Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 46 references

SOME: Symmetric One-Hot Matching Elector -- A Lightweight Microsecond Decoder for Quantum Error Correction

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 This paper proposes a QUBO reformulation of syndrome matching that reaches a 10.5% logical error threshold, exceeding the 10.3% of MWPM, and decodes in microseconds.

desk verdict Useful engineering with an unsupported threshold headline. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23618 v1 pith:XS7FUTR2 submitted 2025-07-31 cs.ET quant-ph

Xinyi Guo , Geguang Miao , Shinichi Nishizawa , Hiromitsu Awano , Shinji Kimura , Takashi Sato This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ETquant-ph
keywords quantumerrorcorrectionsurfacecodeQUBOdecodingminimum-weightperfectmatchingIsingmodellogicalthresholdmicrosecond
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 proposes SOME, a decoder that reformulates syndrome matching in the planar surface code as a Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) problem called One-Hot QUBO (OHQ), where each binary variable declares whether two flipped syndromes are matched and error counts become interaction weights. The paper then compresses the solution space to self-inverse permutation matrices and solves the problem with a greedy multi-seed algorithm that runs in microseconds on a single CPU thread and reduces the variable count by up to 99.9x against the state-of-the-art Ising-based decoder. Its central claim is that the OHQ formulation reaches a logical error threshold of 10.5%, slightly higher than the 10.3% threshold of the standard minimum-weight perfect matching (MWPM) decoder. If this holds, a QUBO-style decoder can be both fast and threshold-competitive, removing the need for specialized matching hardware in practical fault-tolerant quantum computing.

What carries the argument

The central object is the One-Hot QUBO (OHQ), a quadratic binary optimization whose variables are the entries of a syndrome-matching matrix, with a one-hot constraint ensuring each flipped syndrome is matched exactly once; its feasible solutions are symmetric, self-inverse permutation matrices. The load-bearing mechanism is the permutation-vector compression: because a symmetric one-hot matrix is fully described by a vector $V$ with $V[V[x]] = x$, the decoder reduces the search from an $O(n^2)$ variable QUBO to the construction of $n$-entry permutation vectors. SOME's greedy multi-seed algorithm seeds a candidate vector with each minimum-weight pair, appends the remaining pairs in ascending weight order, optionally swaps self-matched diagonal entries if it lowers energy, and selects the vector with minimal total weight. This compression is what converts the matching problem into a microsecond-scale search on a single CPU thread while retaining a compact QUBO representation that any annealer can also solve.

What would settle it

Run a standard MWPM decoder on the exact same error-pattern samples and noise model used for the OHQ threshold curves, with the same code distances and 10,000 samples per point, and locate the crossing of the MWPM logical-error curves. If the MWPM crossing is at 10.5% or higher under identical sampling, the claimed threshold advantage disappears; if the OHQ crossing moves with the range of code distances or sample count, it is a finite-size artifact. One can additionally disable the $k > (d-1)/2$ pair-exclusion rule and check whether the threshold persists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the QEC decoding task can be cast as a symmetric one-hot QUBO whose feasible solutions are exactly self-inverse permutation matrices. Each variable $x_{ij}$ denotes whether syndrome pair $(i,j)$ is matched; diagonal entries model boundary-matching; and a squared one-hot penalty forces each flipped syndrome to be paired exactly once. The weights $w_{ij}$ are set to the number of physical errors on the shortest error chain (halved for off-diagonal terms, full for self-matches), so minimizing the QUBO energy is equivalent to finding the most likely error configuration. On top of this formulation, SOME builds candidate permutation vectors by seeding from each minimum-weight pair and greedily appending the next lightest unused pairs, then returns the candidate with the smallest total weight. In numerical experiments with an annealer-based solver, the OHQ logical-error curves for $d = 5$ to 25 cross at a physical error rate of approximately 10.5%, which the paper presents as exceeding the 10.3% threshold of MWPM; the SOME decoder itself shows a threshold near 8% but decodes in microseconds.

Load-bearing premise

The threshold claim stands on the assumption that the finite-size crossing of logical-error curves for $d=5$ to 25 at 10,000 samples per point, shown without error bars, is directly comparable to the literature MWPM threshold of 10.3%, and that removing syndrome pairs with error count $k > (d-1)/2$ does not change the matching problem being solved.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 10.5% threshold is reproducible, QUBO-based decoding is not just a low-complexity convenience but a genuinely competitive decoder near the threshold, matching or exceeding matching-based decoders.
  • SOME's microsecond decoding times on a commodity CPU mean that real-time error correction for large surface codes could be realized without specialized FPGA/ASIC or GPU accelerators.
  • The up-to-99.9x variable reduction (e.g., 37.77 variables on average for $d=100$ at 0.1% physical error) allows QUBO solvers with limited variable capacity to tackle large code distances.
  • Because OHQ is a standard QUBO, the same formulation can be passed to any QUBO-capable solver—simulated annealer, quantum annealer, or classical heuristic—without reformulating the decoder, so future solver improvements directly benefit the decoder.
  • The SOME heuristic's 8% threshold, while lower than OHQ-AE's 10.5%, is still above typical physical error rates of current hardware, so the greedy decoder is practically useful even before a faster exact OHQ solver is developed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct side-by-side simulation of MWPM on the same syndrome samples, code distances, and 10,000-sample statistics as Fig. 5 would settle whether the 0.2-percentage-point threshold advantage is real or an artifact of comparing against a literature value.
  • Because OHQ's valid solutions form self-inverse permutation matrices, the same one-hot compression could apply to other combinatorial matching problems with symmetric costs, potentially reducing variable counts in QUBO formulations of general perfect-matching tasks.
  • SOME's greedy search is a lightweight heuristic; replacing the final candidate selection with a TSP-style improvement procedure, such as local search or genetic algorithms, might push its 8% threshold closer to the OHQ-AE value of 10.5% while keeping the permutation-vector speed advantage.
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 SOME (Symmetric One-Hot Matching Elector), a decoder that reformulates surface-code syndrome decoding as a QUBO problem called OHQ (One-Hot QUBO), with binary variables indicating whether pairs of flipped syndromes are matched. The authors claim that OHQ attains a logical error threshold of 10.5%, exceeding the best-known MWPM threshold of 10.3%, and that SOME completes decoding in microseconds on a single CPU thread while reducing variable count by up to 99.9x compared to a prior Ising-model decoder. The paper also reports threshold curves for OHQ solved by simulated quantum annealing and for SOME, and timing measurements for both.

Significance. If the threshold claim were correct, a QUBO-based decoder that surpasses MWPM would be a notable result for quantum error correction. However, the OHQ formulation is mathematically equivalent to min-weight perfect matching on the flipped-syndrome graph, so the claimed superiority over MWPM cannot stem from the formulation itself. The measured variable-count reduction and microsecond-scale decoding times of the SOME heuristic are potentially useful engineering contributions, but the headline threshold-superiority result is not supported and appears to be an artifact of comparing against a literature value rather than a same-protocol MWPM baseline.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III-D and Sec. V-C] The OHQ objective H = X⊙W + penalty·Σ_i(Σ_j x_ij − 1)^2, with symmetric one-hot X and weights derived from path error counts, is exactly a min-weight perfect matching problem on the flipped syndromes (with self-matches for boundaries). An exact minimizer of OHQ is therefore the MWPM solution under the same noise model, syndrome sampling, and boundary treatment. Consequently, the claimed 10.5% threshold that 'surpasses' MWPM's 10.3% cannot be a property of the OHQ formulation; the comparison in Fig. 5 lacks a same-protocol MWPM baseline and error bars, so the threshold-superiority claim is unsupported.
  2. [Sec. V-C] The statement that 'OHQ is not limited to strict pairwise matching and can flexibly model complex error correlations' contradicts the formulation in Sec. III, where variables are pairwise match indicators x_ij and constraints enforce one-hot matching. The model is strictly a pairwise matching model; this explanation for the claimed threshold improvement is invalid.
  3. [Sec. III-B] The paper sets to zero all syndrome-pair entries whose error count k exceeds (d−1)/2, effectively removing those edges from the matching problem. Standard MWPM does not apply this cutoff. Since this modification changes the optimization problem, the threshold comparison against the literature MWPM value is not apples-to-apples, and could artificially affect the apparent threshold.
  4. [Sec. V-C and Sec. VI] The paper is internally inconsistent about the main result: the Abstract and Sec. I claim OHQ 'surpasses' MWPM's threshold, but Sec. VI concludes that OHQ exhibits a threshold 'comparable to the MWPM decoder.' Together with the absence of error bars in Fig. 5 and the lack of a same-protocol MWPM baseline, the 10.5% crossing is not established as a reliable threshold estimate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. I] The introduction contains a typo: 'almost-linear' is written as 'alomost linear'; please correct.
  2. [Sec. V-A.2] The text refers to 'OHQ-QE' where the context indicates 'OHQ-AE'; please fix this inconsistent abbreviation.
  3. [Sec. IV] The name 'Symmetric One-hot Matching Elector' is used with varying capitalization; please standardize throughout the manuscript.
  4. [Sec. V-B] The decoding-time comparison in Table II is against the SOTA Ising decoder, not against a modern MWPM implementation such as Sparse Blossom or Fusion Blossom; since the introduction motivates the work by MWPM's complexity, a timing comparison against a fast MWPM baseline would strengthen the practical-speed claims.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

OHQ is exactly min-weight perfect matching re-encoded as QUBO, so the claimed 10.5% threshold 'surpassing MWPM' compares a reformulation to itself; the central threshold claim is an artifact, while SOME timing and variable-count results are empirical and not circular.

  1. renaming known result [Sec. III-D (Problem Formulation) and Sec. V-C (Logical Error Rate); Abstract]
    "minimizing the QUBO energy directly corresponds to minimizing the total number of errors—thereby yielding the most likely error configuration under the given syndrome. ... This value is slightly higher than the best-known threshold achieved by the MWPM decoder. The improved threshold of OHQ can be attributed to its ability to explore a broader solution space through annealing-based optimization, allowing it to correct certain error configurations that MWPM may misidentify."

    The OHQ objective is, by the paper's own definitions, exactly the MWPM objective: xij are binary pair-match variables, the row-sum constraints enforce that each flipped syndrome is matched exactly once, wij = k for self-matches and k/2 for off-diagonal pairs are physical-error counts, and H is the sum of selected weights plus a constraint penalty. This is precisely min-weight perfect matching on the syndrome graph with boundary self-loops, the same optimization problem MWPM solves. Therefore the claimed 'improved threshold of OHQ' relative to 'the best-known threshold achieved by the MWPM decoder' is a comparison of a re-encoded MWPM against MWPM itself. An exact minimizer of H is an MWPM solution; a heuristic annealer can only be no better. The Sec.

full rationale

The central derivation chain of the paper is the OHQ construction in Sec. III. That construction defines binary variables for syndrome pairs, weights equal to physical-error counts, and one-hot row constraints; minimizing H is exactly solving min-weight perfect matching with boundary self-loops, i.e., the MWPM problem. Consequently, the abstract and Sec. V-C claim that OHQ reaches a 10.5% threshold and 'surpasses' the 10.3% MWPM threshold compares a QUBO re-encoding of MWPM to MWPM itself, rather than testing a distinct decoder. Fig. 5 shows only OHQ crossing curves without a same-protocol MWPM baseline or error bars, and Sec. VI itself downgrades the claim to 'comparable to the MWPM decoder.' The Sec. V-C explanatory statements about a 'broader solution space' and 'not limited to strict pairwise matching' contradict the paper's own one-hot constraints. This is best classified as renaming a known result: the new decoder is a reformulation of a known matching decoder, and the claimed threshold superiority reduces by construction to comparing the reformulation with the original. The remaining contributions—99.9x variable reduction, microsecond SOME decoding on a single CPU thread, and D-Wave annealing times—are empirical measurements that do not reduce to their inputs and are not circular. No load-bearing self-citation appears; references [31] and [32] are external prior work. The score reflects that the central threshold-superiority claim is undermined by construction, while the independent empirical content of SOME prevents a higher score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The OHQ formulation assumes the standard reduction to syndrome matching and a code-capacity noise model; no new physical entities are introduced. The penalty and correctability cutoff are hand-chosen and could affect the threshold result.

free parameters (2)
  • Penalty coefficient for one-hot constraint = d^2
    Sec. III-D sets penalty=d^2; a hand-chosen value that must be large enough, but with heuristic solvers it affects solution quality and the measured threshold. No sensitivity analysis is given.
  • Correctability cutoff for syndrome pairs = (d-1)/2
    Sec. III-B zeroes out matches whose shortest error path exceeds (d-1)/2. This is a nonstandard restriction not present in standard MWPM and can alter the matching graph and threshold.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Surface-code decoding reduces to pairing each flipped syndrome exactly once, with boundary represented by self-matching.
    Secs. II-B and III-A assume any valid error configuration is a matching of flipped syndromes, the standard MWPM reduction.
  • domain assumption Trivial error loops are physically equivalent, so any shortest path between a matched pair is a valid correction.
    Secs. III-A and III-E use this to justify the symmetric matrix and random path selection.
  • domain assumption X and Z errors are independent with identical probability p, and syndrome measurements are treated as perfect (code capacity noise).
    Sec. II-A sets the noise model; the threshold comparison to MWPM assumes the same model.
  • domain assumption The annealing solvers (Amplify AE, D-Wave) return sufficiently low-energy states of the OHQ QUBO.
    Sec. V uses AE and D-Wave without guarantees; the threshold estimate depends on solution quality.
  • standard math A self-inverse permutation matrix with one-hot rows and columns exactly characterizes a valid matching.
    Sec. IV-A; this is a standard characterization of involutive permutations.
  • standard math The cubic-to-quadratic variable reduction identity from [43] is valid.
    Sec. V-A uses it to compare SOTA variable counts; not needed for the OHQ construction itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SOME: Symmetric One-Hot Matching Elector -- A Lightweight Microsecond Decoder for Quantum Error Correction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XS7FUTR2

@misc{pith2026250723618,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SOME: Symmetric One-Hot Matching Elector -- A Lightweight Microsecond Decoder for Quantum Error Correction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XS7FUTR2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23618}
}
read the original abstract

Conventional quantum error correction (QEC) decoders such as Minimum-Weight Perfect Matching (MWPM) and Union-Find (UF) offer high thresholds and fast decoding, respectively, but both suffer from high topological complexity. In contrast, Ising model-based decoders reduce topological complexity but demand considerable decoding time. We propose the Symmetric One-Hot Matching Elector (SOME), a novel decoder that reformulates the QEC decoding task as a Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) problem -- termed the One-Hot QUBO (OHQ). Each variable in the QUBO represents whether a given pair of flipped syndromes is matched, while the error probabilities between the pair are encoded as interaction coefficients (weight). Constraints ensure that each flipped syndrome is matched exactly once. Valid solutions of OHQ correspond to self-inverse permutation matrices, characterized by symmetric one-hot encoding. To solve the OHQ efficiently, SOME reformulates the decoding task as the construction of permutation matrices that minimize the total weight. It initializes each candidate matrix from one of the minimum-weight syndrome pairs, then iteratively appends additional pairs in ascending order of weight, and finally selects the permutation matrix with the lowest total energy. SOME achieves up to a 99.9x reduction in variable count and reduces decoding times from milliseconds to microseconds on a single-threaded commodity CPU. OHQ also maintains performance up to a 10.5% physical error rate, surpassing the highest known threshold of MWPM@.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23618 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Planar surface code with code distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Error patterns. (a) Error chain: neighboring errors generate an error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Trivial loop (blue circle): a trivial loop corresponds to a closed error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: SOME’s average decoding times for code distances from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correlation between the calculated logical error rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum computation and quantum information

    Michael A Nielsen and Isaac Chuang. Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge University Press, 2002

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    Disentangling hype from practicality: On realistically achieving quantum advantage

    Torsten Hoefler, Thomas H ¨aner, and Matthias Troyer. Disentangling hype from practicality: On realistically achieving quantum advantage. Communications of the ACM , 66(5):82–87, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Introduction to quantum computing

    Surya Teja Marella and Hemanth Sai Kumar Parisa. Introduction to quantum computing. Quantum Computing and Communications , 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Securing the future internet of things with post-quantum cryptography

    Adarsh Kumar, Carlo Ottaviani, Sukhpal Singh Gill, and Rajkumar Buyya. Securing the future internet of things with post-quantum cryptography. Security and Privacy , 5(2):e200, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Coherence and entanglement in a two-qubit system

    Miguel Orszag and Maritza Hernandez. Coherence and entanglement in a two-qubit system. Advances in Optics and Photonics , 2(2):229–286, 2010

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation

    John Preskill. Fault-tolerant quantum computation. In Introduction to quantum computation and information, pages 213–269. World Scientific, 1998

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    Quantum error correction and fault tolerant quantum computing

    Frank Gaitan. Quantum error correction and fault tolerant quantum computing. CRC Press, 2008

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    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

    work page 1995

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons

    A Yu Kitaev. Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons. Annals of physics, 303(1):2–30, 2003

    2003

  2. [10]

    Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum com- putation

    Austin G Fowler, Matteo Mariantoni, John M Martinis, and Andrew N Cleland. Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum com- putation. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , 86(3):032324, 2012

    2012

  3. [11]

    Superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance

    Rami Barends, Julian Kelly, Anthony Megrant, Andrzej Veitia, Daniel Sank, Evan Jeffrey, Ted C White, Josh Mutus, Austin G Fowler, Brooks Campbell, et al. Superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance. Nature, 508(7497):500–503, 2014

    2014

  4. [12]

    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

  5. [13]

    Nature, 614(7949):676–681, 2023

    Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit. Nature, 614(7949):676–681, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    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

  7. [15]

    Realization of real- time fault-tolerant quantum error correction

    Ciaran Ryan-Anderson, Justin G Bohnet, Kenny Lee, Daniel Gresh, Aaron Hankin, JP Gaebler, David Francois, Alexander Chernoguzov, Dominic Lucchetti, Natalie C Brown, et al. Realization of real- time fault-tolerant quantum error correction. Physical Review X , 11(4):041058, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Efficient algorithms for finding maximum matching in graphs

    Zvi Galil. Efficient algorithms for finding maximum matching in graphs. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) , 18(1):23–38, 1986

    1986

  9. [17]

    Astrea: Accu- rate quantum error-decoding via practical minimum-weight perfect- matching

    Suhas Vittal, Poulami Das, and Moinuddin Qureshi. Astrea: Accu- rate quantum error-decoding via practical minimum-weight perfect- matching. In Proc. Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, pages 1–16, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Pymatching: A python package for decoding quantum codes with minimum-weight perfect matching

    Oscar Higgott. Pymatching: A python package for decoding quantum codes with minimum-weight perfect matching. ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 3(3):1–16, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Towards practical classical processing for the surface code

    Austin G Fowler, Adam C Whiteside, and Lloyd CL Hollenberg. Towards practical classical processing for the surface code. Physical Review Letters, 108(18):180501, 2012

    2012

  12. [20]

    Sparse blossom: correcting a million errors per core second with minimum-weight matching

    Oscar Higgott and Craig Gidney. Sparse blossom: correcting a million errors per core second with minimum-weight matching. Quantum, 9:1600, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Fusion blossom: Fast MWPM decoders for QEC

    Yue Wu and Lin Zhong. Fusion blossom: Fast MWPM decoders for QEC. In IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), volume 01, pages 928–938, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    A distributed-memory algorithm for computing a heavy- weight perfect matching on bipartite graphs

    Ariful Azad, Aydin Buluc ¸, Xiaoye S Li, Xinliang Wang, and Johannes Langguth. A distributed-memory algorithm for computing a heavy- weight perfect matching on bipartite graphs. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 42(4):C143–C168, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Efficient algo- rithms for maximum likelihood decoding in the surface code

    Sergey Bravyi, Martin Suchara, and Alexander Vargo. Efficient algo- rithms for maximum likelihood decoding in the surface code. Physical Review A, 90(3):032326, 2014

    2014

  16. [24]

    NEO-QEC: Neural network enhanced online supercon- ducting decoder for surface codes

    Yosuke Ueno, Masaaki Kondo, Masamitsu Tanaka, Yasunari Suzuki, and Yutaka Tabuchi. NEO-QEC: Neural network enhanced online supercon- ducting decoder for surface codes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.05758 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Comparing neural network based decoders for the surface code

    Savvas Varsamopoulos, Koen Bertels, and Carmen Garcia Almudever. Comparing neural network based decoders for the surface code. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 69(2):300–311, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    A scalable and fast artificial neural network syndrome decoder for surface codes

    Spiro Gicev, Lloyd CL Hollenberg, and Muhammad Usman. A scalable and fast artificial neural network syndrome decoder for surface codes. Quantum, 7:1058, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Almost-linear time decoding algorithm for topological codes

    Nicolas Delfosse and Naomi H Nickerson. Almost-linear time decoding algorithm for topological codes. Quantum, 5:595, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Novel union-find-based decoders for scalable quantum error correction on systolic arrays

    Maximilian Jakob Heer, Emanuele Del Sozzo, Keisuke Fujii, and Kentaro Sano. Novel union-find-based decoders for scalable quantum error correction on systolic arrays. In IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium Workshops , pages 524–533, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    FPGA- based distributed union-find decoder for surface codes

    Namitha Liyanage, Yue Wu, Siona Tagare, and Lin Zhong. FPGA- based distributed union-find decoder for surface codes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08491, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Novel union-find-based decoders for scalable quantum error correction on systolic arrays

    Maximilian Jakob Heer, Emanuele Del Sozzo, Keisuke Fujii, and Kentaro Sano. Novel union-find-based decoders for scalable quantum error correction on systolic arrays. In IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium Workshops (IPDPSW) , pages 524– 533, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Prac- tical and scalable decoder for topological quantum error correction with an Ising machine

    Jun Fujisaki, Hirotaka Oshima, Shintaro Sato, and Keisuke Fujii. Prac- tical and scalable decoder for topological quantum error correction with an Ising machine. Physical Review Research, 4(4):043086, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Quantum error correction with an Ising machine under circuit-level noise

    Jun Fujisaki, Kazunori Maruyama, Hirotaka Oshima, Shintaro Sato, Tatsuya Sakashita, Yusaku Takeuchi, and Keisuke Fujii. Quantum error correction with an Ising machine under circuit-level noise. Physical Review Research, 5(4):043261, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    https://www.fujitsu.com/global/services/business-services/ digital-annealer/, Last accessed on March 19, 2025

    EDigital Annealer—quantum computing technology, available today. https://www.fujitsu.com/global/services/business-services/ digital-annealer/, Last accessed on March 19, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Surface code quantum computing by lattice surgery

    Dominic Horsman, Austin G Fowler, Simon Devitt, and Rodney Van Me- ter. Surface code quantum computing by lattice surgery. New Journal of Physics, 14(12):123011, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    The XZZX surface code

    J Pablo Bonilla Ataides, David K Tuckett, Stephen D Bartlett, Steven T Flammia, and Benjamin J Brown. The XZZX surface code. Nature communications, 12(1):2172, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Topological quan- tum distillation

    Hector Bombin and Miguel Angel Martin-Delgado. Topological quan- tum distillation. Physical Review Letters , 97(18):180501, 2006

    2006

  29. [37]

    Quantum error correction for beginners

    Simon J Devitt, William J Munro, and Kae Nemoto. Quantum error correction for beginners. Reports on Progress in Physics, 76(7):076001, 2013

    2013

  30. [38]

    Quantum computation and quantum information

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

    2010

  31. [39]

    Matching, Euler tours and the Chinese postman

    Jack Edmonds and Ellis L Johnson. Matching, Euler tours and the Chinese postman. Mathematical programming, 5:88–124, 1973

    1973

  32. [40]

    Time-asymmetric quantum physics

    A Bohm. Time-asymmetric quantum physics. Physical Review A , 60(2):861, 1999

    1999

  33. [41]

    https://amplify.fixstars

    The quantum computing cloud - fixstars amplify. https://amplify.fixstars. com/, Last accessed on March 19, 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    https://www

    Wave systems: The practical quantum computing company. https://www. dwavesys.com/, Last accessed on March 19, 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    Quantum bridge analytics I: a tutorial on formulating and using QUBO models

    Fred Glover, Gary Kochenberger, Rick Hennig, and Yu Du. Quantum bridge analytics I: a tutorial on formulating and using QUBO models. Annals of Operations Research , 314(1):141–183, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    High- threshold universal quantum computation on the surface code

    Austin G Fowler, Ashley M Stephens, and Peter Groszkowski. High- threshold universal quantum computation on the surface code. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 80(5):052312, 2009

    2009

  37. [45]

    Solving TSP problem with improved genetic algorithm

    Chunhua Fu, Lijun Zhang, Xiaojing Wang, and Liying Qiao. Solving TSP problem with improved genetic algorithm. In AIP Conference Proceedings, volume 1967. AIP Publishing, 2018

    1967

  38. [46]

    Traveling salesman should not be greedy: domination analysis of greedy-type heuristics for the TSP

    Gregory Gutin, Anders Yeo, and Alexey Zverovich. Traveling salesman should not be greedy: domination analysis of greedy-type heuristics for the TSP. Discrete Applied Mathematics , 117(1-3):81–86, 2002

    2002

Pith tools

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