Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 47 references

Realization of a Quantum Error Detection Code with a Dynamically Reassigned Ancillary Qubit

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read On three transmons connected in a line, a quantum error detection code whose ancillary qubit walks between physical qubits performs as well as the conventional fixed-ancilla circuit.

desk verdict A clean but statistically under-supported first demonstration of a walking-ancilla error detection code; the direct comparison is real, but it needs error bars and a significance test before 'comparable' is established. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20529 v1 pith:JHZVTHJI submitted 2025-06-25 quant-ph

Alena S. Kazmina , Artyom M. Polyanskiy , Elena Yu. Egorova , Nikolay N. Abramov , Daria A. Kalacheva , Viktor B. Lubsanov , Aleksey N. Bolgar , Ilya A. Simakov This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Pp03.67.-a85.25.-j
keywords quantumerrordetectionwalkingancillaryqubitdynamiccodetransmonqubitssuperconductingprocessorlogicalstatetomographystabilizercodesnearest-neighborconnectivity
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

Quantum error correction normally pins the ancillary qubit in place and entangles it with neighboring data qubits, which is awkward on superconducting chips where qubits only talk to their nearest neighbors. This paper reports a three-transmon experiment in which the ancilla's role walks along a chain of three linearly connected qubits: its computational state is swapped from one physical qubit to the next between syndrome-measurement gates. The authors set out to show that this walking-ancilla scheme detects injected errors as reliably as the conventional static-ancilla circuit, and they report comparable performance despite twice the transpiled circuit depth. They also show that the scheme makes logical state preparation easier, because the data qubits start adjacent to each other and can be entangled directly, and they characterize arbitrary logical states through tomography. The point of the exercise is connectivity: a walking ancilla decouples the error-detection circuit from the constraint that every data qubit touch the ancilla.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the walking ancillary qubit: instead of fixing the ancilla to one physical qubit, the circuit interleaves CNOT gates that entangle the ancilla with each data qubit with SWAP gates that move the ancilla's computational state along the chain, so the syndrome readout happens at the end of the walk. Since the device's native gates are $R_X(\pi/2)$, virtual $R_Z$, and CZ, the CNOT and SWAP pairs are transpiled into CZ-based sequences, which doubles the circuit depth relative to the static scheme; the paper notes that a native iSWAP gate, which entangles two qubits and exchanges their states in a single operation, would collapse each CNOT+SWAP pair and remove the overhead. The supporting analysis is a circuit-level noise model with coherent errors — parasitic ZZ crosstalk modeled as $\operatorname{CPHASE}(\delta\varphi)$ and residual XY exchange as $R_{XX+YY}(\theta)$ after each CZ gate — plus depolarizing channels with probabilities $p_1$ and $p_2$, fitted to the measured $\langle X_L\rangle$ and $\langle Z_L\rangle$ tomography curves.

What would settle it

Re-fit the logical tomography data with $p_1$ and $p_2$ fixed to the independently measured single-qubit and two-qubit depolarization rates rather than forced equal; if the predicted $\langle X_L\rangle$ and $\langle Z_L\rangle$ curves then deviate from the measured data beyond the agreement quoted in the paper, the claim that the noise model captures the hardware's errors fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a quantum error detection cycle can be executed on a chain of three linearly connected transmons using a dynamically reassigned, or walking, ancillary qubit, and that the walking circuit performs comparably to a conventional static-ancilla circuit. In the walking cycle the stabilizer $Z_{Q_1}Z_{Q_3}$ is still measured, but the ancilla state is transferred by SWAP gates from one physical qubit to another, so the syndrome outcome $Z_A$ is finally read out from the far end of the chain; the corrected logical observable, computed from the joint ancilla and data measurement probabilities, matches the static-circuit result as a function of the injected error angle $\varepsilon$. The authors further encode arbitrary logical states $\alpha|00\rangle + \beta|11\rangle$ across the adjacent data qubits, reconstruct the logical density matrix by tomography, and report that the expectation values $\langle X_L\rangle$ and $\langle Z_L\rangle$ follow the ideal curves once a circuit-level noise model with crosstalk and depolarization terms is fitted. Post-selecting on the no-error syndrome $Z_A = +1$ recovers a density matrix close to the ideal prepared state, while runs flagged $Z_A = -1$ show strongly degraded fidelity, confirming that the syndrome carries genuine error information.

Load-bearing premise

The walking-versus-static comparison is a direct measurement, but the paper's secondary claim that its noise model 'perfectly matches' the logical tomography rests on forcing the single-qubit and two-qubit depolarizing error probabilities to be equal ($p_1 = p_2 = 0.0178$) even though the independently benchmarked gate fidelities differ by roughly an order of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Error detection no longer requires the ancillary qubit to be physically adjacent to every data qubit: a linear chain of nearest-neighbor-coupled qubits suffices, because the ancilla walks to its partners.
  • The walking scheme matches the static circuit's error-detection performance even though transpilation doubles its depth, so the depth penalty does not erase its connectivity advantage on current devices.
  • Starting with adjacent data qubits allows direct, high-fidelity entanglement for logical state preparation, which the tomography of arbitrary logical states demonstrates.
  • Post-selection works as intended: runs with the $Z_A = +1$ syndrome retain near-ideal logical fidelity, and the syndrome flags roughly 10% of runs as errors.
  • Because the implementation uses only native CZ gates, it transfers to existing superconducting processors, and the authors argue the depth overhead disappears on hardware with a native iSWAP gate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: on a device with a native iSWAP gate, the walking scheme's depth would drop to parity with the static circuit, so its performance should shift from comparable to superior — a direct prediction the present three-transmon data cannot test.
  • My inference: the same single-ancilla walking technique extends naturally to longer linear chains for distance-3 and higher repetition codes, with one ancilla sweeping along the line to measure every stabilizer; the paper gestures toward multi-logical-qubit protocols but does not run this case.
  • My inference: because every physical qubit serves as both data and ancilla during the cycle, the logical-state results average over the three qubits' individual error rates, which a static circuit cannot do; this could be turned into an on-device probe of per-qubit noise.
  • My inference: the $p_1 = p_2$ simplification makes the fitted model's agreement a consistency check rather than a predictive test; a sharper test would predict held-out tomography data from parameters fit on the remainder.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental realization of a quantum error detection scheme on a three-transmon linear chain in which the ancilla qubit's computational state is dynamically transferred between physical qubits (the 'walking' ancilla). The authors compare this scheme with a conventional static-ancilla circuit by injecting a controllable X-type error and measuring the logical observable before and after post-selection, finding 'comparable' performance. They also perform logical-state tomography for several states, describe a circuit-level noise model with coherent and incoherent errors, and report state fidelities with and without post-selection on the syndrome outcome. The manuscript includes device parameters, transpiled circuit details, and a description of the experimental setup in appendices.

Significance. If the central claim is fully supported, the work is a useful experimental step for quantum error correction under nearest-neighbor connectivity constraints: it shows that a dynamically reassigned ancilla can be realized with native CZ gates on a small superconducting device, and that the approach also facilitates direct entanglement of adjacent data qubits for state preparation. Strengths of the manuscript include the explicit transpilation of both circuits, the direct side-by-side comparison of walking and static ancilla circuits, the presentation of qubit and gate parameters in Tables I and II, and the construction of a noise model that includes both coherent crosstalk and depolarizing terms. The main weakness is that the headline 'comparable performance' claim is presented without any statistical uncertainty, shot counts, or significance test, which makes the central comparison impossible to evaluate quantitatively.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section II, Fig. 1(b), (d)] The central claim that the walking-ancilla circuit achieves performance comparable to the conventional static-ancilla circuit is supported only by plotted curves of the corrected logical observable versus injected error angle, with no error bars, no number of shots, and no statistical comparison. Please report the number of experimental repetitions per data point, uncertainties or confidence intervals for the plotted observables, and a quantitative criterion for 'comparable' (for example, a maximum allowed difference or an equivalence test). Without this information, the headline claim is not testable.
  2. [Appendix C, Table III] The noise model fits four free parameters (p1, p2, theta, delta_phi) to the same <X_L> and <Z_L> data that it is then claimed to 'perfectly match,' and it imposes p1 = p2 = 0.0178 even though the independently benchmarked gate errors in Table II imply single-qubit and two-qubit depolarizing rates differing by roughly an order of magnitude (simultaneous single-qubit fidelities of 98.28-98.41% versus CZ fidelities of 97.4-97.9%). This makes the reported agreement in Figs. 3-5 partly circular, and the equality constraint is not justified. Please re-fit the model with separate p1 and p2, using the independently measured values as priors or fixed inputs where appropriate, and report a goodness-of-fit metric. If the model is not re-fit, it should be described as a consistency check rather than as a validation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The terminology is inconsistent: the scheme is called 'walking' in the abstract and most of the text, but 'sliding' in the captions of Fig. 1(d) and Fig. 6(b) and in Appendix B. Please use one term consistently.
  2. [Section II, Eq. defining Z_corrected_L] The sentence 'computed via the relation Z_corrected_L = 1 - (p00 + p11) where pij, where pij denotes the joint measurement probabilities' contains a duplicated clause and does not clearly define p00 and p11. Please rewrite and specify exactly which joint measurement outcomes are included.
  3. [Appendix B, Table II] The header of Table II repeats 'Q1-Q2' in both two-qubit columns; the second column should presumably be 'Q2-Q3'. In addition, the CZ gate durations are listed without uncertainties.
  4. [Appendix C] The statement that readout errors are not considered because results are corrected using a SPAM matrix is not accompanied by any details of the SPAM correction procedure or the matrix itself. Please provide this information or a reference to where it is defined.
  5. [Section III, Fig. 3] The sentence 'For better clarity, we provide data with fixed theta = pi/2 and phi = 0 for the azimuthal and polar angles, respectively' is confusing, since Fig. 3(b) varies phi at fixed theta and Fig. 3(c) varies theta at fixed phi. Please clarify which angles are fixed in each panel.
  6. [Appendix C, Eq. (C5)] The average fidelity expression in Eq. (C5) appears to contain typographical issues: Tr(U^dagger U) is just d, and the formula should be checked against the standard average fidelity expression, e.g., F = (d + |Tr(U_t^dagger U)|^2)/(d(d+1)) for a unitary process.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central walking-vs-static comparison is a direct measurement and not circular; the secondary noise-model 'perfect match' is a fitted-input-called-prediction, so overall score 4.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III (noise model paragraph) and Appendix C, 'Simulation' after Eq. (C4), Table III]
    "we constructed a noise model reflecting the specific properties of the quantum hardware to interpret the experimental data. ... The constructed model perfectly matches the experimental results, as illustrated in Fig. 3(b, c) ... We estimate the free parameters in the model p1, p2, θ, and φ by fitting the logical qubit expectation values⟨XL⟩ and ⟨ZL⟩ to the described error model ... The noise model predictions for logical qubit expectation values ... demonstrate good agreement with the corresponding experimental results."

    The same ⟨XL⟩ and ⟨ZL⟩ data are used twice: first as the target of a fit that determines p1, p2, θ, and δφ, and then as the 'experimental results' that the model is said to 'perfectly match' or 'predict' with 'good agreement.' Agreement with the data used to fit the parameters is approximately guaranteed by the fit and is not an independent confirmation. This is therefore a fitted-input-called-prediction. It is not load-bearing for the central walking-vs-static comparison, which is a direct measurement; moreover, the model's derived gate fidelities are checked against independent randomized benchmarking, which gives the model some external support.

full rationale

The central claim—that the walking-ancilla error detection circuit achieves comparable performance to the static-ancilla circuit—rests on Fig. 1(b,d), where both circuits are run on the same device and the measured ancilla outcomes and logical observables are plotted against the injected error angle ε. No parameter is fitted in this comparison, and no external benchmark is used to infer the result; it is a direct experimental comparison. The absence of error bars, shot counts, or a significance test weakens the evidential force of the 'comparable performance' claim (a correctness/statistics concern), but it is not circularity. The main circularity-like step is in the secondary noise-model analysis: Appendix C says p1, p2, θ, and φ are estimated by fitting the logical qubit expectation values ⟨XL⟩ and ⟨ZL⟩, and then the same expectation values are invoked as the 'experimental results' that the model 'perfectly matches' or 'predicts.' This is a fitted-input-called-prediction. However, the model's gate fidelities are subsequently compared with randomized-benchmarking values, providing independent support for the model, and the claim does not feed back into the headline experimental comparison. Self-citations (Refs. [33], [36], [45]) are used as background/proposals, not as the sole justification of the experimental result, so they are not load-bearing. Overall: no central circularity; one secondary fitted-model validation is circular in presentation, yielding score 4.

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

The central direct comparison has no fitted parameters, but the paper's noise-model interpretation of the tomography data relies on four fitted parameters (δφ, θ, p1, p2) and on the ad hoc assumption p1 = p2. These fitted values are then used to claim 'perfect' agreement, which is fitting rather than predicting.

free parameters (4)
  • δφ (parasitic ZZ phase error) = -0.027
    Fitted to ⟨XL⟩ and ⟨ZL⟩ data; represents static ZZ interaction phase error applied after single-qubit gates.
  • θ (XY exchange rotation angle error) = 0.37
    Fitted to ⟨XL⟩ and ⟨ZL⟩ data; represents unwanted transverse interaction during CZ gates.
  • p1 (single-qubit depolarization probability) = 0.0178
    Fitted; forced equal to p2 in the model, despite independent RB showing single-qubit errors roughly 10x lower than two-qubit errors.
  • p2 (two-qubit depolarization probability) = 0.0178
    Fitted; forced equal to p1, inconsistent with Table II CZ fidelity vs single-qubit fidelity.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The two-qubit interaction Hamiltonian in Eq. C1 (ZZ and XX couplings with detuning) describes the device crosstalk errors.
    Invoked in Appendix C as the basis for the coherent error terms; no direct verification of this Hamiltonian form for this specific device is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Single-qubit and two-qubit depolarizing errors are equal (p1 = p2).
    Stated in Appendix C: 'we assume that all error values are identical for equivalent gates, with the depolarization parameters for both single-qubit and two-qubit gates being the same.' Contradicted by Table II.
  • domain assumption Readout errors are fully corrected by the SPAM matrix.
    Stated in Appendix C as justification for omitting readout errors from the model; standard practice but assumes SPAM characterization is accurate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Realization of a Quantum Error Detection Code with a Dynamically Reassigned Ancillary Qubit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JHZVTHJI

@misc{pith2026250620529,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Realization of a Quantum Error Detection Code with a Dynamically Reassigned Ancillary Qubit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JHZVTHJI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20529}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum error correction (QEC) is essential for achieving fault-tolerant quantum computing. While superconducting qubits are among the most promising candidates for scalable QEC, their limited nearest-neighbor connectivity presents significant challenges for implementing a wide range of error correction codes. In this work, we experimentally demonstrate a quantum error detection scheme that employs a dynamically reassigned ancillary qubit on a chain of three linearly connected transmon qubits. We show that this scheme achieves performance comparable to conventional static-ancilla circuits. Additionally, the approach facilitates efficient quantum state preparation, which we demonstrate with tomography of arbitrary logical states. Our results provide a flexible method for implementing QEC codes under connectivity constraints and highlight a promising path toward scalable quantum architectures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20529 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) The standard [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The logical state tomography circuit, incorporating additional transpiled frames for the walking ancillary qubit scheme. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Logical state tomography results. (a) Representation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Results of logical state tomography are shown for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Conventional (a) and sliding ancillary qubit (b) error detection circuits, along with their equivalents after the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Unitary gate-based simulation of the logical qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The schematic of the experimental setup, with the cryogenic setup highlighted in the gray area. More information can [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P. W. Shor, Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory, Phys. Rev. A 52, R2493 (1995)

    1995

  2. [2]

    Preskill, Fault-tolerant quantum computation, in In- troduction to quantum computation and information (World Scientific, 1998) pp

    J. Preskill, Fault-tolerant quantum computation, in In- troduction to quantum computation and information (World Scientific, 1998) pp. 213–269

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    A. R. Calderbank and P. W. Shor, Good quantum error-correcting codes exist, Physical Review A 54, 1098 (1996)

    1996

  4. [4]

    D. P. DiVincenzo and P. W. Shor, Fault-tolerant error correction with efficient quantum codes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3260 (1996)

    1996

  5. [5]

    A. M. Steane, Error correcting codes in quantum theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 793 (1996)

    1996

  6. [6]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction, Russian Mathematical Surveys 52, 1191 (1997)

    1997

  7. [7]

    B. M. Terhal, Quantum error correction for quantum memories, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 307 (2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

    Gottesman, Theory of fault-tolerant quantum compu- tation, Phys

    D. Gottesman, Theory of fault-tolerant quantum compu- tation, Phys. Rev. A 57, 127 (1998)

    1998

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Krinner, N

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

    2022

  2. [10]

    C. K. Andersen, A. Remm, S. Lazar, S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, G. J. Norris, M. Gabureac, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Repeated quantum error detection in a sur- face code, Nature Physics 16, 875 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    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., Exponential suppres- sion of bit or phase errors with cyclic error correction, Nature 595, 383 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Y. Zhao, Y. Ye, H.-L. Huang, Y. Zhang, D. Wu, H. Guan, Q. Zhu, Z. Wei, T. He, S. Cao, et al., Realization of an error-correcting surface code with superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 030501 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    J. F. Marques, B. M. Varbanov, M. S. Moreira, H. Ali, N. Muthusubramanian, C. Zachariadis, F. Battistel, M. Beekman, N. Haider, W. Vlothuizen, A. Bruno, B. M. Terhal, and L. DiCarlo, Logical-qubit operations in an error-detecting surface code, Nature Physics 18, 80–86 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Erhard, H

    A. Erhard, H. Poulsen Nautrup, M. Meth, L. Postler, R. Stricker, M. Stadler, V. Negnevitsky, M. Ringbauer, P. Schindler, H. J. Briegel, et al., Entangling logical qubits with lattice surgery, Nature 589, 220 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Besedin, M

    I. Besedin, M. Kerschbaum, J. Knoll, I. Hesner, L. B¨ odeker, L. Colmenarez, L. Hofele, N. Lacroix, C. Hellings, F. Swiadek, A. Flasby, M. B. Panah, D. C. Zanuz, M. M¨ uller, and A. Wallraff, Realizing lattice surgery on two distance-three repetition codes with su- perconducti...

    2025

  8. [16]

    Lacroix, A

    N. Lacroix, A. Bourassa, F. J. Heras, L. M. Zhang, J. Bausch, A. W. Senior, T. Edlich, N. Shutty, V. Sivak, A. Bengtsson, et al., Scaling and logic in the color code on a superconducting quantum processor, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14256 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

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

    2003

  10. [18]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 86, 032324 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Acharya, I

    R. Acharya, I. Aleiner, R. Allen, T. I. Andersen, M. Ans- mann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. Atalaya, R. Bab- bush, et al., Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a sur- face code logical qubit, Nature 614, 676 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Acharya, L

    R. Acharya, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. Ander- sen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, N. As- trakhantsev, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, et al. (Google AI Quantum), Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature 638, 920–926 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    D. Nigg, M. M¨ uller, E. A. Martinez, P. Schindler, M. Hen- nrich, T. Monz, M. A. Martin-Delgado, and R. Blatt, Quantum computations on a topologically encoded qubit, Science 345, 302–305 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    L. Egan, D. M. Debroy, C. Noel, A. Risinger, D. Zhu, D. Biswas, M. Newman, M. Li, K. R. Brown, M. Cetina, et al., Fault-tolerant control of an error-corrected qubit, Nature 598, 281 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Y. Hong, E. Durso-Sabina, D. Hayes, and A. Lucas, En- tangling four logical qubits beyond break-even in a non- local code, Physical Review Letters 133, 180601 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Paetznick, M

    A. Paetznick, M. P. da Silva, C. Ryan-Anderson, J. M. Bello-Rivas, J. P. C. III, A. Chernoguzov, J. M. Dreil- ing, C. Foltz, F. Frachon, J. P. Gaebler, and other, Demonstration of logical qubits and repeated error cor- rection with better-than-physical error rates (2024), arXi...

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Zhang, L

    H. Zhang, L. Wan, S. Paesani, A. Laing, Y. Shi, H. Cai, X. Luo, G.-Q. Lo, L. C. Kwek, and A. Q. Liu, Encod- ing error correction in an integrated photonic chip, PRX Quantum 4, 030340 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Vigliar, S

    C. Vigliar, S. Paesani, Y. Ding, J. C. Adcock, J. Wang, S. Morley-Short, D. Bacco, L. K. Oxenløwe, M. G. Thompson, J. G. Rarity, et al., Error-protected qubits in a silicon photonic chip, Nature Physics 17, 1137 (2021)

    2021

  19. [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, et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature 626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    B. W. Reichardt, A. Paetznick, D. Aasen, I. Basov, J. M. Bello-Rivas, P. Bonderson, R. Chao, W. van Dam, M. B. Hastings, A. Paz, M. P. da Silva, and other, Logical computation demonstrated with a neutral atom quantum processor (2024), arXiv:2411.11822 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Takeda, A

    K. Takeda, A. Noiri, T. Nakajima, T. Kobayashi, and S. Tarucha, Quantum error correction with silicon spin qubits, Nature 608, 682–686 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Gottesman, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant overhead (2014), arXiv:1310.2984 [quant-ph]

    D. Gottesman, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant overhead (2014), arXiv:1310.2984 [quant-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, Quantum low- density parity-check codes, PRX Quantum 2, 040101 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Schuch and J

    N. Schuch and J. Siewert, Natural two-qubit gate for quantum computation using the xy interaction, Physical Review A 67, 032301 (2003)

    2003

  25. [33]

    I. A. Simakov, I. S. Besedin, and A. V. Ustinov, Sim- ulation of the five-qubit quantum error correction code on superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. A 105, 032409 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    A. V. Antipov, E. O. Kiktenko, and A. K. Fedorov, Real- izing a class of stabilizer quantum error correction codes 11 using a single ancilla and circular connectivity, Phys. Rev. A 107, 032403 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    C. Du, Z. Ma, Y. Liu, H. Wang, and Y. Fei, Fault-tolerant double-circular connectivity pattern for quantum stabi- lizer codes, EPJ Quantum Technology 11, 1 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    I. A. Simakov and I. S. Besedin, Low-overhead quantum error-correction codes with a cyclic topology, Phys. Rev. A 111, 012444 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Eickbusch, M

    A. Eickbusch, M. McEwen, V. Sivak, A. Bourassa, J. Ata- laya, J. Claes, D. Kafri, C. Gidney, C. W. Warren, J. Gross, et al. (Google AI Quantum and Collabo- rators), Demonstrating dynamic surface codes (2024), arXiv:2412.14360 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Foxen, C

    B. Foxen, C. Neill, A. Dunsworth, P. Roushan, B. Chiaro, A. Megrant, J. Kelly, Z. Chen, K. Satzinger, R. Barends, et al.(Google AI Quantum), Demonstrating a continuous set of two-qubit gates for near-term quantum algorithms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 120504 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    F. Yan, P. Krantz, Y. Sung, M. Kjaergaard, D. L. Camp- bell, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Tunable coupling scheme for implementing high-fidelity two-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 054062 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Ganzhorn, G

    M. Ganzhorn, G. Salis, D. J. Egger, A. Fuhrer, M. Mer- genthaler, C. M¨ uller, P. M¨ uller, S. Paredes, M. Pechal, M. Werninghaus, and S. Filipp, Benchmarking the noise sensitivity of different parametric two-qubit gates in a single superconducting quantum computing platform, ...

    2020

  33. [41]

    K. X. Wei, I. Lauer, E. Pritchett, W. Shanks, D. C. McKay, and A. Javadi-Abhari, Native two-qubit gates in fixed-coupling, fixed-frequency transmons beyond cross- resonance interaction, PRX Quantum 5, 020338 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computa- tion and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edi- tion, 10th ed. (Cambridge University Press, USA, 2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    Jozsa, Fidelity for mixed quantum states, Journal of modern optics 41, 2315 (1994)

    R. Jozsa, Fidelity for mixed quantum states, Journal of modern optics 41, 2315 (1994)

    1994

  36. [44]

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

    2024

  37. [45]

    E. Y. Egorova, A. S. Kazmina, I. A. Simakov, I. N. Moskalenko, N. N. Abramov, D. A. Kalacheva, V. B. Lubsanov, A. N. Bolgar, N. Maleeva, and I. S. Besedin, Three-mode tunable coupler for superconducting two- qubit gates, Phys. Rev. Appl. 23, 064056 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    A. S. Kazmina, I. V. Zalivako, A. S. Borisenko, N. A. Nemkov, A. S. Nikolaeva, I. A. Simakov, A. V. Kuznetsova, E. Y. Egorova, K. P. Galstyan, N. V. Se- menin, A. E. Korolkov, I. N. Moskalenko, N. N. Abramov, I. S. Besedin, D. A. Kalacheva, V. B. Lubsanov, A. N. Bolgar, E. O. ...

    2024

  39. [47]

    Magesan, J

    E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, Char- acterizing quantum gates via randomized benchmark- ing, Physical Review A 85, 10.1103/physreva.85.042311 (2012)

    2012 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.