Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Moveless: Minimizing Overhead on QCCDs via Versatile Execution and Low Excess Shuttling

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 A stabilizer-aware compiler cuts syndrome-extraction runtime on trapped-ion QCCD hardware by up to 5.24x and logical error rates by up to two orders of magnitude, purely through software.

desk verdict Moveless delivers real latency reductions for QCCD QEC circuits, but the logical error rate claims rest on an unvalidated CNOT-order assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.03914 v1 pith:6WQNHKZQ submitted 2025-08-05 quant-ph cs.ETcs.SYeess.SY

Sahil Khan , Suhas Vittal , Kenneth Brown , Jonathan Baker This is my paper
classification quant-phcs.ETcs.SYeess.SY
keywords quantumerrorcorrectionQCCDtrappedionsstabilizerschedulingshuttlingminimizationancillareusesurfacecodecolorsyndromeextraction
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 that syndrome extraction circuits — the repeated stabilizer checks that power quantum error correction — have a structural regularity that generic compilers ignore, and that a compiler built to exploit it can make fault-tolerant circuits dramatically faster on trapped-ion QCCD hardware. The compiler, Moveless, moves only ancilla qubits between traps, reorders stabilizers and the gates inside them on the fly, and reuses a small number of ancilla across checks. Against a state-of-the-art baseline, compiled syndrome extraction runs on average $3.38\times$ faster (up to $5.24\times$; geometric mean $2.34\times$ against an optimized baseline). Because shorter rounds mean less amplitude damping and dephasing on idle data qubits, the paper reports up to two orders of magnitude lower logical error rate for surface and color codes of distance $5$ to $11$ at physical error rates near $10^{-4}$. If correct, this is a purely software path toward more practical fault-tolerant operation on modular trapped-ion devices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the syndrome extraction round represented as a set of commuting stabilizer checks over a bipartite ancilla-data graph. Moveless's scheduler maintains a queue of stabilizer-ancilla pairs; at each step it computes a movement score via shortest paths on the QCCD connectivity graph, picks the minimum-cost pair, and orders that stabilizer's gates to minimize shuttling. Two policies enforce the structure: Move Ancilla Only (MAO), which partitions data qubits into traps and moves only ancilla between them, and full ancilla reuse, which on linear topologies makes a single ancilla the best choice ($m^*=1$) because limited trap-level parallelism makes extra ancilla roadblock

What would settle it

Run a circuit-level Monte Carlo simulation of the exact gate schedules emitted by Moveless for a distance-5 or distance-7 surface code, using a depolarizing two-qubit noise model that includes hook-error propagation, and compare the logical error rate and the lowest-weight undetectable error against the canonical stabilizer order. If the effective distance falls below $d$ for any emitted schedule, the 'fully relaxed' CNOT-order premise is false; if it does not, the premise holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that three properties of syndrome extraction circuits — bipartite connectivity, commuting stabilizers, and repeated rounds — can be turned into scheduling advantages instead of compilation obstacles. Because each round is a Tanner graph with ancilla and data partitions, every check can be completed by moving only ancilla. Because stabilizers commute, and because the paper asserts CNOT order within a stabilizer can be fully relaxed, the compiler can greedily pick the cheapest stabilizer-ancilla pair at each time step rather than following a fixed gate order. Combined with full ancilla reuse, this yields circuits that are never slower and up to $5.24\times$ fas

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the order of CNOTs within each stabilizer can be fully relaxed without changing the code's behavior under circuit-level noise; if some reorderings introduce hook errors that shrink the code's effective distance, the reported logical-error improvements are overestimated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fault-tolerant circuits on QCCD hardware can run substantially faster without changing the physical gates or code, purely by exploiting commuting structure and shuttling policy.
  • The usual one-ancilla-per-stabilizer assumption is not optimal for low-parallelism QCCD topologies; fewer ancilla can mean less shuttling and lower syndrome-extraction latency.
  • Because latency-induced decoherence dominates at realistic $T_1$ and $T_2$ times, compilation speedups translate directly into logical error improvements on surface and color codes.
  • The scheduling approach transfers across topologies (linear and grid) and across trap capacities and counts, with the optimal ancilla count depending on architecture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Stabilizer-level scheduling should apply to other code families with commuting checks, such as quantum Tanner codes and data-syndrome codes, so the reported speedups may extend beyond surface and color codes.
  • If CNOT reordering were constrained to preserve effective code distance (forbidding orders that create hook errors), a compiler like Moveless might capture most of the shuttling reduction while making the logical-error benefit a provable guarantee rather than a decoder-simulation result.
  • The finding that one ancilla is optimal on linear QCCD topologies suggests hardware designers could reduce ancilla zones and ion resources without hurting syndrome-extraction latency — an equipment saving the paper does not quantify.
  • The greedy scheduler's movement scores depend on the hardware cost model; as junction crossing times and ion-swap costs improve, the same scheduler could be retargeted to newer QCCD layouts with minimal changes.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents Moveless, a compiler for quantum error correction (QEC) syndrome-extraction circuits on QCCD trapped-ion hardware. It uses four structural properties of stabilizer circuits: bipartite Tanner graphs, commuting stabilizers, indistinguishability/reusability of ancilla qubits, and limited intra-trap parallelism. The compiler combines a moving-ancilla-only (MAO) policy, dynamic stabilizer scheduling with reordering of gates within stabilizers, and ancilla reuse. Against a NISQ baseline with favorable assumptions (reverse rounds and optimal ancilla count), the paper reports latency speedups up to 5.24x with a geometric mean of 2.34x. It then estimates logical error rates for surface and color codes by adding a latency-derived T1/T2 depolarizing channel to a standard circuit-level noise model, claiming up to two orders of magnitude improvement.

Significance. If the latency results hold, this is a valuable systems contribution: it demonstrates that QEC-specific compilation can substantially reduce shuttling overhead in a realistic QCCD model, and the open-source implementation is a strength. The baseline is given generous advantages, which supports the latency claim. However, the logical-error-rate improvements are not obtained from simulating the actual compiled circuits; they come from an injected latency-dependent channel. The paper also asserts without proof that arbitrary CNOT reordering within stabilizers preserves the code's circuit-level distance, and the abstract's headline speedup contradicts the body. These issues must be resolved before the strongest advertised claims are fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract vs. §IV-C/§VII] The abstract states 'on average 3.38x faster to execute,' but the body and conclusion report a 'geometrical mean of speedups is 2.34x' with best 5.24x and worst 1.4x. No derivation of 3.38 is given. If this is an arithmetic mean or median, it must be stated; otherwise the headline number contradicts the reported statistic and should be corrected.
  2. [§IV-B/Fig. 9 vs §V-B.2/Fig. 11] The logical error rate evaluation does not exercise the schedules Moveless actually produces. The compiler reorders CNOTs within stabilizers based on the assertion that 'CNOT order within stabilizers can be fully relaxed.' Under circuit-level noise, a single fault can propagate differently under different CNOT orders (hook errors) and can reduce the effective distance of a code. The evaluation injects a latency-derived depolarizing channel after each round (V-B.2) and therefore cannot detect such distance reduction or correlated faults; Fig. 11 is insensitive to the assembled gate order. The paper needs either a proof that every allowed reordering preserves circuit-level distance, or a circuit-level simulation of the compiled schedules with the actual gate orders, to support the claimed up-to-two-orders-of-magnitude logical error improvement, especially at low p where distance matters mo
  3. [§V-B.2] The logical error simulations depend on an ad hoc relation between physical error rate and coherence time: T1/T2 = 10 s at p=10^-3 and 100 s at p=10^-4, with a logarithmic fit in between. No physical justification or sensitivity analysis is given. Since the logical-error comparison is driven by latency-induced T1/T2 error, the claimed order-of-magnitude improvements are sensitive to this choice. Please justify the model or include sensitivity sweeps over anchor values and scaling.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Typographical issues: 'Univerity' in the author affiliation, 'theoreticalamount' in §II-D, and 'geometrical mean' should be 'geometric mean'.
  2. [§IV-B] The greedy scheduler is described qualitatively; please provide the score function, tie-breaking rules, and a pseudocode/algorithm block for reproducibility.
  3. [§VI-B/Fig. 14] Figure 14 is referenced but not explained in the text; add a sentence describing what is plotted (e.g., speedup versus ancilla count on the grid architecture).
  4. [§V-B.2] Reference [31] is a broad survey; for the T1/T2 ranges, cite primary trapped-ion coherence measurements.
  5. [Conclusion/Code availability] The repository is mentioned, but for archival reproducibility include a version/commit and a minimal artifact description.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: speedups are measured simulator outputs, logical-error gains follow from an external latency-error model, and the CNOT-reordering concern is a validation gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: compile syndrome extraction circuits -> measure latency -> feed latency into a depolarizing channel with T1/T2 hardware anchors -> decode with PyMatching/Chromobius. No step is defined in terms of its target. The speedups (1.4x-5.24x, geomean 2.34x) are direct outputs of the QCCD cost simulator, not fitted parameters. Baseline [18] is an independently published ISCA benchmark; giving it the optimistic Baseline* ancilla choice makes the comparison conservative, not circular. The logical-error results use external decoders and a physical noise model anchored to T1/T2 = 10-100s; the T1/T2 fit is chosen from hardware estimates and does not encode Moveless's improvement. The assertion that 'CNOT order within stabilizers can be fully relaxed' (Sec IV-B) is a noiseless-commutation claim; while it is not validated for distance preservation under circuit-level noise, that is a correctness/validation gap, not an equivalence between premise and conclusion. No self-citation is load-bearing: [18] and [27] are prior published tools used as benchmark/component, and the central contribution is evaluated against them externally.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The claims rest on hardware cost models from prior work (shuttling times, trap capacity) and a custom noise model. The only numbers tuned inside this paper are the ancilla count m* (searched per benchmark) and the T1/T2 coherence-time anchor points used in the logical error simulation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Ancilla count m* = 1 for linear architectures; varies on grid (20-80% of m)
    The compiler searches over six ancilla counts (1, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, m) and reports results for the best value per code and architecture (Sec IV-C, Fig 14). This is a hyperparameter tuned on the evaluated benchmarks, not derived from first principles.
  • T1/T2 coherence time anchor points = T1=T2=10 s at p=1e-3; T1=T2=100 s at p=1e-4; logarithmic interpolation
    Used to convert syndrome extraction latency into amplitude damping/dephasing errors in the logical error simulation (Sec V-B2). These anchors are chosen from a range (10-100 s) cited to hardware estimates, not measured in this paper; the result depends on them.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Stabilizer circuits have commuting stabilizers and bipartite interaction graphs
    Used to justify arbitrary stabilizer order and ancilla-only shuttling; standard property of stabilizer codes (Sec II-A, IV-A).
  • domain assumption QCCD trap can perform only one two-qubit operation at a time
    Footnote 1 and Sec II-B2; this is a hardware assumption from near-term QCCD design, not universal.
  • domain assumption Sympathetic cooling after each merge removes heating but adds latency
    Sec V-B3, cited to [32]; used to bound the cooling overhead.
  • domain assumption Pauli twirling approximation maps amplitude damping/dephasing to a depolarizing channel
    Sec V-B2, cited to [23]; standard but an approximation.
  • ad hoc to paper T1/T2 times scale logarithmically with physical error rate p
    Sec V-B2: 'use a logarithmic fit for these T1 and T2 times to change with p'. No physical derivation; it is a modeling assumption specific to this paper's evaluation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Moveless: Minimizing Overhead on QCCDs via Versatile Execution and Low Excess Shuttling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6WQNHKZQ

@misc{pith2026250803914,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Moveless: Minimizing Overhead on QCCDs via Versatile Execution and Low Excess Shuttling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6WQNHKZQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.03914}
}
read the original abstract

One of the most promising paths towards large scale fault tolerant quantum computation is the use of quantum error correcting stabilizer codes. Just like every other quantum circuit, these codes must be compiled to hardware in a way to minimize the total physical error introduced into the system, for example either due to high latency execution or excessive gates to meet connectivity limitations of the target hardware. However, unlike arbitrary quantum circuits, all syndrome extraction circuits have several common properties, for example they have a bipartite connectivity graph, consist only of commuting subcircuits, among other properties. For the most part, compilation methods have aimed at being generic, able to map any input circuit into executables on the hardware, and therefore cannot appropriately exploit these properties and result in executables which have higher physical error. In the case of modular trapped ion systems, specifically QCCDs, this corresponds to the insertion of excessive shuttling operations necessary to realize arbitrary qubit interactions. We propose a compilation scheme explicitly tailored for the structural regularity of QEC circuits based on several key observations: 1. only ancilla or data (but not both) should be shuttled, 2. stabilizers can be executed in any order meaning we can dynamically modify circuit execution on a per-cycle basis 3. ancilla are indistinguishable meaning any can be selected to begin a stabilizer measurement and retain a fixed-point mapping between cycles, and 4. QCCD hardware limits the number of parallel operations equal to the number traps in the system, meaning fewer ancilla are necessary and can be reused. Our resulting compiler, leads to QEC circuits which are on average 3.38x faster to execute, and lead to up to two orders of magnitude of improvement in logical error rates with realistic physical error rates.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,

    P. W. Shor, “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,”SIAM review, 1999

    1999

  2. [2]

    Improved fault-tolerant quantum simulation of condensed-phase correlated electrons via trotterization,

    I. D. Kivlichan, C. Gidney, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, J. McClean, W. Sun, Z. Jiang, N. Rubin, A. Fowler, A. Aspuru-Guzik, H. Neven, and R. Babbush, “Improved fault-tolerant quantum simulation of condensed-phase correlated electrons via trotterization,” Quantum, vol. 4, p. 296, jul 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.22331%2Fq-2020-07-16-296

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Toward the first quantum simulation with quantum speedup,

    A. M. Childs, D. Maslov, Y . Nam, N. J. Ross, and Y . Su, “Toward the first quantum simulation with quantum speedup,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115, no. 38, pp. 9456–9461, sep

  4. [4]

    Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations,

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 103, no. 15, oct 2009. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevlett. 103.150502

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quantum computers,

    M. Reiher, N. Wiebe, K. M. Svore, D. Wecker, and M. Troyer, “Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quantum computers,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 114, no. 29, pp. 7555–7560,

  6. [6]

    Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction,

    A. Y . Kitaev, “Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction,”Russian Mathematical Surveys, vol. 52, no. 6, p. 1191, dec 1997. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1070/ RM1997v052n06ABEH002155

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computing with color codes,

    A. J. Landahl, J. T. Anderson, and P. R. Rice, “Fault-tolerant quantum computing with color codes,” 2011. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5738

    arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory,

    P. W. Shor, “Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory,”Physical review A, vol. 52, no. 4, p. R2493, 1995

    1995

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Architecture for a large- scale ion-trap quantum computer,

    D. Kielpinski, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, “Architecture for a large- scale ion-trap quantum computer,”Nature, vol. 417, pp. 709–11, 07 2002

    2002

  2. [10]

    High-fidelity and fault-tolerant teleportation of a logical qubit using transversal gates and lattice surgery on a trapped-ion quantum computer,

    C. Ryan-Anderson, N. C. Brown, C. H. Baldwin, J. M. Dreiling, C. Foltz, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatterman, N. Hewitt, C. Holliman, C. V . Horst, J. Johansen, D. Lucchetti, T. Mengle, M. Matheny, Y . Matsuoka, K. Mayer, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, B. Neyenhuis, J. Pino, P. Siegfried, R...

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Blueprint for a microwave trapped ion quantum computer,

    B. Lekitsch, S. Weidt, A. G. Fowler, K. Mølmer, S. J. Devitt, C. Wunderlich, and W. K. Hensinger, “Blueprint for a microwave trapped ion quantum computer,”Science Advances, vol. 3, no. 2, Feb

  4. [12]

    Scalable, high-fidelity all-electronic control of trapped-ion qubits,

    C. M. L ¨oschnauer, J. M. Toba, A. C. Hughes, S. A. King, M. A. Weber, R. Srinivas, R. Matt, R. Nourshargh, D. T. C. Allcock, C. J. Ballance, C. Matthiesen, M. Malinowski, and T. P. Harty, “Scalable, high-fidelity all-electronic control of trapped-ion qubits,” 2024. [Online]. ...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Co-designing a scalable quantum computer with trapped atomic ions,

    K. R. Brown, J. Kim, and C. Monroe, “Co-designing a scalable quantum computer with trapped atomic ions,” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.02840

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1601540

    [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1601540

    doi

  7. [15]

    Demonstration of logical qubits and repeated error correction with better-than-physical error rates,

    A. Paetznick, M. P. da Silva, C. Ryan-Anderson, J. M. Bello-Rivas, J. P. C. III, A. Chernoguzov, J. M. Dreiling, C. Foltz, F. Frachon, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatterman, L. Grans-Samuelsson, D. Gresh, D. Hayes, N. Hewitt, C. Holliman, C. V . Horst, J. Johansen, D. Lucchetti, Y . ...

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Entangling four logical qubits beyond break-even in a nonlocal code,

    Y . Hong, E. Durso-Sabina, D. Hayes, and A. Lucas, “Entangling four logical qubits beyond break-even in a nonlocal code,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 133, no. 18, Oct. 2024. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.180601

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    A race-track trapped-ion quantum processor,

    S. A. Moses, C. H. Baldwin, M. S. Allman, R. Ancona, L. Ascarrunz, C. Barnes, J. Bartolotta, B. Bjork, P. Blanchard, M. Bohn, J. G. Bohnet, N. C. Brown, N. Q. Burdick, W. C. Burton, S. L. Campbell, J. P. Campora, C. Carron, J. Chambers, J. W. Chan, Y . H. Chen, A. Chernoguzov,...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Architecting noisy intermediate-scale trapped ion quantum computers,

    P. Murali, D. M. Debroy, K. R. Brown, and M. Martonosi, “Architecting noisy intermediate-scale trapped ion quantum computers,” inProceedings of the ACM/IEEE 47th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, ser. ISCA ’20. IEEE Press, 2020, p. 529–542. [Online]. Ava...

    2020

  11. [19]

    Muzzle the shuttle: Efficient compilation for multi-trap trapped-ion quantum computers,

    A. A. Saki, R. O. Topaloglu, and S. Ghosh, “Muzzle the shuttle: Efficient compilation for multi-trap trapped-ion quantum computers,” in2022 Design, Automation &; Test in Europe Conference &; Exhibition (DATE). IEEE, Mar. 2022. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.23919/DA...

    2022

  12. [20]

    Quantum error correction for long chains of trapped ions,

    M. Ye and N. Delfosse, “Quantum error correction for long chains of trapped ions,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503. 22071

    2025

  13. [21]

    Quantum data-syndrome codes,

    A. Ashikhmin, C.-Y . Lai, and T. A. Brun, “Quantum data-syndrome codes,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 449–462, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Topological quantum memory,

    E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, “Topological quantum memory,”Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 43, no. 9, p. 4452–4505, Sep 2002. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1499754

    2002 doi

  15. [23]

    Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction

    D. Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction. Califor- nia Institute of Technology, 1997

    1997

  16. [24]

    Color code decoder with improved scaling for correcting circuit-level noise,

    S.-H. Lee, A. Li, and S. D. Bartlett, “Color code decoder with improved scaling for correcting circuit-level noise,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07482, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Fast ion swapping for quantum-information processing,

    H. Kaufmann, T. Ruster, C. T. Schmiegelow, M. A. Luda, V . Kaushal, J. Schulz, D. von Lindenfels, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and U. G. Poschinger, “Fast ion swapping for quantum-information processing,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 95, p. 052319, May 2017. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.o...

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    Low-distance surface codes under realistic quantum noise,

    Y . Tomita and K. M. Svore, “Low-distance surface codes under realistic quantum noise,”Physical Review A, vol. 90, no. 6, p. 062320, 2014

    2014

  19. [27]

    Time-sliced quantum circuit partitioning for modular architectures,

    J. M. Baker, C. Duckering, A. Hoover, and F. T. Chong, “Time-sliced quantum circuit partitioning for modular architectures,” inProceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers, ser. CF ’20. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 202...

    2020

  20. [28]

    Scaling and assigning resources on ion trap qccd architectures,

    A. Ovide, D. Cuomo, and C. G. Almudever, “Scaling and assigning resources on ion trap qccd architectures,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.00225

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Quantum tanner codes,

    A. Leverrier and G. Z ´emor, “Quantum tanner codes,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.13641

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    New circuits and an open source decoder for the color code,

    C. Gidney and C. Jones, “New circuits and an open source decoder for the color code,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08813, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Recent progress in quantum computing relevant to internet security,

    H. Orman, “Recent progress in quantum computing relevant to internet security,” Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2024/410, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/410

    2024

  24. [32]

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

    O. Higgott, “Pymatching: A python package for decoding quantum codes with minimum-weight perfect matching,”ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1–16, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    A flow- map model for analyzing pseudothresholds in fault-tolerant quantum computing,

    K. M. Svore, A. W. Cross, I. L. Chuang, and A. V . Aho, “A flow- map model for analyzing pseudothresholds in fault-tolerant quantum computing,” 2006. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/ 0508176

    2006

  26. [34]

    Local fault-tolerant quantum computation,

    K. M. Svore, B. M. Terhal, and D. P. DiVincenzo, “Local fault-tolerant quantum computation,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 72, p. 022317, Aug

  27. [35]

    Analysis of ion chain sympathetic cooling and gate dynamics,

    A. Paul and C. Noel, “Analysis of ion chain sympathetic cooling and gate dynamics,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.13851

    2024 arXiv

  28. [39]

    Moveless,

    S. Khan, “Moveless,” https://github.com/sahilkhan123/Moveless, 2025, gitHub repository. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/sahilkhan123/ Moveless

    2025

  29. [2005]

    Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA

    [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 72.022317

    doi

  30. [2017]

    Available: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas

    [Online]. Available: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas. 1619152114

    doi

  31. [2018]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.1801723115

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.1801723115

Pith tools

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