pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.19871 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.AR

Recognition: unknown

Co-Designing Error Mitigation and Error Detection for Logical Qubits

Rohan S. Kumar , Takahiro Tsunoda , Sophia H. Xue , Dantong Li , Robert J. Schoelkopf , Yongshan Ding
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 02:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.AR
keywords quantum error detectionprobabilistic error cancellationlogical qubitsIceberg codeQAOAerror mitigationnear-term quantum computingco-design
0
0 comments X

The pith

Co-designing error detection intervals and steady-state extraction with probabilistic error cancellation delivers 2-11x lower errors on logical qubits than physical-qubit cancellation alone.

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

The paper shows that quantum error detection and probabilistic error cancellation can be combined to manage noise more efficiently than either method alone, but only if two system-level issues are solved through co-design. The first is determining how often to insert detection cycles, called the QED interval; the authors derive an efficiency condition proving that the usual one-cycle-per-gate choice never breaks even on cost versus accuracy in the codes they test, while optimized intervals on high-rate codes do. The second is a transient error bias in the first detection cycle that corrupts the noise model needed for cancellation; they introduce steady-state extraction to isolate the relevant steady-state behavior and cut estimation bias by up to 10.2 times. On a [[6,4,2]] Iceberg code executing QAOA with a fixed shot budget, the joint method produces 2-11 times lower absolute error and up to 31 times lower mean squared error than probabilistic error cancellation on physical qubits, with the per-interval savings growing as depth increases.

Core claim

The central claim is that naive integration of QED and PEC actually worsens accuracy below the QED-only baseline because transient errors in the initial detection cycle bias PEC's noise model. The authors solve this by deriving an efficiency condition for the QED interval that shows canonical one-cycle-per-gate insertion fails to break even while optimized intervals succeed on high-rate Iceberg codes, and by developing steady-state extraction to isolate steady-state error profiles. With these co-design elements, PEC+QED on a [[6,4,2]] Iceberg code running QAOA (p=4-8) under fixed shot budget achieves 2-11x lower absolute error and up to 31x lower MSE than PEC alone on physical qubits, with a

What carries the argument

The QED interval, a tunable parameter controlling detection-cycle frequency, paired with the steady-state extraction protocol that removes transient bias from the noise model used by probabilistic error cancellation.

If this is right

  • Optimized QED intervals on high-rate codes achieve efficiency break-even where the canonical one-cycle-per-gate frequency does not.
  • Steady-state extraction reduces noise-model estimation bias by up to 10.2 times compared with naive characterization.
  • Per-interval savings from the co-design compound as the number of intervals grows with circuit depth.
  • The combined PEC+QED approach yields lower absolute error and MSE than applying probabilistic error cancellation directly to physical qubits under the same shot budget.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The co-design framework could be applied to other variational algorithms to lower the shot counts required for convergence on noisy hardware.
  • Hardware control systems might incorporate programmable detection frequencies to enable per-workload optimization of the efficiency condition.
  • Characterizing transient versus steady-state noise separately may prove useful for other logical-qubit error-management strategies beyond the Iceberg code.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that steady-state extraction removes transient error bias from the first detection cycle without adding new modeling errors, and that the derived efficiency condition for QED intervals continues to hold under realistic hardware noise beyond the evaluated codes.

What would settle it

Executing the [[6,4,2]] Iceberg code on actual hardware with the co-designed PEC+QED protocol and checking whether the reported 2-11x error reduction and up to 31x MSE improvement appear, or whether the optimized intervals fail to meet the predicted efficiency break-even under measured device noise.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19871 by Dantong Li, Robert J. Schoelkopf, Rohan S. Kumar, Sophia H. Xue, Takahiro Tsunoda, Yongshan Ding.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Sampling distribution of the cost estimator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Sampling advantage ratio for the [[6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Transition Matrix data for the [[4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (b) shows MSE convergence at p=6, where midpoint and terminal QED checks produce two QED cycles. PEC+QED achieves the lowest MSE across the entire shot range, converging to 4.3 × 10−6 at 105 shots, compared to 3.4 × 10−5 for PEC-only (7.9× higher) and 9.1 × 10−6 for QED-only (2.1× higher). Panel (c) shows the signed error traces at p=6: PEC-only exhibits larger variance than PEC+QED; QED-only retains a res… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Near-term quantum workloads demand error management, yet the two lightest-weight techniques, Quantum Error Detection (QED) and Probabilistic Error Cancellation (PEC), have complementary cost profiles whose joint architectural design space remains unexplored. QED encodes logical qubits and discards error-flagged runs, filtering noise with low qubit overhead but leaving residual errors; PEC can correct these in software, but at exponential cost in noise strength. If QED efficiently reduces per-gate noise, PEC's cost savings can outweigh QED's discard overhead; realizing this, however, requires solving two system-level design challenges. First, the \textit{QED interval} -- how often detection cycles are inserted -- is a tunable architectural parameter governing the cost-accuracy tradeoff. We derive an efficiency condition and show that the canonical one-cycle-per-gate frequency does not achieve break-even in any code we evaluate, while optimized intervals on high-rate Iceberg codes do. Second, we discover that naive PEC+QED integration \textit{degrades} accuracy below the QED-only baseline. The root cause is a transient error profile in the first detection cycle that corrupts PEC's noise model. We develop \textit{steady-state extraction}, a co-designed characterization protocol that isolates steady-state error behavior, reducing estimation bias by up to $10.2\times$. On a $[[6,4,2]]$ Iceberg code running QAOA ($p{=}4$--$8$) with a fixed shot budget, PEC+QED achieves $2$--$11\times$ lower absolute error and up to $31\times$ lower MSE versus PEC on physical qubits, with per-interval savings compounding over interval depth.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that co-designing Quantum Error Detection (QED) with Probabilistic Error Cancellation (PEC) for logical qubits yields practical gains. It derives an efficiency condition showing that the canonical one-cycle-per-gate QED frequency fails to break even in evaluated codes while optimized intervals on high-rate Iceberg codes succeed; identifies that naive PEC+QED integration degrades accuracy due to transient errors in the first detection cycle; introduces a steady-state extraction characterization protocol that reduces estimation bias by up to 10.2×; and reports that, on a [[6,4,2]] Iceberg code executing QAOA (p=4–8) under fixed shot budget, the combined approach achieves 2–11× lower absolute error and up to 31× lower MSE versus PEC on physical qubits, with per-interval savings compounding over depth.

Significance. If the efficiency condition and steady-state extraction hold under realistic hardware noise, the work demonstrates a concrete architectural tradeoff space for combining low-overhead detection with software mitigation, showing that QED can reduce effective noise strength enough for PEC cost savings to dominate discard overhead. The reported compounding gains on an Iceberg code for QAOA provide a falsifiable benchmark for near-term logical-qubit error management.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3] §3 (efficiency condition derivation): The condition is stated to be derived from cost-accuracy tradeoffs, yet it depends on noise-strength parameters fitted from characterization runs (free parameters include QED interval length and PEC noise strengths); this makes the claim that canonical one-cycle-per-gate never breaks even while optimized Iceberg intervals do sensitive to the specific noise model and potentially circular with the same characterization data used later for PEC.
  2. [§4] §4 (steady-state extraction protocol): The protocol is presented as isolating steady-state error behavior after the first detection cycle to remove transient bias (up to 10.2× reduction) without introducing new modeling error; however, this rests on the unverified assumption that error statistics become stationary immediately after the initial round. If hardware noise is non-stationary or exhibits temporal correlations, the extracted model remains biased and the reported 2–11× absolute-error and 31× MSE gains versus physical-qubit PEC cannot be guaranteed to compound as claimed.
  3. [§5–6] §5–6 (experimental results on [[6,4,2]] Iceberg + QAOA p=4–8): The absolute-error and MSE improvements are reported under a fixed shot budget, but without visible error bars, multiple noise realizations, or ablation of the stationarity assumption, it is unclear whether the gains are robust or specific to the evaluated noise model; this is load-bearing for the central claim that co-design outperforms both baselines.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the QED interval length and the precise definition of 'steady-state extraction' could be introduced earlier with a clear equation or pseudocode to aid readers.
  2. Figure captions should explicitly state the number of shots, interval depths, and whether error bars represent standard deviation over shots or over noise realizations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the scope and robustness of our co-design results. We address each major point below with clarifications on the derivations and protocols, and we indicate revisions that will be incorporated to strengthen the presentation and analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (efficiency condition derivation): The condition is stated to be derived from cost-accuracy tradeoffs, yet it depends on noise-strength parameters fitted from characterization runs (free parameters include QED interval length and PEC noise strengths); this makes the claim that canonical one-cycle-per-gate never breaks even while optimized Iceberg intervals do sensitive to the specific noise model and potentially circular with the same characterization data used later for PEC.

    Authors: The efficiency condition is derived analytically from the general tradeoff between QED discard overhead and the resulting reduction in effective per-gate noise strength that lowers PEC sampling cost. Noise-strength parameters are obtained from independent characterization runs that fit the underlying physical noise model; these runs are separate from the PEC estimation experiments that apply the model to the QAOA circuit. The QED interval is an explicit architectural design choice that we optimize over, not a fitted parameter from the PEC data. The claim that canonical one-cycle-per-gate fails to break even while optimized Iceberg intervals succeed holds across the evaluated noise strengths. To address sensitivity concerns, we will add a supplementary analysis showing how the break-even threshold varies with noise strength and code rate in the revised manuscript. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (steady-state extraction protocol): The protocol is presented as isolating steady-state error behavior after the first detection cycle to remove transient bias (up to 10.2× reduction) without introducing new modeling error; however, this rests on the unverified assumption that error statistics become stationary immediately after the initial round. If hardware noise is non-stationary or exhibits temporal correlations, the extracted model remains biased and the reported 2–11× absolute-error and 31× MSE gains versus physical-qubit PEC cannot be guaranteed to compound as claimed.

    Authors: The steady-state extraction protocol exploits the fact that, under standard Markovian noise models used in our simulations, the error distribution reaches stationarity after the first detection cycle; the transient bias is isolated by discarding the initial cycle's statistics. This is consistent with common assumptions in quantum error modeling and is verified in our depolarizing-noise simulations, where the bias reduction reaches 10.2×. We acknowledge that strongly non-stationary hardware noise or long temporal correlations could violate the assumption. In the revision we will expand the discussion of this modeling assumption, add simulations under time-correlated noise to quantify robustness, and note that the reported gains are demonstrated under the stationary regime typical of near-term device models. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [§5–6] §5–6 (experimental results on [[6,4,2]] Iceberg + QAOA p=4–8): The absolute-error and MSE improvements are reported under a fixed shot budget, but without visible error bars, multiple noise realizations, or ablation of the stationarity assumption, it is unclear whether the gains are robust or specific to the evaluated noise model; this is load-bearing for the central claim that co-design outperforms both baselines.

    Authors: The reported 2–11× absolute-error reduction and up to 31× MSE improvement are obtained from Monte Carlo simulations under a fixed depolarizing noise model and shot budget. We agree that statistical error bars, multiple independent noise realizations, and an explicit ablation of the stationarity assumption would strengthen the results. In the revised manuscript we will include error bars computed over repeated runs, results from multiple noise realizations, and an ablation study that varies the stationarity cutoff to demonstrate that the compounding gains remain consistent when the steady-state extraction protocol is applied. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation chain is self-contained with no circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper derives an efficiency condition for QED intervals and introduces steady-state extraction to handle transient bias in PEC integration. These are framed as solutions to system-level challenges, with performance claims backed by explicit evaluations on the [[6,4,2]] Iceberg code running QAOA (p=4-8) under fixed shot budget. No equations, protocols, or steps in the provided text reduce by construction to fitted inputs, self-definitions, or self-citation chains; the efficiency condition and bias reduction (up to 10.2×) are presented as independently testable outcomes rather than tautological renamings or predictions forced by the same data used for validation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard quantum noise models, a derived efficiency condition whose parameters are tuned to specific codes, and the new steady-state extraction method whose correctness is not independently verified outside the paper.

free parameters (2)
  • QED interval length
    Tunable architectural parameter optimized for cost-accuracy tradeoff on Iceberg codes.
  • Noise strength parameters in PEC model
    Fitted from characterization to enable cancellation; transient bias addressed by new protocol.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard depolarizing or Pauli noise models for gates and measurements
    Invoked for error characterization and PEC noise modeling.
invented entities (1)
  • Steady-state extraction protocol no independent evidence
    purpose: Isolates steady-state error behavior to prevent transient corruption of PEC noise model
    New characterization method introduced to fix the observed degradation in naive integration.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5624 in / 1304 out tokens · 32055 ms · 2026-05-10T02:35:26.143069+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Zeno-Enhanced Probabilistic Error Cancellation with Quantum Error Detection Codes

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Using post-selection to map physical noise to a weaker accepted logical channel and then applying order-K perturbative PEC reduces sampling overhead by 3-4 orders of magnitude for logical GHZ preparation on up to 200 ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    False Negatives.Errors that occur within the QED circuit can escape detection, causing increased post- selected error

  2. [2]

    slow” modes with eigenvalues 1−O(p), and 2n−2k “fast

    False Positives.These are discarded shots that ac- tually contained no error, which can occur due to both er- rors on the ancilla qubit during syndrome extraction and measurement errors during post-selection, as described in Appendix B. These effects degradeϵ ℓ andp rej from the code- capacity model. To determine whether realistic codes achieve advantage ...

  3. [3]

    F ull T ransition Matrix Construction To trace the origin of the position-dependent behav- ior, we need a framework that tracks how quantum state populations evolve through successive QED cycles. We model each noisy QED cycle as a stochastic process on Hilbert-space basis states, constructing a transition matrix whose spectral properties will reveal the t...

  4. [4]

    slow” modes with eigenvalues 1−O(p), and 2n−2k “fast

    Eigenstructure Derivation In the noiseless limit (p→0), the absorbing reduc- tion ofT 0 has spectrumσ(T abs 0 ) ={1, . . . ,1} 2k+1 ∪ {0, . . . ,0}2n−2k, where the eigenvalues of 1 correspond to the 2k logical states plus the absorbing reject state, and the zero eigenvalues correspond to leakage states elimi- nated in one cycle. For small but nonzero erro...

  5. [5]

    This is possible due to the symmetric nature of the [[4,2,2]] code; any leakage state is equidistant from all logical states, and vice versa

    Basis-State Reduction for the[[4,2,2]]Code For the [[4,2,2]] code, we perform an additional reduc- tion on the basis states of the Hilbert space, classifying states into four classes: detected error states (C 0), the correct logical state (C 1), incorrect logical states (C 2), and undetected leakage states (C 3). This is possible due to the symmetric natu...

  6. [6]

    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,

    J. Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018), arXiv:1801.00862

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.-C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Reviews of Modern Physics 94, 015004 (2022), arXiv:2101.08448

    work page arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Nature Reviews Physics3, 625 (2021), arXiv:2012.09265

    work page arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Aliferis, D

    P. Aliferis, D. Gottesman, and J. Preskill, Quantum In- formation and Computation8, 181 (2008), arXiv:quant- ph/0703264

    work page arXiv 2008

  10. [10]

    2016 , Bdsk-File-1 =

    D. Gottesman, arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.03507 10.48550/arXiv.1610.03507 (2016), arXiv:1610.03507

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1610.03507 2016

  11. [11]

    Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Physical Re- view Letters119, 180509 (2017), arXiv:1612.02058

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    S. Endo, S. C. Benjamin, and Y. Li, Physical Review X 8, 031027 (2018)

    2018

  13. [13]

    Z. He, D. Amaro, R. Shaydulin, and M. Pistoia, Com- munications Physics8, 217 (2025)

    2025

  14. [14]

    B. W. Reichardt, A. Paetznick, D. Aasen, I. Basov, J. M. Bello-Rivas, P. Bonderson, R. Chao, W. van Dam, M. B. Hastings, R. V. Mishmash,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.11822 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Demonstration of a Logical Architecture Uniting Motion and In-Place Entanglement

    R. Rines, B. Hall, M. H. Teo, J. Viszlai, D. C. Cole, D. Mason, C. Barker, M. J. Bedalov, M. Blakely, T. Both- well,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.13247 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    N. M. Linke, M. Gutierrez, K. A. Landsman, C. Figgatt, S. Debnath, K. R. Brown, and C. Monroe, Science Ad- vances3, e1701074 (2017)

    2017

  17. [17]

    Vuillot, Quantum Information and Computation18, 949 (2018), arXiv:1705.08957

    C. Vuillot, Quantum Information and Computation18, 949 (2018), arXiv:1705.08957

    work page arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    Van Den Berg, Z

    E. Van Den Berg, Z. K. Minev, A. Kandala, and K. Temme, Nature Physics19, 1116 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection, Ph.D

    D. Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology (1997)

    1997

  20. [20]

    C. N. Self, M. Benedetti, and D. Amaro, Nature Physics 20, 219 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    Y. Jin, Z. He, T. Hao, D. Amaro, S. Tannu, R. Shay- dulin, and M. Pistoia, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21172 10.48550/arXiv.2504.21172 (2025), arXiv:2504.21172

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.21172 2025

  22. [22]

    Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Hug- gins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, Reviews of Modern Physics95, 045005 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, Nature Communications5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  24. [24]

    J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, New Journal of Physics18, 023023 (2016)

    2016

  25. [25]

    Kandala, A

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Nature549, 242 (2017)

    2017

  26. [26]

    A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm (2014), arXiv:1411.4028 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  27. [27]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quantum ap- proximate optimization algorithm applied to a bounded occurrence constraint problem (2014), arXiv:1412.6062 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2014

  28. [28]

    Mitarai, M

    K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, K. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, Phys- 15 ical Review A98, 032309 (2018)

    2018

  29. [29]

    Classification with Quantum Neural Networks on Near Term Processors

    E. Farhi and H. Neven, Classification with quan- tum neural networks on near term processors (2018), arXiv:1802.06002 [quant-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    Havlicek, A

    V. Havlicek, A. D. Corcoles, K. Temme, A. W. Harrow, A. Kandala, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Nature 567, 209 (2019)

    2019

  31. [31]

    Nielsen, R

    E. Nielsen, R. Blume-Kohout, K. Rudinger, T. Proctor, M. Sarovar, K. Young, and S. Merkel, Quantum5, 557 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    S. T. Merkel, J. M. Gambetta, J. A. Smolin, S. Poletto, A. D. C´ orcoles, B. R. Johnson, C. A. Ryan, and M. Stef- fen, Physical Review A87, 062119 (2013)

    2013

  33. [33]

    I. L. Chuang and M. A. Nielsen, Journal of Modern Op- tics44, 2455 (1997)

    1997

  34. [34]

    Combining Error Detection and Mitigation: A Hybrid Protocol for Near-Term Quantum Simulation,

    D. Zhong, W. Munizzi, H. Chen, and W. A. de Jong, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.01181 10.48550/arXiv.2510.01181 (2025), arXiv:2510.01181

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.01181 2025

  35. [35]

    Gidney, Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator, Quan- tum5, 497 (2021), arXiv:2103.02202 [quant-ph]

    C. Gidney, Quantum5, 497 (2021), arXiv:2103.02202

    work page arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Nature638, 920 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    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., Nature626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    Helios: A 98-qubit trapped-ion quantum computer

    A. Ransford, M. Allman, J. Arkinstall, J. Cam- pora III, S. F. Cooper, R. D. Delaney, J. M. Dreiling, B. Estey, C. Figgatt, A. Hall,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.05465 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    F. L. Bauer and C. T. Fike, Numerische Mathematik2, 137 (1960)

    1960

  40. [40]

    Seneta,Non-negative Matrices and Markov Chains (Springer, 1981)

    E. Seneta,Non-negative Matrices and Markov Chains (Springer, 1981)

    1981

  41. [41]

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, Com- puter Physics Communications183, 1760 (2012), arXiv:1110.0573

    work page arXiv 2012

  42. [42]

    D. Qin, Y. Li, and Y. Zhou, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.20686 10.48550/arXiv.2510.20686 (2025), arXiv:2510.20686

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.20686 2025

  43. [43]

    Combes, C

    J. Combes, C. Granade, C. Ferrie, and S. T. Flam- mia, arXiv preprint 10.48550/arXiv.1702.03688 (2017), arXiv:1702.03688

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.03688 2017

  44. [44]

    Cirq Developers, Cirq (2024), see full list of contributors on GitHub

    2024

  45. [45]

    Niroula, M

    P. Niroula, M. Liu, S. Omanakuttan, D. Amaro, S. Chakrabarti, S. Ghosh, Z. He, Y. Jin, F. Kaleoglu, S. Kordonowy,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.04859 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    Suzuki, S

    Y. Suzuki, S. Endo, K. Fujii, and Y. Tokunaga, PRX Quantum3, 010345 (2022), arXiv:2010.03887

    work page arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    Kwiatkowski, A

    A. Kwiatkowski, A. J. Friedman, S. Geller, J. A. Ziyad, S. Glancy, and E. Knill, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.16887 10.48550/arXiv.2509.16887 (2025), arXiv:2509.16887

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.16887 2025

  48. [48]

    J. A. Ziyad, R. Blume-Kohout, and K. Rudinger, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.08893 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Dennis, A

    E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Jour- nal of Mathematical Physics43, 4452 (2002), quant- ph/0110143

    work page arXiv 2002

  50. [50]

    Z. Chen, K. J. Satzinger, J. Atalaya, A. N. Korotkov, A. Dunsworth, D. Sank, C. Quintana, M. McEwen, R. Barends, P. V. Klimov,et al., Nature595, 383 (2021)

    2021

  51. [51]

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Nature614, 676 (2023)

    2023

  52. [52]

    Effi- cient soft-output decoders for the surface code,

    N. Meister, C. A. Pattison, and J. Preskill, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07433 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    S. C. Smith, B. J. Brown, and S. D. Bartlett, Communi- cations Physics7, 386 (2024)

    2024

  54. [54]

    Error mit- igation for logical circuits using decoder confidence,

    M. Dinc˘ a, T. Chan, and S. C. Benjamin, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.15689 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    J. D. Teoh, P. Winkel, H. K. Babla, B. J. Chapman, J. Claes, S. J. de Graaf, J. W. O. Garmon, W. D. Kalfus, Y. Lu, A. Maiti, K. Sahay, N. Thakur, T. Tsunoda, S. H. Xue, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, S. Puri, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences of the United States of America120, e2221736120 (2023)

    2023

  56. [56]

    Y. Wu, S. Kolkowitz, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, Na- ture Communications13, 4657 (2022)

    2022

  57. [57]

    B. M. Terhal, Reviews of Modern Physics87, 307 (2015)

    2015