Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 78 references

Robust analog quantum simulators by quantum error-detecting codes

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 Excited-state quantum codes beat a no-go for analog simulator noise protection

desk verdict Genuinely new excited-subspace encoding that bypasses the Marvian-Lidar no-go theorem with 2-local commuting penalties, but the construction leans on unproven gadget-coexistence lemmas that need to be checked. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07764 v1 pith:ECD6XX67 submitted 2024-12-10 quant-ph

Yingkang Cao , Suying Liu , Haowei Deng , Zihan Xia , Xiaodi Wu , Yu-Xin Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords analogquantumsimulationenergy-gapprotectionerror-detectingcodescommuting2-localHamiltoniansexcitedencodingsubspaceperturbativegadgetstransverse-fieldIsingmodelinfidelitybound
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 claims a general recipe for making analog Hamiltonian simulations resilient to single-qubit coherent noise using only two-local, mutually commuting penalty terms. The key move is to encode the computation in an excited eigenspace of the penalty Hamiltonian rather than its ground space, which sidesteps a no-go theorem that ruled out ground-space encodings with such 2-local commuting penalties. The authors prove a rigorous infidelity bound for the resulting scheme and show numerically that the protected simulation time extends by orders of magnitude for 1D XY, 1D and 2D transverse-field Ising, and 2D compass models. If correct, the result turns a previously forbidden regime into a scalable, hardware-friendly route to longer-lived analog quantum simulation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the [[4,2,2]] Hamiltonian code: four physical qubits grouped into two Bell pairs, with the logical subspace spanned by $|0+\rangle=|\Phi_{00}\rangle|\Phi_{11}\rangle$, $|0-\rangle=|\Phi_{10}\rangle|\Phi_{01}\rangle$, $|1+\rangle=|\Phi_{01}\rangle|\Phi_{10}\rangle$, $|1-\rangle=|\Phi_{11}\rangle|\Phi_{00}\rangle$, stabilized by the commuting 2-local penalty $H_{\rm pen}(g)$ with $|g_x/g_z|\neq1$. The code satisfies the error suppression condition $P_{\rm enc}V_iP_{\rm enc}=c_iP_{\rm enc}$ for every single-qubit Pauli $V_i$, and its tensor-product extension $[[4n,2n,2]]$ keeps the penalty 2-local with a constant gap. Perturbative gadgets of the form $\alpha Z^{(a)}_2X^{(b)}_3+\beta Z^{(a)}_4X^{(b)}_3$ convert 2-local cross-block physical terms into logical Ising and XY interactions through second-order perturbation theory, and the proof of Theorem III.1 runs through a generalized timescale-separation bound that controls the difference between the noisy and effective evolutions.

What would settle it

With a device that supports the required 2-local couplings, encode the 2D transverse-field Ising model, inject calibrated single-qubit Pauli errors of fixed strength, and compare average infidelity at two penalty strengths (for example, $\lambda$ and $4\lambda$) at a fixed time; Theorem III.1 predicts a fourfold drop in infidelity, so a measured scaling flatter than $1/\lambda$ would falsify the error-suppression claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the [[4,2,2]] quantum error-detecting code can be realized as an excited, zero-energy eigenspace of a purely 2-local commuting penalty Hamiltonian $H_{\rm pen}(g)=g_xX_1X_2+g_zZ_1Z_2+g_xX_3X_4+g_zZ_3Z_4$ with $|g_x/g_z|\neq1$, and that tensor products of these blocks give a $[[4n,2n,2]]$ code protected by a constant energy gap. Because the encoding lives in an excited subspace, the construction evades the no-go theorem of Ref. [36] that prohibits ground-space protection by commuting 2-local Hamiltonians. The paper proves (Theorem III.1) that for 1-local coherent errors $V=\sum_i\epsilon_i V_i$, the simulation infidelity is bounded by $1-|\langle\psi_{\rm tar}(t)|\psi(t)\rangle|^2 \le (M/\lambda)(6+13Mt)^2$, so the error can be made arbitrarily small with a penalty strength that grows only polynomially with system size. Cross-block logical couplings are generated by perturbative gadgets whose second-order effective interactions are computed explicitly, and a generalized no-go result (Appendix C) shows distance-2 protection is the best any eigenspace of a commuting 2-local Hamiltonian can achieve.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme's protection is proven only for single-qubit coherent Pauli noise and assumes controlled access to generic two-local couplings; if two-qubit or stochastic errors dominate, the error-suppression condition fails and the paper's own no-go extension blocks any 2-local commuting penalty from protecting against them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A simulator built from 2-local commuting penalty terms can keep single-qubit coherent errors under control with penalty strength growing polynomially, not exponentially, in system size.
  • The same 2-local gadget construction covers 1D XY, 1D and 2D transverse-field Ising, and 2D compass models, with numerics showing protected evolution time extended by orders of magnitude at fixed noise strength.
  • Because the no-go extended in Appendix C limits any eigenspace of a 2-local commuting Hamiltonian to distance 2, this construction saturates what that class of penalties can achieve.
  • The infidelity bound $\propto 1/\lambda$ (with perturbative gadgets) is concrete enough to specify the penalty strength needed for a target accuracy at a given simulation time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same excited-subspace idea might protect against biased noise (for example, only $Z$-type errors) with distance-2 codes tuned to that bias, since the obstruction in Appendix C concerns full 2-local error sets rather than structured subsets.
  • Beyond the paper: if hardware noise is dominated by 2-local crosstalk, the scheme as stated offers no protection; a testable extension would be to interpose a dynamical-decoupling or Floquet layer that converts 2-local errors into effectively 1-local ones before the penalty acts.
  • Beyond the paper: the graph-coloring parameter assignment used for 2D lattices suggests a systematic route to other finite-degree interaction graphs, and one could test whether the number of distinct block parameters stays bounded for, say, random regular graphs.
  • Beyond the paper: the bound's linear growth in $t$ hints that the protection window scales as $\lambda/M^2$; measuring the crossover time as a function of $\lambda$ would give a clean experimental signature.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a general framework for error-resilient analog Hamiltonian simulation using an excited eigenspace of a 2-local commuting penalty Hamiltonian as a quantum error-detecting code. The basic building block is a [[4,2,2]] Hamiltonian code stabilized by commuting 2-local terms; this is extended to a [[4n,2n,2]] code family by block composition. Inner-block logical operations are implemented directly, while cross-block logical operations use perturbative gadgets analyzed via second-order perturbation theory. The main rigorous claim, Theorem III.1, is an infidelity bound of the form (M/λ)(6+13Mt)^2 for 1-local coherent noise. The scheme is applied to 1D XY and TFI models and to 2D TFI and compass models, with numerical evidence showing the predicted λ^{-1} scaling. Appendix C proves a no-go result that no eigenspace of a 2-local commuting Hamiltonian can have code distance greater than 2, which complements the construction.

Significance. If fully established, the scheme is a significant advance: it circumvents the earlier ground-space no-go theorem of Ref. [36] by moving to an excited code space, uses only 2-local physical terms, and requires only a polynomial number of penalty terms for bounded-degree interaction graphs. The concrete code tables and the numerical benchmarks (Figs. 3 and 5) support the central scaling claim. The paper also contains a useful generalized no-go theorem (Appendix C) showing that distance-2 is the best possible for eigenspaces of 2-local commuting Hamiltonians. However, two load-bearing technical points currently prevent the manuscript from being fully convincing: the coexistence lemmas for perturbative gadgets are stated without complete proofs, and the statement of Theorem III.1 appears inconsistent with its proof regarding the definition of M. Both issues are likely fixable, but they affect the central formal claims rather than merely the presentation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix D (Lemmas D.2–D.4) and Appendices E–F] The proofs of Lemmas D.2, D.3, and D.4 are omitted with the statement that they are 'almost the same' as Lemma D.1, but these lemmas are used directly in Appendix E (Eq. (E7)) to cancel two-gadget interference in the 1D TFI and XY encodings, and in Appendix F for the 2D constructions. If any of these lemmas fails, the effective Hamiltonian H_eff^(2) acquires cross terms between distinct gadgets, violating condition (14d) and causing leakage from the encoding subspace S_enc into S0 \ S_enc; this would invalidate the central claim even for the 1-local noise model. The scalar argument for Lemma D.1 does not transparently cover the overlapping-support cases in D.2–D.4, so the verification gap is load-bearing. Please provide complete proofs or a rigorous, explicit case analysis for these lemmas.
  2. [Theorem III.1 and Theorem B.3 (Appendix B)] The proof of Theorem B.3 uses the inequalities ||W||/λ ≤ sqrt(M/λ) + M/λ and ||A||/λ + ||B||/√λ ≤ (M/λ + 2√(M/λ)) M. With the theorem's stated definition M := max{||H_enc^(2)||_2, ||H_enc^(1)+V||}, the first step would require ||H_enc^(2)||/√λ ≤ sqrt(M/λ), i.e. ||H_enc^(2)|| ≤ √M, which is not guaranteed; the correct bound is only M/√λ + M/λ. Similarly, under the stated definition ||B|| can be as large as 2M^2, not 2M^{3/2}. Thus the condition λ ≥ 25M does not imply the convergence condition κ ≤ 1/4 required by Theorem B.1, and the main bound (16) is not established as stated. The definition of M and the proof must be made consistent, for example by defining M := max{||H_enc^(2)||_2^2, ||H_enc^(1)+V||} and adjusting the bound accordingly, or by adding an explicit assumption on ||H_enc^(2)||.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figures 3 and 5] The captions should clarify whether the quoted lattice dimensions (e.g., '2×3 square lattice') refer to logical sites or physical qubits; the main text suggests logical sites, but an explicit statement would prevent confusion.
  2. [Appendix A] The claimed local-unitary equivalence to the CSS [[4,2,2]] stabilizer code would be easier to verify with an explicit mapping of the logical Pauli operators or a direct reference to the standard code; the stabilizer eigenvalue check alone does not fully determine the logical operator correspondence.
  3. [Appendix F, Eq. (F1)] The block parameters g_x = 2^{2C}, g_z = 2^{2C+1} depend on the color C; for bounded-degree graphs the number of colors is constant, so these are constants independent of system size, but the main text should state this assumption explicitly when discussing scalability.
  4. [Section V (Discussion)] The statement that the scheme is 'hardware-efficient' should be qualified by the requirement of generic 2-local couplings (including X–Y type interactions) and by the potential need for Floquet engineering in platforms with native ZZ couplings; the final paragraph acknowledges this, but the earlier claims should be tempered accordingly.
  5. [Appendix D, Lemma D.6] The proof of Lemma D.6 is given 'for concreteness' for a particular choice of A and B; the general case is said to follow similarly, but a brief explanation of how the energy-denominator argument extends to all listed operator types would improve verifiability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; the central derivation is self-contained, with only an omitted-proof caveat that is a correctness risk, not a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The error-suppression condition (Eq. (4)) is imported as Theorem II.1 from independent prior work (Refs. [36,50]), not from the present authors' construction. The [[4,2,2]] code is then explicitly verified to satisfy Eq. (4) via the Bell-state eigenbasis, so the encoding is chosen, not fitted. The perturbative gadgets are derived from second-order perturbation theory by direct calculation (Appendix D, Eqs. (D8)-(D10)), and the desired logical interaction is the computed output, not an assumed input. Theorem III.1 is proven from scratch in Appendix B through a general perturbation bound (Theorem B.1 and Corollary B.4), and the numerical simulations merely confirm the analytical lambda^{-1} scaling rather than defining it. There is no load-bearing self-citation: the only co-authored cited work (Ref. [44]) is related concurrent work, not used to justify the central claim. The one genuine caveat is not circularity but completeness: Appendix D states Lemmas D.2-D.4 with the sentence 'The proof is omitted since it is almost the same as for Lemma D.1,' and these lemmas are used in Appendices E and F to cancel two-gadget interference. If any of these lemmas were false, the construction would leak out of the encoding subspace; however, this is an unproven mathematical claim, not a case of the paper's prediction reducing to its inputs by definition. Honest finding: no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction rests on standard perturbation theory, the structure lemma for commuting 2-local Hamiltonians, and the explicitly stated modeling assumptions. The free parameters listed are design choices rather than fits to data; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Penalty parameters (gx, gz) per code block = gx=1, gz=3 in the base code; per-row (1,4),(2,5),(3,6) for 2D models
    Chosen by hand so Bell-pair eigenvalues are distinct and gadget interference conditions are satisfied. Not fitted to data, but the construction depends on these values existing.
  • Penalty coefficient lambda = lambda >= 25 M with M = max{||H_enc^(2)||^2, ||H_enc^(1)+V||}
    Controls the energy gap and error suppression strength. The bound in Theorem III.1 requires this threshold; the paper shows lambda scales polynomially with system size, but the actual value is a tunable experimental knob.
  • Block parameter exponents for graph coloring = gx = 2^(2C), gz = 2^(2C+1) for color C
    Design choice in Appendix F so neighboring blocks have distinct parameter magnitudes, ensuring perturbative gadgets do not interfere. A finite number of colors is used for bounded-degree graphs.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math If Penc Vi Penc = ci Penc for all error terms, then the encoded evolution is protected (Theorem II.1, cited from Refs. [36,50]).
    External perturbation-theory result used to justify the error suppression condition; not proved in this paper but standard in the QEC/energy-gap literature.
  • domain assumption The noise is a sum of 1-local coherent Pauli perturbations V = sum_i eps_i V_i with small coefficients.
    States the error model in Eq. (3); the entire scheme targets this model and does not address stochastic or 2-local noise.
  • domain assumption The simulator Hamiltonian has access to generic 2-local XX, ZZ, XZ, and ZX physical couplings.
    The encoding and gadgets use all such terms; the Discussion notes that in platforms like Rydberg atoms only ZZ-type couplings are native, requiring Floquet engineering.
  • domain assumption The penalty Hamiltonian Hpen has a zero-energy eigenspace S0 with spectral gap at least 1, and lambda >= 25M.
    Required by Theorem III.1 for the infidelity bound; the chosen integer g parameters satisfy it, but the physical realization of such large lambda is an experimental precondition.
  • standard math Structure lemma for 2-local commuting Hamiltonians (Bravyi-Vyalyi [62]) used in the no-go proof of Appendix C.
    External mathematical result that underlies the generalized no-go theorem.
  • standard math Timescale-separation perturbation bound adapted from [61] (Lemma B.2).
    External result used in the proof of Theorem B.1 and hence Theorem III.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust analog quantum simulators by quantum error-detecting codes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ECD6XX67

@misc{pith2026241207764,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust analog quantum simulators by quantum error-detecting codes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ECD6XX67}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07764}
}
abstract

Achieving noise resilience is an outstanding challenge in Hamiltonian-based quantum computation. To this end, energy-gap protection provides a promising approach, where the desired quantum dynamics are encoded into the ground space of a penalty Hamiltonian that suppresses unwanted noise processes. However, existing approaches either explicitly require high-weight penalty terms that are not directly accessible in current hardware, or utilize non-commuting $2$-local Hamiltonians, which typically leads to an exponentially small energy gap. In this work, we provide a general recipe for designing error-resilient Hamiltonian simulations, making use of an excited encoding subspace stabilized by solely $2$-local commuting Hamiltonians. Our results thus overcome a no-go theorem previously derived for ground-space encoding that prevents noise suppression schemes with such Hamiltonians. Importantly, our method is scalable as it only requires penalty terms that scale polynomially with system size. To illustrate the utility of our approach, we further apply this method to a variety of $1$- and $2$-dimensional many-body spin models, potentially extending the duration of high-fidelity simulation by orders of magnitude in current hardware.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07764 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of the general framework for robust Hamiltonian simulation scheme. The orange block depicts the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic illustration of the perturbative gadget [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Numerically simulated performance of the encoded [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Layout of the code blocks (shown as rectangles) used to simulate (a) the 2D TFI model and (b) the 2D compass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Numerically simulated performance of the encoded many-body quantum spin models on a 1D chain or a 2D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [36]

    Marvian and D

    I. Marvian and D. A. Lidar, Quantum error suppression with commuting hamiltonians: Two local is too local, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 260504 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [1]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, et al., Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator, Nature 551, 579 (2017)

    2017

  3. [2]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with individually controlled rydberg atoms, Nature Physics 16, 132 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. Omran, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Se- meghini, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, A. A. Michailidis, N. Maskara, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, M. Serbyn, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Controlling quantum many-body dynamics in driven rydberg atom arrays, Science 371, 1355 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Arg¨ uello-Luengo, A

    J. Arg¨ uello-Luengo, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, T. Shi, P. Zoller, and J. I. Cirac, Analogue quantum chemistry simulation, Nature 574, 215 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [5]

    Clinton, T

    L. Clinton, T. Cubitt, B. Flynn, F. M. Gambetta, J. Klassen, A. Montanaro, S. Piddock, R. A. Santos, and E. Sheridan, Towards near-term quantum simu- lation of materials, Nature Communications 15, 211 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    Keesling, A

    A. Keesling, A. Omran, H. Levine, H. Bernien, H. Pich- ler, S. Choi, R. Samajdar, S. Schwartz, P. Silvi, S. Sachdev, et al., Quantum kibble–zurek mechanism and critical dynamics on a programmable rydberg sim- ulator, Nature 568, 207 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    T. I. Andersen, N. Astrakhantsev, A. Karamlou, J. Berndtsson, J. Motruk, A. Szasz, J. A. Gross, T. Westerhout, Y. Zhang, E. Forati, et al., Thermaliza- tion and criticality on an analog-digital quantum simu- lator, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17385 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

Show all 78 references
  1. [8]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lund- gren, and D. Preda, A quantum adiabatic evolution al- gorithm applied to random instances of an np-complete problem, Science 292, 472–475 (2001)

    2001

  2. [9]

    E. J. Crosson and D. A. Lidar, Prospects for quantum 8 enhancement with diabatic quantum annealing, Nature Reviews Physics 3, 466–489 (2021)

    2021

  3. [10]

    Ebadi, A

    S. Ebadi, A. Keesling, M. Cain, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, D. Bluvstein, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, J.-G. Liu, R. Samajdar, X.-Z. Luo, B. Nash, X. Gao, B. Barak, E. Farhi, S. Sachdev, N. Gemelke, L. Zhou, S. Choi, H. Pichler, S.-T. Wang, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Qua...

    2022

  4. [11]

    J. Leng, E. Hickman, J. Li, and X. Wu, Quantum hamiltonian descent, arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.01471 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Goals and opportunities in quantum simulation, Nature physics 8, 264 (2012)

    2012

  6. [13]

    Gross and I

    C. Gross and I. Bloch, Quantum simulations with ultra- cold atoms in optical lattices, Science 357, 995 (2017)

    2017

  7. [14]

    T. S. Cubitt, A. Montanaro, and S. Piddock, Univer- sal quantum hamiltonians, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 9497 (2018)

    2018

  8. [15]

    Zhou and D

    L. Zhou and D. Aharonov, Strongly universal hamil- tonian simulators, arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.02991 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Altman, K

    E. Altman, K. R. Brown, G. Carleo, L. D. Carr, E. Demler, C. Chin, B. DeMarco, S. E. Economou, M. A. Eriksson, K.-M. C. Fu, M. Greiner, K. R. Haz- zard, R. G. Hulet, A. J. Koll´ ar, B. L. Lev, M. D. Lukin, R. Ma, X. Mi, S. Misra, C. Monroe, K. Murch, Z. Nazario, K.-K. Ni, A. C...

    2021

  10. [17]

    A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pear- son, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Practical quantum advan- tage in quantum simulation, Nature 607, 667 (2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    Trivedi, A

    R. Trivedi, A. Franco Rubio, and J. I. Cirac, Quantum advantage and stability to errors in analogue quantum simulators, Nature Communications 15, 6507 (2024)

    2024

  12. [19]

    D. Gottesman, An introduction to quantum error cor- rection and fault-tolerant quantum computation, in Quantum information science and its contributions to mathematics, Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Math- ematics, Vol. 68 (2010) pp. 13–58

    2010

  13. [20]

    Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003)

    A. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  14. [21]

    Dennis, A

    E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Topological quantum memory, Journal of Mathemati- cal Physics 43, 4452 (2002)

    2002

  15. [22]

    A. G. Fowler, A. M. Stephens, and P. Groszkowski, High-threshold universal quantum computation on the surface code, Phys. Rev. A 80, 052312 (2009)

    2009

  16. [23]

    Takita, A

    M. Takita, A. D. C´ orcoles, E. Magesan, B. Abdo, M. Brink, A. Cross, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Demonstration of weight-four parity measurements in the surface code architecture, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 210505 (2016)

    2016

  17. [24]

    J. F. Marques, B. Varbanov, M. Moreira, H. Ali, N. Muthusubramanian, C. Zachariadis, F. Battistel, M. Beekman, N. Haider, W. Vlothuizen, et al., Logical- qubit operations in an error-detecting surface code, Na- ture Physics 18, 80 (2022)

    2022

  18. [25]

    Krinner, N

    S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, A. Remm, A. Di Paolo, E. Genois, C. Leroux, C. Hellings, S. Lazar, F. Swiadek, J. Herrmann, et al., Realizing repeated quantum error correction in a distance-three surface code, Nature 605, 669 (2022)

    2022

  19. [26]

    Y. Zhao, Y. Ye, H.-L. Huang, Y. Zhang, D. Wu, H. Guan, Q. Zhu, Z. Wei, T. He, S. Cao, F. Chen, T.- H. Chung, H. Deng, D. Fan, M. Gong, C. Guo, S. Guo, L. Han, N. Li, S. Li, Y. Li, F. Liang, J. Lin, H. Qian, H. Rong, H. Su, L. Sun, S. Wang, Y. Wu, Y. Xu, C. Ying, J. Yu, C. Zha,...

    2022

  20. [27]

    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, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Ro- driguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lu...

    2023

  21. [28]

    Da Silva, C

    M. Da Silva, C. Ryan-Anderson, J. Bello-Rivas, A. Chernoguzov, J. Dreiling, C. Foltz, J. Gaebler, T. Gatterman, D. Hayes, N. Hewitt, et al., Demon- stration of logical qubits and repeated error correction with better-than-physical error rates, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02280 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Ryan-Anderson, N

    C. Ryan-Anderson, N. Brown, C. Baldwin, J. Dreil- ing, C. Foltz, J. Gaebler, T. Gatterman, N. Hewitt, C. Holliman, C. Horst, et al., High-fidelity and fault- tolerant teleportation of a logical qubit using transver- sal gates and lattice surgery on a trapped-ion quantum comput...

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Acharya, I

    R. Acharya, I. Aleiner, R. Allen, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, et al., Suppressing quantum errors by scal- ing a surface code logical qubit, Nature 614, 676–681 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Bacon, Operator quantum error-correcting subsys- tems for self-correcting quantum memories, Phys

    D. Bacon, Operator quantum error-correcting subsys- tems for self-correcting quantum memories, Phys. Rev. A 73, 012340 (2006)

    2006

  25. [33]

    S. P. Jordan, E. Farhi, and P. W. Shor, Error-correcting codes for adiabatic quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 74, 052322 (2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    K. C. Young, M. Sarovar, and R. Blume-Kohout, Error suppression and error correction in adiabatic quantum computation: Techniques and challenges, Phys. Rev. X 3, 041013 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    K. L. Pudenz, T. Albash, and D. A. Lidar, Error- corrected quantum annealing with hundreds of qubits, Nature Communications 5, 3243 (2014)

    2014

  28. [37]

    A. D. Bookatz, E. Farhi, and L. Zhou, Error suppres- sion in hamiltonian-based quantum computation using energy penalties, Phys. Rev. A 92, 022317 (2015)

    2015

  29. [38]

    Matsuura, H

    S. Matsuura, H. Nishimori, T. Albash, and D. A. Lidar, Mean field analysis of quantum annealing correction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 220501 (2016)

    2016

  30. [39]

    Vinci, T

    W. Vinci, T. Albash, and D. A. Lidar, Nested quan- 9 tum annealing correction, npj Quantum Information 2, 16017 (2016)

    2016

  31. [40]

    Marvian and D

    M. Marvian and D. A. Lidar, Error suppression for hamiltonian quantum computing in markovian environ- ments, Phys. Rev. A 95, 032302 (2017)

    2017

  32. [41]

    Marvian and D

    M. Marvian and D. A. Lidar, Error suppression for hamiltonian-based quantum computation using subsys- tem codes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 030504 (2017)

    2017

  33. [42]

    Marvian and S

    M. Marvian and S. Lloyd, Robust universal hamiltonian quantum computing using two-body interactions, arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.01354 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Pearson, A

    A. Pearson, A. Mishra, I. Hen, and D. A. Lidar, Ana- log errors in quantum annealing: doom and hope, npj Quantum Information 5, 107 (2019)

    2019

  35. [44]

    Singkanipa, Z

    P. Singkanipa, Z. Xia, and D. A. Lidar, Families of d = 2 2d subsystem stabilizer codes for universal hamil- tonian quantum computation with two-body interac- tions, arXiv:2412.06744

    arXiv

  36. [45]

    A. H. Karamlou, I. T. Rosen, S. E. Muschinske, C. N. Barrett, A. Di Paolo, L. Ding, P. M. Harrington, M. Hays, R. Das, D. K. Kim, et al., Probing entan- glement in a 2d hard-core bose–hubbard lattice, Nature , 1 (2024)

    2024

  37. [46]

    J. F. Wienand, S. Karch, A. Impertro, C. Schweizer, E. McCulloch, R. Vasseur, S. Gopalakrishnan, M. Aidelsburger, and I. Bloch, Emergence of fluctuat- ing hydrodynamics in chaotic quantum systems, Nature Physics , 1 (2024)

    2024

  38. [47]

    L. Feng, O. Katz, C. Haack, M. Maghrebi, A. V. Gor- shkov, Z. Gong, M. Cetina, and C. Monroe, Continuous symmetry breaking in a trapped-ion spin chain, Nature 623, 713 (2023)

    2023

  39. [48]

    Such Hamiltonian operator can thus be related to the original Hamiltonian (i.e., without encoding) via an isometry defined by the logical codewords

    Here we use Htar to denote the target Hamiltonian after performing certain logical encoding. Such Hamiltonian operator can thus be related to the original Hamiltonian (i.e., without encoding) via an isometry defined by the logical codewords

  40. [49]

    A. L. Shaw, Z. Chen, J. Choi, D. K. Mark, P. Scholl, R. Finkelstein, A. Elben, S. Choi, and M. Endres, Benchmarking highly entangled states on a 60-atom analogue quantum simulator, Nature 628, 71 (2024)

    2024

  41. [50]

    Zanardi and L

    P. Zanardi and L. Campos Venuti, Coherent quantum dynamics in steady-state manifolds of strongly dissipa- tive systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 240406 (2014)

    2014

  42. [51]

    [[4 , 2, 2]] css code, in The Error Correction Zoo, edited by V. V. Albert and P. Faist (2024)

    2024

  43. [52]

    C. N. Self, M. Benedetti, and D. Amaro, Protecting expressive circuits with a quantum error detection code, Nature Physics 20, 219–224 (2024)

    2024

  44. [53]

    Here we refer to the constraint such that all the nonzero eigenvalues of Hpen are outside the interval ( −1, 1)

  45. [54]

    Bernaschi, I

    M. Bernaschi, I. Gonz´ alez-Adalid Pemart ´ ın, V. Mart ´ ın- Mayor, and G. Parisi, The quantum transition of the two-dimensional ising spin glass, Nature 631, 749 (2024)

    2024

  46. [55]

    G. D. Kahanamoku-Meyer and J. Wei, Gregdmeyer/dynamite: v0.4.0 (2024)

    2024

  47. [56]

    J. D. Biamonte and P. J. Love, Realizable hamiltonians for universal adiabatic quantum computers, Phys. Rev. A 78, 012352 (2008)

    2008

  48. [57]

    Oliveira and B

    R. Oliveira and B. M. Terhal, The complexity of quan- tum spin systems on a two-dimensional square lattice, Quantum Info. Comput. 8, 900–924 (2008)

    2008

  49. [58]

    D. A. Lidar, Arbitrary-time error suppression for markovian adiabatic quantum computing using stabi- lizer subspace codes, Phys. Rev. A 100, 022326 (2019)

    2019

  50. [59]

    N. U. K¨ oyl¨ uo˘ glu, N. Maskara, J. Feldmeier, and M. D. Lukin, Floquet engineering of interactions and entan- glement in periodically driven rydberg chains, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02741 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Harley, I

    D. Harley, I. Datta, F. R. Klausen, A. Bluhm, D. S. Fran¸ ca, A. H. Werner, and M. Christandl, Going be- yond gadgets: the importance of scalability for analogue quantum simulators, Nature Communications 15, 6527 (2024)

    2024

  52. [61]

    Burgarth, P

    D. Burgarth, P. Facchi, H. Nakazato, S. Pascazio, and K. Yuasa, Eternal adiabaticity in quantum evolution, Phys. Rev. A 103, 032214 (2021)

    2021

  53. [62]

    Bravyi and M

    S. Bravyi and M. Vyalyi, Commutative version of the lo- cal hamiltonian problem and common eigenspace prob- lem, Quantum Info. Comput. 5, 187–215 (2005)

    2005

  54. [63]

    Dorier, F

    J. Dorier, F. Becca, and F. Mila, Quantum compass model on the square lattice, Phys. Rev. B 72, 024448 (2005). 10 Appendix A: Code equivalence between Hamiltonian[[4, 2, 2]] code and CSS stabilizer code One can straightforwardly show that the Hamiltonian [[4 , 2, 2]] code disc...

    2005

  55. [64]

    A general bound Theorem B.1. Consider a Hamiltonian H0 that has an eigenspace S0 of zero energy with a spectral gap at least ∆ > 0, meaning that all the nonzero eigenvalues of H0 are outside the interval (−∆, ∆). Denote by P0 and Q0 the projectors onto S0 and its orthogonal co...

  56. [65]

    Analog quantum simulation error bound Theorem B.3. Suppose we aim to simulate a target Hamiltonian Htar using a simulator Hamiltonian of the form Hsim = λHpen + √ λH (2) enc+H (1) enc, subject to Hermitian coherent errors V = P i εiVi. Suppose the penalty Hamiltonian Hpen has ...

  57. [66]

    ∀i, P0ViP0 = ciP0 for some scalar ci ∈ R

  58. [67]

    (P0 − Penc)H (1) encPenc = 0

  59. [68]

    P0H (2) encP0 = 0 and (P0 − Penc)H (2) encQ0H −1 penQ0H (2) encPenc = 0

  60. [69]

    ground space

    PencH (1) encPenc − PencH (2) encQ0H −1 penQ0H (2) encPenc = Htar. Let M := max H (2) enc 2 , H (1) enc + V and suppose λ ≥ 25M . The difference (up to a global phase) between the noisy unitary dynamics generated by Hsim + V and the desired unitary dynamics generated by Htar, ...

  61. [70]

    (D1) The subscripts on the left-hand side are chosen so that |ϕs,t⟩ is the simultaneous eigenstate of Z ⊗ Z and X ⊗ X with eigenvalues s and t, respectively

    Some notations We need the following notation for the four Bell states of a pair of physical qubits: |ϕ1,1⟩ ≡1√ 2 (|00⟩ + |11⟩) , |ϕ1,−1⟩ ≡1√ 2 (|00⟩ − |11⟩) , |ϕ−1,1⟩ ≡1√ 2 (|01⟩ + |10⟩) , |ϕ−1,−1⟩ ≡1√ 2 (|01⟩ − |10⟩) . (D1) The subscripts on the left-hand side are chosen so ...

  62. [71]

    17 Criterion 2: (P0 − Penc)GH −1 penGPenc = 0

    Derivation of a single perturbative gadget In this work, a perturbative gadget between two blocks refers to a Hermitian operator G acting on the physical qubits of the two blocks, that satisfies the following criteria: Criterion 1: P0GP0 = 0. 17 Criterion 2: (P0 − Penc)GH −1 p...

  63. [72]

    additive

    Coexistence of two perturbative gadgets In stark contrast to the more straightforward encoding of the inner-block logical interactions, perturbative gadgets are not “additive”, meaning that if G1 and G2 are two perturbative gadgets that generate cross-block logical interaction...

  64. [73]

    Lemma D.1 implies that any two perturbative gadgets from Table IV do not interfere with each other whenever they act on four different blocks

    Since the above argument holds for arbitrary choice of |ψ⟩, we arrive at P0BH −1 penAP0 + P0AH −1 penBP0 = 0. Lemma D.1 implies that any two perturbative gadgets from Table IV do not interfere with each other whenever they act on four different blocks. With a closer look at th...

  65. [74]

    Since the above argument holds for arbitrary choice of |ψ⟩, we arrive at P0BH −1 penAP0 + P0AH −1 penBP0 = 0. 21 So far, our lemmas have not covered the scenario where the support of the operators A and B share a physical qubit in common, or involve two physical qubits from a ...

  66. [75]

    1D TFI model For the 1D TFI model with 2 n sites, the target Hamiltonian is given by H 1d-TFI tar = 2n−1X k=1 JkZ kZ k+1 + hZ 2nX k=1 Z k + hX 2nX k=1 X k, (E1) 22 where Jk, hZ, hX are real numbers. Here we have assumed the open boundary condition and a uniform local field, bu...

  67. [76]

    We have assumed the open boundary condition and isotropic coupling coefficients for simplicity, but our encoding scheme does not have such constraints

    1D XY chain The target Hamiltonian of a 2 n-site XY chain is given by H 1d-XY tar = 2n−1X k=1 Jk Z kZ k+1 + X kX k+1 , (E10) where Jk’s are real numbers. We have assumed the open boundary condition and isotropic coupling coefficients for simplicity, but our encoding scheme doe...

  68. [77]

    , g(n) x , g(n) z

    General interaction graph Suppose we have already assigned the logical qubits of a 2-local target Hamiltonian Htar to n blocks, but have not determined the block parameters g(1) x , g(1) z , . . . , g(n) x , g(n) z . We assume that for each pair of blocks a and b, their 24 cro...

  69. [78]

    (F2) We identify every two consecutive lattice sites in the horizontal direction as the two logical qubits encoded in a code block, as illustrated in Fig

    2D TFI model Consider a 2D TFI model on a 2 n × 2n square lattice: H 2d-TFI tar = J1 2n−1X i=1 2nX j=1 Z i,jZ i+1,j + J2 2nX i=1 2n−1X j=1 Z i,jZ i,j+1 + hZ 2nX i,j=1 Z i,j + hX 2nX i,j=1 X i,j. (F2) We identify every two consecutive lattice sites in the horizontal direction a...

  70. [79]

    2D compass model The 2D compass model on a 2 n × 2n square lattice is given by [63]: H 2d-Compass tar = JZ 2n−1X i=1 2nX j=1 Z i,jZ i+1,j + JX 2nX i=1 2n−1X j=1 X i,jX i,j+1. (F3) 25 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 inner-block logical ZZ...

Pith tools

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