Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Optimizing Qubit Mapping with Quasi-Orthogonal Space-Time Block Codes and Quaternion Orthogonal Designs

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that QOSTBC-based qubit mapping outperforms stabilizer-group codes in three of four simulated error-correction scenarios.

desk verdict The paper's central claim fails on elementary counting and a load-bearing quantum-error-correction misunderstanding; it should go back for a complete rebuild, not peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06145 v1 pith:AKQKJ5NG submitted 2024-12-09 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

Valentine Nyirahafashimana , Nurisya Mohd Shah , Umair Abdul Halim , Mohamed Othman , Sharifah Kartini Said Husain This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MP
keywords quantumcomputingerrorcorrectionquasi-orthogonalspace-timeblockcodesquaternionorthogonaldesignsstabilizerformalismqubitmapping
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to show that mapping logical qubits to physical qubits with quasi-orthogonal space-time block codes built from quaternion orthogonal designs gives better error correction than standard stabilizer-group codes. It reports simulations of four mappings, from 3-to-8, 4-to-10, 1-to-13, and 1-to-29 qubits, in which the QOSTBC scheme achieves a higher correction-improvement percentage in three of the four cases. In the first two cases the reported correction rate exceeds 100%, which the paper reads as the code correcting more errors than are detected. If true, this would make QOSTBC-based mapping a promising tool for high-error quantum computation and communication, where stabilizer codes' correction performance stays near 99% in the same simulations.

What carries the argument

The carrying objects are the encoding-decoding pair of equations (26) and (33), built from quaternion error operators $Q_q$ and the decoding map $d_q = Q_q^{-1}$, together with the orthogonality condition $Q^\dagger Q = I$ for the quaternion orthogonal design and the quaternion group $Q_8 = \{\pm 1, \pm i, \pm j, \pm k\}$. These equations define how an $N$-qubit state is mapped to an $M$-qubit state and how the corrected state is extracted; the cancellation $E(|\text{error}\rangle) \to 0$ is what turns the corrupted input back into the logical state. The paper also relies on the complexity estimate $T_{\text{corr}} = O(N \log M)$ to argue that the correction process scales efficiently.

What would settle it

Run a single-qubit Pauli error $X_1$ through the $Z_1$ (3-to-8 qubits) encoding and decoding specified by Eqs. (26) and (33): if $d_q(E_q(X_1|\psi_i\rangle))$ is not exactly $|\psi_i\rangle$, the claimed correction mechanism fails; the same computation should be repeated for all four parameter sets and compared with the reported percentages.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper proposes a qubit-mapping scheme in which logical qubits are encoded onto more physical qubits through quasi-orthogonal space-time block codes built from quaternion orthogonal designs, and error correction is completed by the quaternion decoding operator $d_q = Q_q^{-1}$. On this scheme, the corrected state is written as $|\phi_{\text{corrected}}\rangle = d_q(E_q(|\psi_i\rangle + |\text{error}\rangle))$, and the key assertion is that the encoding operator suppresses the error term so that the decoded output is the original logical state. Simulation comparisons for four parameter sets, $Z_1$ through $Z_4$, are reported: QOSTBCs give a higher correction-improvement percentage than stabilizer-group codes in $Z_1$, $Z_2$, and $Z_4$, with the first two cases exceeding 100% correction, while stabilizer codes stay slightly ahead in $Z_3$.

Load-bearing premise

The entire correction argument depends on the encoding operator eliminating the error term, $E(|\text{error}\rangle) \to 0$; if that cancellation does not happen, the recovered state claimed in Eq. (27) does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ configurations, the paper's numbers imply the QOSTBC scheme corrects more errors than the detector identifies, a redundancy that would help in high-error environments.
  • The reported $Z_4$ result (1-to-29 qubits, up to five errors) implies the QOSTBC advantage persists as the correction capacity grows, reaching 99.75% improvement versus 95.00% for stabilizer codes.
  • The scaling claim $T_{\text{corr}} = O(N \log M)$ implies the mapping overhead grows only logarithmically with the number of physical qubits, making large encodings computationally feasible.
  • In the $Z_3$ case, stabilizer codes remain slightly ahead, so the claimed advantage is parameter-dependent rather than universal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Not a paper claim: the reported >100% correction rates imply the metric counts corrected errors beyond the detected set; a direct check would be to compute the logical error rate under a depolarizing channel for the same $(N, M, P)$ parameters.
  • Not in the paper: because the quaternion group $Q_8$ is nonabelian, the same encoding structure could be tested against phase-flip and combined bit-phase errors, not only the counted single-error cases.
  • Not in the paper: a crossover test at low error rates would clarify whether the QOSTBC advantage is specific to high-error regimes, as the paper's conclusion suggests.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework that combines Quasi-Orthogonal Space-Time Block Codes (QOSTBCs) with Quaternion Orthogonal Designs (QODs) and stabilizer-group formalism to map N logical qubits to M physical qubits and correct up to P errors. The authors derive encoding equations (26) and (33), then present simulation-style tables and figures for four configurations (Z1: 3-to-8, P=1; Z2: 4-to-10, P=1; Z3: 1-to-13, P=2; Z4: 1-to-29, P=5). The central claim is that QOSTBCs outperform stabilizer-group codes in Z1, Z2, and Z4, achieving correction improvement percentages above 100% in Z1 and Z2, while stabilizer codes perform slightly better in Z3.

Significance. If the claimed >100% correction rates were valid, they would contradict basic properties of discrete quantum error correction, so the paper would represent a major result. However, the numerical results are internally impossible: corrected error counts are non-integer and sometimes exceed the number of detected errors, and the two tables for different configurations are identical. No code, syndrome-measurement circuit, decoding algorithm, or error model is supplied, and the central derivation in Section 2.3.2 relies on an unphysical assumption that the encoding operator annihilates the error component. The paper therefore does not provide a sound basis for its conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Tables 2 and 3] Tables 2 and 3 are numerically identical even though they describe different configurations (N=3, M=8, P=1 for Z1 and N=4, M=10, P=1 for Z2). Since the proposed mapping depends on N, M, and P, identical QOSTBC corrected counts indicate either a duplication error or that the results do not actually depend on the encoding parameters. This undermines the Z1/Z2 comparison and the claim that QOSTBCs outperform stabilizer codes in both cases.
  2. [Section 3, Tables 2 and 4] The QOSTBC corrected counts in Table 2 (51.45, 61.95, 72.45, 82.95, 93.45, 103.95) are non-integer and exceed the corresponding detected-error counts (50 through 100). The same issue appears in Tables 3 and 4. In any simulation of discrete Pauli errors, corrected counts must be integers and cannot exceed the number of errors that occurred. The abstract's claim of 'over 100% correction rates' is therefore not a measurable simulation outcome; the numbers appear to follow a formula (e.g., detected errors times 1.029) rather than a decoding simulation.
  3. [Section 2.3.2, Eq. (27)] The derivation of the corrected state assumes E(|error>) -> 0, stated in the paragraph following Eq. (27). This is not a property of genuine quantum error-correcting codes: errors map the encoded logical state into orthogonal error subspaces, not to the zero vector. Without this cancellation, Eq. (26) does not imply |phi_corrected> = d(E(|psi_i>)), so the claimed correction mechanism is unsupported. This step is load-bearing because Section 3 states that Eqs. (26) and (33) are the basis for the simulation results.
  4. [Section 2.3.3, Eqs. (33)-(34)] The QOSTBC decoding operation is written as d_q = Q_q^{-1} applied to the sum over all q, but the manuscript does not specify how the syndrome measurement identifies which error Q_q occurred, nor how the non-commutativity of Q8 corrects up to P multi-axis errors. The claim that Q8 'can correct up to P complex multi-axis errors via non-commutativity' is asserted without proof or a concrete code construction. Consequently, Eq. (33) does not establish a working error-correction procedure.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3] The phrase 'logarithmic efficiency' is used without a precise definition or metric; the paper does not compute a logarithmic efficiency for the simulations.
  2. [Eq. (20)] The encoding matrix E in Eq. (20) is displayed as a scaled identity-like matrix, but for M > N the matrix is rectangular; the entries for the non-square case are not specified.
  3. [Section 3, Z4 paragraph] There is a typo: 'Ssabilizer formalism' should read 'Stabilizer formalism'.
  4. [Figure 5] The x-axis label 'Number of Qubits' is inconsistent with the text discussing scaling with system size, and the 'Efficiency (Error Correction Capability)' axis has no defined units or data source.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The QOSTBC advantage is installed in table ratios rather than derived; the correction derivation assumes E(|error⟩)→0, so the central claim reduces to its own assumptions.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, Table 2 (and identical Table 3), Z1/Z2 results]
    "50 49 98.00 51.45 102.90 60 59 98.33 61.95 103.25 QOSTBCs consistently outperform, with improvements between 102.90% and 103.95%."

    The QOSTBC 'corrected errors' values are exactly the detected-error count multiplied by a chosen constant (51.45 = 1.029×50; 61.95 = 1.0325×60; etc.), and the listed 'Improvement' is precisely corrected/detected×100. No equation connects Eqs. (26) or (33) to these numbers, no decoding run is described, and the corrected counts are non-integer, which no discrete Pauli-error simulation could produce. The headline claim that QOSTBCs correct more errors than detected is therefore just the chosen multiplier restated as a percentage; the result is forced by the table construction rather than by any code property.

  2. self definitional [Section 2.3.2, derivation after Eq. (27)]
    "E(|error⟩) → 0 with properly designed QECCs, which eliminates the error component, so that |ϕcorrected⟩ = d(E(|ψi⟩))."

    The paper assumes the very property it needs to prove: that the encoding/correction operator E annihilates the error term. In a genuine QECC, errors map the code space into orthogonal error subspaces and are diagnosed by syndrome measurements; E does not send errors to zero. By defining 'properly designed QECCs' as those with E(|error⟩)→0, the corrected state in Eqs. (26) and (33) follows by assumption. Thus the theoretical derivation provides no independent mechanism for the simulated correction rates; it installs perfect correction from the outset.

full rationale

The central numerical claim — QOSTBCs exceed 100% correction in Z1 and Z2 and outperform stabilizer codes in Z1, Z2, and Z4 — reduces by construction. In Tables 2–5, the QOSTBC corrected counts are formed by multiplying the detected counts by fixed factors (1.029, 1.0325, ..., 0.945, 0.9625, ...), and the improvement percentage is exactly corrected/detected×100. No step connects Eqs. (26) or (33) to these table values; Tables 2 and 3 are identical even though they describe different codes (N=3,M=8 vs. N=4,M=10), and corrected counts such as 51.45 and 61.95 cannot be integer counts of corrected discrete errors. The theoretical derivation in Section 2.3.2 is also circular: it assumes E(|error⟩)→0 'with properly designed QECCs' and then concludes recovery, whereas real QECCs map errors to orthogonal error subspaces rather than to zero. The self-citation to the authors' prior 'quasi-geometric approaches' (ref. [36]) is not load-bearing for the tables, so I do not treat it as a circular step. Because the headline performance advantage is literally read off from the chosen multipliers, with no independent content, the circularity score is 8.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three types of unsupported input: ad hoc correction-count formulas that are never derived from the encoding equations, the false assumption that the encoding operator kills errors, and an asserted existence of QOSTBC codes for four parameter sets. No new physical entity is introduced; the invented content is mathematical and numerical.

free parameters (3)
  • QOSTBC correction multiplier for Z1/Z2 = 1.029
    In Tables 2 and 3, QOSTBC corrected counts equal 1.029 times the detected count, producing 51.45 from 50, 61.95 from 60, etc. No formula or simulation is given; the multiplier is chosen to show QOSTBC advantage.
  • QOSTBC offset for Z3 = 2.12
    In Table 4, QOSTBC corrected counts equal detected minus 2.12 (47.88 from 50, 57.88 from 60). This offset is not derived from any code parameter and is chosen ad hoc.
  • Z4 QOSTBC efficiency schedule = 0.945, 0.9625, 0.975, 0.9844, 0.9875, 0.9975
    In Table 5, QOSTBC corrected counts are detected errors times these fractions, with no derivation. The fractions increase with error count to produce the narrative of steady improvement.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The encoding operator E annihilates the error component, E(|error>) -> 0.
    Invoked in Section 2.3.2, Eq. (27), to obtain |phi_corrected> = d(E(|psi_i>)). No quantum error-correcting code has this property; errors map to orthogonal subspaces, not zero.
  • domain assumption Existence of QOSTBC codes for the parameters [[8,3,1]], [[10,4,1]], [[13,1,2]], and [[29,1,5]] with the claimed correction behavior.
    The results section assumes these codes exist and correct the displayed error counts, but no construction, stabilizer group, or decoding circuit is provided for any of them.
  • ad hoc to paper The quaternion group Q8 can correct up to P complex multi-axis errors via non-commutativity.
    Section 2.3.3 asserts this without proof; the equations merely sum over quaternion units and give no syndrome or decoding rule.
  • standard math Standard definitions of quaternion orthogonal designs and their orthogonality conditions (Eq. 14).
    Taken from cited literature [4,5,6]; used as background, not the source of the claimed improvement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing Qubit Mapping with Quasi-Orthogonal Space-Time Block Codes and Quaternion Orthogonal Designs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AKQKJ5NG

@misc{pith2026241206145,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimizing Qubit Mapping with Quasi-Orthogonal Space-Time Block Codes and Quaternion Orthogonal Designs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AKQKJ5NG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06145}
}
abstract

This study explores the qubit mapping through the integration of Quasi-Orthogonal Space-Time Block Codes (QOSTBCs) with Quaternion Orthogonal Designs (QODs) in quantum error correction (QEC) frameworks. QOSTBCs have gained prominence for enhancing performance and reliability in quantum computing and communication systems. These codes draw on stabilizer group formalism and QODs to boost error correction, with QOSTBCs mapping logical qubits to physical ones, refines error handling in complex channels environments. Simulations results demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach by comparing the percentage improvement under various detected and corrected error conditions for four different cases, \textbf{$Z_1$} up to \textbf{$Z_4$}. The obtained simulations and implemental results show that QOSTBCs consistently achieve a higher correction improvement percentage than stabilizer Group for \textbf{$Z_1$}, \textbf{$Z_2$}, and \textbf{$Z_4$}; QOSTBCs can correct more errors than those detected, achieving over 100\% correction rates for first two cases, which indicates their enhanced resilience and redundancy in high-error environments. While for \textbf{$Z_3$}, stabilizer consistently remains above that of QOSTBCs, reflecting its slightly better performance. These outcomes indicate that QOSTBCs are reliable in making better logarithmic efficiency and error resilience, making them a valuable asset for quantum information processing and advanced wireless communication.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06145 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparative analysis of error correction methods Stabilizer Formalism, derived from group [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Error correction performance comparison between the Stabilizer Group and QOSTBCs in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of error correction efficiency between the Stabilizer Formalism and QOSTBCs in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparative analysis of error rectification competence between the Stabilizer Formalism and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of Stabilizer Codes and QOSTBCs in efficiently mapping a small number of qubits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum computation and quantum information

    Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang. Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press, 2010

    2010

  2. [2]

    Quantum computing: fundamentals, implementations and applications

    Hilal Ahmad Bhat, Farooq Ahmad Khanday, Brajesh Kumar Kaushik, Faisal Bashir, and Khur- shed Ahmad Shah. Quantum computing: fundamentals, implementations and applications. IEEE Open Journal of Nanotechnology, 3:61–77, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    A novel method for in- creasing the spectral efficiency of optical cdma

    Stefano Galli, Ronald Menendez, Evgenii Narimanov, and Paul R Prucnal. A novel method for in- creasing the spectral efficiency of optical cdma. IEEE transactions on communications, 56(12):2133– 2144, 2008

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    The theory of quaternion orthogonal designs

    Jennifer Seberry, Ken Finlayson, Sarah Spence Adams, Tadeusz Antoni Wysocki, Tianbing Xia, and Beata Joanna Wysocki. The theory of quaternion orthogonal designs. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 56(1):256–265, 2007

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Novel construction methods of quaternion or- thogonal designs based on complex orthogonal designs

    Erum Mushtaq, Sajid Ali, and Syed Ali Hassan. Novel construction methods of quaternion or- thogonal designs based on complex orthogonal designs. In 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), pages 973–977. IEEE, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Quaternion algebras

    John Voight. Quaternion algebras. Springer Nature, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Mapping two-qubit operators onto projective geometries

    ARP Rau. Mapping two-qubit operators onto projective geometries. Physical Review A , 79(4):042323, 2009

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits

    Scott Aaronson and Daniel Gottesman. Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 70(5):052328, 2004

    2004

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum computer science: an introduction

    N David Mermin. Quantum computer science: an introduction. Cambridge University Press, 2007. 13

    2007

  2. [10]

    Logical- qubit operations in an error-detecting surface code

    J Ferreira Marques, BM Varbanov, MS Moreira, Hany Ali, Nandini Muthusubramanian, Christos Zachariadis, Francesco Battistel, Marc Beekman, Nadia Haider, Wouter Vlothuizen, et al. Logical- qubit operations in an error-detecting surface code. Nature Physics, 18(1):80–86, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction

    Daniel Gottesman. Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction. California Institute of Technology, 1997

    1997

  4. [12]

    Quantum information and algorithms for correlated quantum matter

    Kade Head-Marsden, Johannes Flick, Christopher J Ciccarino, and Prineha Narang. Quantum information and algorithms for correlated quantum matter. Chemical Reviews, 121(5):3061–3120, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Space-time block coding (stbc) for wireless networks

    SD Santumon and BR Sujatha. Space-time block coding (stbc) for wireless networks. International Journal of Distributed and Parallel Systems, 3(4):183, 2012

    2012

  6. [14]

    Generalized abba space-time block codes

    Giuseppe Thadeu Freitas de Abreu. Generalized abba space-time block codes. arXiv preprint cs/0510003, 2005

    2005 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Space-time coding: theory and practice

    Hamid Jafarkhani. Space-time coding: theory and practice. Cambridge university press, 2005

    2005

  8. [16]

    A quasi-orthogonal space-time block code

    Hamid Jafarkhani. A quasi-orthogonal space-time block code. IEEE Transactions on Communica- tions, 49(1):1–4, 2001

    2001

  9. [17]

    Space-time block codes from orthog- onal designs

    Vahid Tarokh, Hamid Jafarkhani, and A Robert Calderbank. Space-time block codes from orthog- onal designs. IEEE Transactions on Information theory, 45(5):1456–1467, 1999

    1999

  10. [18]

    Large mimo system incorporating qostbc transmission

    Shimpee Seema, MK Arti, and BVR Reddy. Large mimo system incorporating qostbc transmission. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series B, pages 1–8, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Quaternion codes in mimo system of dual- polarized antennas

    Sajid Ali, Sara Shakil Qureshi, and Syed Ali Hassan. Quaternion codes in mimo system of dual- polarized antennas. Applied Sciences, 11(7):3131, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Low-rate feedback and low-complexity schemes in wireless communications

    Yiyue Wu. Low-rate feedback and low-complexity schemes in wireless communications. Princeton University, 2011

    2011

  13. [21]

    Quantum error correction for quantum memories

    Barbara M Terhal. Quantum error correction for quantum memories. Reviews of Modern Physics, 87(2):307–346, 2015

    2015

  14. [22]

    Quantum error correction

    Venkateswaran Kasirajan. Quantum error correction. In Fundamentals of Quantum Computing: Theory and Practice, pages 375–430. Springer, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Quantum codes in classical communication: A space-time block code from quantum error correction

    Travis C Cuvelier, S Andrew Lanham, Brian R La Cour, and Robert W Heath. Quantum codes in classical communication: A space-time block code from quantum error correction. IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, 2:2383–2412, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Space-time block coding for multiple antenna systems

    Biljana Badic. Space-time block coding for multiple antenna systems. na, 2005

    2005

  17. [25]

    A rotated quasi-orthogonal space-time block code for asynchronous cooperative diversity

    Liang-Fang Ni, Fu-Kui Yao, and Li Zhang. A rotated quasi-orthogonal space-time block code for asynchronous cooperative diversity. Entropy, 14(4):654–664, 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    Enabling reliable control with communication constraints

    Travis Craig Cuvelier. Enabling reliable control with communication constraints. PhD thesis, Uni- versity of Texas at Austin, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Analysis of capacity of the improved space-time block code based on mimo system

    Zhongbao Wang, Jinliang Gu, Xingxing Wang, Weihua Zhu, and Zhijun Teng. Analysis of capacity of the improved space-time block code based on mimo system. Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, 28(4):829–834, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Application of quasi-orthogonal space-time block codes in beamform- ing

    Li Liu and Hamid Jafarkhani. Application of quasi-orthogonal space-time block codes in beamform- ing. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 53(1):54–63, 2004

    2004

  21. [29]

    Noncoherent massive mimo with embedded one-way function physical layer security

    Yuma Katsuki, Giuseppe Thadeu Freitas de Abreu, Koji Ishibashi, and Naoki Ishikawa. Noncoherent massive mimo with embedded one-way function physical layer security. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 18:3158–3170, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory

    Peter W Shor. Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory. Physical review A, 52(4):R2493, 1995

    1995

  23. [31]

    On the role of hadamard gates in quantum circuits

    Dan J Shepherd. On the role of hadamard gates in quantum circuits. Quantum Information Processing, 5:161–177, 2006. 14

    2006

  24. [32]

    Generalized quantum circuit differentiation rules

    Oleksandr Kyriienko and Vincent E Elfving. Generalized quantum circuit differentiation rules. Physical Review A, 104(5):052417, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Exponential suppression of bit or phase flip errors with repetitive error correction

    Zijun Chen, Kevin J Satzinger, Juan Atalaya, Alexander N Korotkov, Andrew Dunsworth, Daniel Sank, Chris Quintana, Matt McEwen, Rami Barends, Paul V Klimov, et al. Exponential suppression of bit or phase flip errors with repetitive error correction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.06...

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Pauli matrix based quantum communication protocol

    Prashant Nema and Manisha J Nene. Pauli matrix based quantum communication protocol. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Advent Trends in Multidisciplinary Research and Innovation (ICATMRI), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Quantum error correction

    Todd A Brun. Quantum error correction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03672, 2019

    1910 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Transforming qubits via quasi-geometric approaches

    Nyirahafashimana Valentine, Nurisya Mohd Shah, Umair Abdul Halim, Sharifah Kartini Said Hu- sain, and Ahmed Jellal. Transforming qubits via quasi-geometric approaches. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07562, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Optimal trace distance and fidelity estimations for pure quantum states

    Qisheng Wang. Optimal trace distance and fidelity estimations for pure quantum states. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Quantum error correction codes in consumer technology: Modelling and analysis

    Vikram Singh Thakur, Atul Kumar, Jishnu Das, Kapal Dev, and Maurizio Magarini. Quantum error correction codes in consumer technology: Modelling and analysis. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Constructions for measuring error syndromes in calderbank- shor-steane codes between shor and steane methods

    Shilin Huang and Kenneth R Brown. Constructions for measuring error syndromes in calderbank- shor-steane codes between shor and steane methods. Physical Review A, 104(2):022429, 2021. 15

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.