, G. K.- L. Chan, and A. C. Potter, Holographic simulation of correlated electrons on a trapped ion quantum processor, arXiv:2112.10810 (2021)

    work page arXiv 2021

  42. [52]

    Zhang, S

    Y. Zhang, S. Jahanbani, D. Niu, R. Haghshenas, and A. C. Potter, Qubit-efficient simulation of thermal states with quantum tensor networks, arXiv:2205.06299 (2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  43. [53]

    Stricker, D

    R. Stricker, D. Vodola, A. Erhard, L. Postler, M. Meth, M. Ringbauer, P. Schindler, T. Monz, M. M¨ uller, and R. Blatt, Experimental deterministic correction of qubit loss, Nature 585, 207 (2020)

    work page 2020

  44. [55]

    A. Dua, A. Kubica, L. Jiang, S. T. Flammia, and M. J. Gullans, Clifford-deformed surface codes, PRX Quantum 5, 010347 (2024) . Supplemental Material: Error detection without post-selection in adapt ive quantum circuits Eli Chertkov, 1, ∗ Andrew C. Potter, 1 David Hayes, 1 and Michael Foss-Feig 1 1Quantinuum, 303 South Technology Court, Broomfield, Colorad o...

    work page 2024

  45. [56]

    Stabilizer measurement (error detection) The stabilizer measurement circuit that we use is block ∣0⟩ ∣0⟩ H H which is adapted from Ref. 2. It measures both SZ and SX , with their results stored into the top and bottom ancilla respectively. This circuit by its construction is fault-tolerant, achieving this fault- tolerance in a similar way as flag-fault-tol...

    work page

  46. [57]

    5: block ∣0⟩ ∣0⟩ H ∣0⟩ ∣0⟩ ∣0⟩ 2 The ancilla qubit is used to guarantee fault-tolerance

    State preparation (reset) We use the ∣ 00⟩state preparation (or reset) circuit in Ref. 5: block ∣0⟩ ∣0⟩ H ∣0⟩ ∣0⟩ ∣0⟩ 2 The ancilla qubit is used to guarantee fault-tolerance. If the ancilla measures a 0 then the state is accepted. We use a repeat-until-success protocol in each logical reset in order to avoid any post-selection overhead associated with di...

    work page

  47. [58]

    These are followed by stabilizer measure- ments to make them fault-tolerant

    Measurement At the end of our circuit, the logical measurements are block ∣0⟩ ∣0⟩ to measure Z 1 and block ∣0⟩ ∣0⟩ to measure Z 2. These are followed by stabilizer measure- ments to make them fault-tolerant. C. Non-fault-tolerant logical gates Our contact process circuit involves non-Clifford gates in the form of two-qubit controlled-rotation gates CR x( θ...

    work page

  48. [59]

    We use a vari- ant of the technique described in Ref

    Circuit-level dynamical decoupling We use a crude form of dynamical decoupling (DD) [13] in an attempt to coherently eliminate coherent dephasing on the qubits during idling and transport. We use a vari- ant of the technique described in Ref. 14, for performing DD on a logical circuit. In this technique, we make use of the fact that since XXXX is a stabil...

    work page

  49. [60]

    For example, all bit-strings with a fixed num- ber of 1s and 0s, such as ∣0011⟩, ∣1010⟩,

    Decoherence-free subspaces Decoherence-free subspaces (DFS) are subspaces of Hilbert space that are unaffected by uniform dephasing [15, 16]. For example, all bit-strings with a fixed num- ber of 1s and 0s, such as ∣0011⟩, ∣1010⟩, . . . , span a DFS and are unaffected (up to a global phase) by the uni- form dephasing operator D = ∏j e−iθZ j . For a single co...

    work page

  50. [61]

    It amounts to conjugating the QEC code by single-qubit Clifford gates, potentially making the code non-CSS

    Clifford deformation Clifford deformation is a technique for suppressing log- ical memory error in a quantum error correction (QEC) code with a biased memory error channel [17]. It amounts to conjugating the QEC code by single-qubit Clifford gates, potentially making the code non-CSS. This has the effect of changing the stabilizers measured during syndrome ex...

    work page

  51. [62]

    p2 memory = 6p2 memory. Now instead, suppose that before and after the trans- port is initiated the code block is conjugated by the Clif- ford operator I ⊗I ⊗H ⊗( HS ) , so that weight-1 Z Paulis occuring during transport transform to Z1 → Z1, Z 2 → Z2, Z 3 →X3, Z 4 →Y4. Now if we consider all error events with two weight-1 processes, we see that many of ...

    work page

  52. [63]

    Digital quantum magnetism on a trapped-ion quantum computer

    R. Haghshenas et al. , Digital quantum magnetism at the frontier of classical simulations, arXiv:2503.20870 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [64]

    C. N. Self, M. Benedetti, and D. Amaro, Protecting ex- pressive circuits with a quantum error detection code, Nat. Phys. 20, 219 (2024)

    work page 2024

  54. [65]

    Chamberland and M

    C. Chamberland and M. E. Beverland, Flag fault-tolerant error correction with arbitrary distance codes, Quantum 2, 53 (2018)

    work page 2018

  55. [66]

    Chao and B

    R. Chao and B. W. Reichardt, Flag fault-tolerant er- 7 ror correction for any stabilizer code, PRX Quantum 1, 010302 (2020)

    work page 2020

  56. [67]

    Quantum fault tolerance in small experiments

    D. Gottesman, Quantum fault tolerance in small experi- ments, arXiv:1610.03507 (2016)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  57. [68]

    Vuillot, Is error detection helpful on IBM 5Q chips?, Quantum Inf

    C. Vuillot, Is error detection helpful on IBM 5Q chips?, Quantum Inf. Comput. 18, 0949 (2017)

    work page 2017

  58. [69]

    Chao and B

    R. Chao and B. W. Reichardt, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with few qubits, npj Quantum Inf. 4, 42 (2018)

    work page 2018

  59. [70]

    Harper and S

    R. Harper and S. T. Flammia, Fault-Tolerant Logical Gates in the IBM Quantum Experience, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 080504 (2019)

    work page 2019

  60. [71]

    S. A. Moses, C. H. Baldwin, M. S. Allman, R. An- cona, L. Ascarrunz, C. Barnes, J. Bartolotta, B. Bjork, P. Blanchard, M. Bohn, J. G. Bohnet, N. C. Brown, N. Q. Burdick, W. C. Burton, S. L. Campbell, J. P. Campora, C. Carron, J. Chambers, J. W. Chan, Y. H. Chen, A. Chernoguzov, E. Chertkov, J. Colina, J. P. Curtis, R. Daniel, M. DeCross, D. Deen, C. Delan...

    work page 2023

  61. [72]

    Chertkov, Z

    E. Chertkov, Z. Cheng, A. C. Potter, S. Gopalakrishnan, T. M. Gatterman, J. A. Gerber, K. Gilmore, D. Gresh, A. Hall, A. Hankin, M. Matheny, T. Mengle, D. Hayes, B. Neyenhuis, R. Stutz, and M. Foss-Feig, Character- izing a non-equilibrium phase transition on a quantum computer, Nat. Phys. 19, 1799 (2023)

    work page 2023

  62. [73]

    DeCross, R

    M. DeCross, R. Haghshenas, M. Liu, E. Rinaldi, J. Gray, Y. Alexeev, C. H. Baldwin, J. P. Bartolotta, M. Bohn, E. Chertkov, J. Cline, J. Colina, D. DelVento, J. M. Dreiling, C. Foltz, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatterman, C. N. Gilbreth, J. Giles, D. Gresh, A. Hall, A. Hankin, A. Hansen, N. Hewitt, I. Hoffman, C. Holliman, R. B. Hutson, T. Jacobs, J. Johansen, P....

    work page 2025

  63. [74]

    DeCross, E

    M. DeCross, E. Chertkov, M. Kohagen, and M. Foss-Feig, Qubit-reuse compilation with mid-circuit measurement and reset, arXiv:2210.08039 (2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  64. [75]

    Viola, E

    L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, Dynamical Decoupling of Open Quantum Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2417 (1999)

    work page 1999

  65. [76]

    Yamamoto, S

    K. Yamamoto, S. Duffield, Y. Kikuchi, and D. Mu˜ noz Ramo, Demonstrating bayesian quantum phase estima- tion with quantum error detection, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013221 (2024)

    work page 2024

  66. [77]

    D. A. Lidar and K. Birgitta Whaley, Decoherence-free subspaces and subsystems, in Irreversible Quantum Dy- namics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2003) p. 83–120

    work page 2003

  67. [78]

    Quantum Information and Computation for Chemistry (Wiley, 2014)

    work page 2014

  68. [79]

    A. Dua, A. Kubica, L. Jiang, S. T. Flammia, and M. J. Gullans, Clifford-deformed surface codes, PRX Quantum 5, 010347 (2024)

    work page 2024