pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.25747 · v3 · submitted 2026-04-28 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.stat-mech

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Quantum Error Correction Exploiting Quantum Spatial Distribution and Gauge Symmetry

Ryo Asaka
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 06:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords quantum error correctiongauge symmetryquantum spatial distributionstabilizer codesShor's codelogical gatesnoise modelsnearest-neighbor interactions
0
0 comments X

The pith

Gauge symmetry in spin-position superpositions corrects a unified model of decoherence and dephasing noise.

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

The paper establishes that gauge symmetry combined with quantum spatial distribution protects quantum information against arbitrary decoherence in either the spin or position degree of freedom of a particle, as well as against dephasing that destroys the superposition itself. It demonstrates this using a five-particle arrangement on nested squares in which three particles encode Shor's nine-qubit code while two auxiliary particles detect errors through spin measurements. The same spatial distribution also permits the error-correcting units to be stacked both vertically and horizontally, allowing logical gates and a quantum adder to be built from only nearest- and next-nearest-neighbor interactions. A sympathetic reader would care because the construction unifies several physically distinct error channels into one provably correctable model while relaxing the interaction requirements that often limit hardware scalability.

Core claim

The gauge symmetry offers resilience against three types of noise acting on a particle: arbitrary decoherence of its spin or position state, and dephasing of both states, which partly or completely destroys its quantum spatial distribution. The authors formulate a noise model unifying these errors and prove that their error-correcting scheme, built from the 3+2 particle system on nested squares with gate operations acting exclusively on spin or position, correctly recovers the logical state. They further show that the same spatial arrangement supplies the architectural flexibility needed to implement stabilizer measurements, logical Hadamard and Toffoli gates, and a quantum adder using only,

What carries the argument

Gauge symmetry realized through the spin-state measurements of two auxiliary particles that detect errors in the Shor-encoded logical qubit formed by three particles on nested squares, with all operations acting separately on spin or position.

If this is right

  • The unified noise model that includes both decoherence and dephasing is provably correctable within the stabilizer formalism.
  • Error detection, logical Hadamard, logical Toffoli, and a quantum adder can be realized with interactions limited to nearest and next-nearest neighbors.
  • The error-correcting blocks can be stacked both vertically and horizontally without changing the interaction graph.
  • The same gauge-symmetry mechanism supplies protection against loss of the spatial superposition itself.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Hardware platforms that already control both spin and motional degrees of freedom, such as trapped ions or neutral atoms in optical lattices, could adopt this layout with minimal additional control lines.
  • The vertical and horizontal stacking suggests a route to three-dimensional quantum error-correcting codes whose logical qubits occupy distinct spatial layers.
  • Extending the construction to other stabilizer codes beyond Shor's nine-qubit code would test how generally the gauge symmetry protects the spatial superposition.

Load-bearing premise

Each particle evolves under gate operations that act exclusively on either its spin or its position, and the physical system realizes the gauge symmetry without extra uncontrolled couplings between those two degrees of freedom.

What would settle it

A simulation or experiment in which a small spin-position coupling is introduced and the logical error rate is observed to rise sharply above the threshold predicted for the unified noise model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25747 by Ryo Asaka.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Three physical particles {p0, p2, p4} and two measurement particles {p1, p3}. We specify four vertices of each square as 00, 10, 11, and 01. (b) Conceptual image of the gauge symmetry [Eqs. (3.1) and (3.2)], where M is any operation in End((C 2 ) ⊗9 ) and g is any gauge operation in the gauge algebra G. The effect that the virtual logical qubit ¯q receives from any operation M acting on the three physi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) Stabilizer measurement scheme, i.e., measurement of view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Gate-teleportation circuit for the logical Hadamard gate that converts the view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Circuit for the Toffoli gate, which applies logical view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We explore what the integrated use of quantum spatial distribution (QSD), or more specifically, superposition of both spin and position states of particles, and gauge symmetry (GS) within stabilizer formalism provides for quantum error correction. The exploration employs $3+2$ particles on nested squares proposed in the companion letter (arXiv:2504.07941), where three of them encode Shor's nine-qubit code and the remaining two detect errors in this code through their spin state measurements (unlike the letter's quantum walk model, each particle evolves by gate operations acting exclusively on either its spin or position state). The first result is that the GS offers resilience against three types of noise acting on a particle: arbitrary decoherence of its spin or position state, and dephasing of both states, which partly or completely destroys its QSD. To show that, we formulate a noise model unifying the above noise and prove the correctability of this unified model under our error-correcting scheme. The second result is that QSD provides architectural flexibility allowing us to stack the error-correcting systems both vertically and horizontally. Indeed, we show implementations of the error detection (stabilizer measurement), logical Hadamard and Toffoli gates, and a quantum adder with the required interactions only between nearest-neighbor and next-nearest-neighbor particles.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an error-correcting scheme that combines quantum spatial distribution (superpositions of spin and position states of particles) with gauge symmetry inside the stabilizer formalism. It employs a 3+2-particle layout on nested squares in which three particles realize Shor's nine-qubit code while the remaining two detect errors through spin-state measurements. The central claims are (i) that gauge symmetry renders the scheme resilient to a unified noise model encompassing arbitrary decoherence on spin or position separately plus dephasing that destroys the spatial superposition, with a proof of correctability supplied for this model, and (ii) that the spatial distribution permits vertical and horizontal stacking, enabling nearest- and next-nearest-neighbor implementations of stabilizer measurements, logical Hadamard, Toffoli, and a quantum adder.

Significance. If the correctability proof is completed and the separability assumption is rigorously justified, the work would supply a concrete route to fault-tolerant primitives that exploit an additional spatial degree of freedom, potentially lowering overhead through architectural stacking and nearest-neighbor connectivity. The explicit construction of logical gates under these constraints would be a useful addition to the stabilizer-code literature.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and the section formulating the unified noise model] The abstract and introduction assert a proof that the unified noise model (arbitrary spin/position decoherence plus QSD-destroying dephasing) is correctable under the gauge-symmetric stabilizer code, yet the manuscript supplies neither the explicit stabilizer generators for the 3+2 layout nor the verification that the noise operators remain within the correctable set. Without these steps the central claim cannot be assessed.
  2. [Setup paragraph describing particle evolution and the weakest-assumption paragraph] The correctability argument rests on the assumption that each particle evolves exclusively via gates acting on spin or on position, with no uncontrolled spin-position couplings introduced by the physical realization of gauge symmetry. The manuscript states this separation but does not derive that the effective noise operators remain closed under the code when weak mixing terms are admitted; a counter-example or bound showing robustness would be required.
  3. [Introduction and the paragraph referencing the companion letter] The claim that the scheme is independent of the companion letter (arXiv:2504.07941) is undercut by the absence of self-contained stabilizer definitions and noise-channel closure proofs; the reader is forced to consult the companion for the basic code space, rendering the present contribution circular for the central result.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Setup section] Notation for the nested-square geometry and the labeling of the five particles should be introduced with a figure or explicit coordinate table before the stabilizer definitions are used.
  2. [Error-detection paragraph] The statement that the two auxiliary particles 'detect errors through their spin state measurements' should be expanded to show the explicit measurement operators and how they commute with the gauge symmetry.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. We address each major comment below, indicating where revisions will strengthen the manuscript by adding explicit details and improving self-containment while preserving the core contributions on the unified noise model and architectural flexibility.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and the section formulating the unified noise model] The abstract and introduction assert a proof that the unified noise model (arbitrary spin/position decoherence plus QSD-destroying dephasing) is correctable under the gauge-symmetric stabilizer code, yet the manuscript supplies neither the explicit stabilizer generators for the 3+2 layout nor the verification that the noise operators remain within the correctable set. Without these steps the central claim cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We agree that the explicit stabilizer generators and step-by-step verification of noise-operator correctability should be more prominently displayed. In the revised manuscript we will insert a dedicated subsection that lists the stabilizer generators for the 3+2-particle layout on nested squares and then verifies, operator by operator, that every element of the unified noise model either commutes with the stabilizers or is detected by the two auxiliary particles. This will render the correctability proof fully explicit and self-contained. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Setup paragraph describing particle evolution and the weakest-assumption paragraph] The correctability argument rests on the assumption that each particle evolves exclusively via gates acting on spin or on position, with no uncontrolled spin-position couplings introduced by the physical realization of gauge symmetry. The manuscript states this separation but does not derive that the effective noise operators remain closed under the code when weak mixing terms are admitted; a counter-example or bound showing robustness would be required.

    Authors: The separation of spin and position evolution is stated as the operating assumption of the physical model. We acknowledge that a quantitative treatment of weak spin-position mixing is missing. The revision will add a short robustness paragraph that (i) assumes perturbative mixing and (ii) supplies a first-order bound showing that the resulting cross terms remain detectable by the existing error-detection particles, thereby keeping the noise inside the correctable set under the stated physical conditions. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Introduction and the paragraph referencing the companion letter] The claim that the scheme is independent of the companion letter (arXiv:2504.07941) is undercut by the absence of self-contained stabilizer definitions and noise-channel closure proofs; the reader is forced to consult the companion for the basic code space, rendering the present contribution circular for the central result.

    Authors: We intended the present work to be independent in its treatment of the unified noise model and the gate constructions, yet we recognize that the stabilizer definitions and code-space description were only referenced. To eliminate any circularity, the revised version will include the stabilizer generators, the code-space definition, and a concise recap of the noise-channel closure argument directly in the main text (or a short appendix). Readers will then be able to evaluate the central claims without consulting the companion letter. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; unified noise model and correctability proof are independent

full rationale

The paper formulates a new unified noise model for three noise types (arbitrary spin/position decoherence plus QSD-destroying dephasing) and proves its correctability under the stabilizer scheme. The 3+2 nested-square layout is referenced from the companion letter, but the noise unification, model formulation, and proof are presented as original without any equation reducing the claimed resilience to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or load-bearing self-citation chain. The separability assumption (gates acting exclusively on spin or position with no uncontrolled couplings) is stated explicitly as a physical precondition rather than derived from the results themselves. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the stabilizer formalism and the assumption that spin and position degrees of freedom can be addressed independently by gates. No free parameters or new postulated entities appear in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Stabilizer formalism for quantum error correction
    The scheme is explicitly placed inside the stabilizer formalism.
  • domain assumption Gate operations act exclusively on either spin or position state of each particle
    Stated directly in the abstract as the evolution rule for the 3+2 particle system.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5530 in / 1325 out tokens · 118302 ms · 2026-05-13T06:10:20.032842+00:00 · methodology

Review history (3 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    The feynman lectures on physics; vol

    Richard P Feynman, Robert B Leighton, and Matthew Sands. The feynman lectures on physics; vol. iii.Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. 22

    work page

  2. [2]

    Single-and double-slit diffraction of neutrons.Reviews of modern physics, 60(4):1067, 1988

    Anton Zeilinger, Roland G¨ ahler, CG Shull, Wolfgang Treimer, and Walter Mampe. Single-and double-slit diffraction of neutrons.Reviews of modern physics, 60(4):1067, 1988

    work page 1988

  3. [3]

    Young’s double-slit experiment with atoms: A simple atom interferometer.Physical review letters, 66(21):2689, 1991

    Olivier Carnal and J¨ urgen Mlynek. Young’s double-slit experiment with atoms: A simple atom interferometer.Physical review letters, 66(21):2689, 1991

    work page 1991

  4. [4]

    Demonstration of single-electron buildup of an interference pattern.Am

    Akira Tonomura, Jun Endo, Toshiaki Matsuda, Takeshi Kawasaki, and Hirohiko Ezawa. Demonstration of single-electron buildup of an interference pattern.Am. J. Phys, 57(2): 117–120, 1989

    work page 1989

  5. [5]

    Electrical control of a solid-state flying qubit.Nature Nanotechnology, 7(4):247–251, 2012

    Michihisa Yamamoto, Shintaro Takada, Christopher B¨ auerle, Kenta Watanabe, An- dreas D Wieck, and Seigo Tarucha. Electrical control of a solid-state flying qubit.Nature Nanotechnology, 7(4):247–251, 2012

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Theoretical, numerical, and experimental study of a flying qubit electronic interferome- ter.Physical Review B, 89(12):125432, 2014

    Tobias Bautze, Christoph S¨ ussmeier, Shintaro Takada, Christoph Groth, Tristan Me- unier, Michihisa Yamamoto, Seigo Tarucha, Xavier Waintal, and Christopher B¨ auerle. Theoretical, numerical, and experimental study of a flying qubit electronic interferome- ter.Physical Review B, 89(12):125432, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Coherent control of single electrons: a review of current progress.Reports on Progress in Physics, 81(5): 056503, 2018

    Christopher B¨ auerle, D Christian Glattli, Tristan Meunier, Fabien Portier, Patrice Roche, Preden Roulleau, Shintaro Takada, and Xavier Waintal. Coherent control of single electrons: a review of current progress.Reports on Progress in Physics, 81(5): 056503, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Macroscopic electron quantum coherence in a solid-state circuit.Physical Review X, 9(2):021030, 2019

    H Duprez, E Sivre, A Anthore, A Aassime, A Cavanna, A Ouerghi, U Gennser, and F Pierre. Macroscopic electron quantum coherence in a solid-state circuit.Physical Review X, 9(2):021030, 2019

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Sound-driven single-electron transfer in a circuit of coupled quantum rails.Nature communications, 10(1):4557, 2019

    Shintaro Takada, Hermann Edlbauer, Hugo V Lepage, Junliang Wang, Pierre-Andr´ e Mortemousque, Giorgos Georgiou, Crispin HW Barnes, Christopher JB Ford, Mingyun Yuan, Paulo V Santos, et al. Sound-driven single-electron transfer in a circuit of coupled quantum rails.Nature communications, 10(1):4557, 2019

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Semiconductor-based electron flying qubits: review on recent progress accelerated by numerical modelling.EPJ Quantum Technology, 9(1):21, 2022

    Hermann Edlbauer, Junliang Wang, Thierry Crozes, Pierre Perrier, Seddik Ouacel, Cl´ ement Geffroy, Giorgos Georgiou, Eleni Chatzikyriakou, Antonio Lacerda-Santos, Xavier Waintal, et al. Semiconductor-based electron flying qubits: review on recent progress accelerated by numerical modelling.EPJ Quantum Technology, 9(1):21, 2022

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Coulomb-mediated antibunching of an electron pair surfing on sound.Nature Nanotechnology, 18(7):721–726, 2023

    Junliang Wang, Hermann Edlbauer, Aymeric Richard, Shunsuke Ota, Wanki Park, Jeongmin Shim, Arne Ludwig, Andreas D Wieck, Heung-Sun Sim, Matias Urdampil- leta, et al. Coulomb-mediated antibunching of an electron pair surfing on sound.Nature Nanotechnology, 18(7):721–726, 2023

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Time-resolved coulomb collision of single electrons.Nature Nanotechnology, 18(7):727–732, 2023

    Jonathan D Fletcher, Wanki Park, Sungguen Ryu, Penelope See, JP Griffiths, GAC Jones, I Farrer, DA Ritchie, H-S Sim, and Misao Kataoka. Time-resolved coulomb collision of single electrons.Nature Nanotechnology, 18(7):727–732, 2023

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Two 23 electrons interacting at a mesoscopic beam splitter.Nature Nanotechnology, 18(7):733– 740, 2023

    Niels Ubbelohde, Lars Freise, Elina Pavlovska, Peter G Silvestrov, Patrik Recher, Mar- tins Kokainis, Girts Barinovs, Frank Hohls, Thomas Weimann, Klaus Pierz, et al. Two 23 electrons interacting at a mesoscopic beam splitter.Nature Nanotechnology, 18(7):733– 740, 2023

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    Electronic interferometry with ultrashort plasmonic pulses.Nature Communications, 16 (1):4632, 2025

    Seddik Ouacel, Lucas Mazzella, Thomas Kloss, Matteo Aluffi, Thomas Vasselon, Her- mann Edlbauer, Junliang Wang, Cl´ ement Geffroy, Jashwanth Shaju, Arne Ludwig, et al. Electronic interferometry with ultrashort plasmonic pulses.Nature Communications, 16 (1):4632, 2025

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Optical simulation of quantum logic.Physical Review A, 57(3):R1477, 1998

    Nicolas J Cerf, Christoph Adami, and Paul G Kwiat. Optical simulation of quantum logic.Physical Review A, 57(3):R1477, 1998

    work page 1998

  16. [16]

    Quantum random access mem- ory.Physical review letters, 100(16):160501, 2008

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. Quantum random access mem- ory.Physical review letters, 100(16):160501, 2008

    work page 2008

  17. [17]

    Architectures for a quantum random access memory.Physical Review A, 78(5):052310, 2008

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. Architectures for a quantum random access memory.Physical Review A, 78(5):052310, 2008

    work page 2008

  18. [18]

    Hardware-efficient quantum random access memory with hybrid quantum acoustic systems.Physical Review Letters, 123(25):250501, 2019

    Connor T Hann, Chang-Ling Zou, Yaxing Zhang, Yiwen Chu, Robert J Schoelkopf, Steven M Girvin, and Liang Jiang. Hardware-efficient quantum random access memory with hybrid quantum acoustic systems.Physical Review Letters, 123(25):250501, 2019

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    Scalable and high-fidelity quantum random access memory in spin-photon networks

    Kevin C Chen, Wenhan Dai, Carlos Errando-Herranz, Seth Lloyd, and Dirk Englund. Scalable and high-fidelity quantum random access memory in spin-photon networks. PRX Quantum, 2(3):030319, 2021

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    Quantum random access memory with transmon-controlled phonon routing.Physical Review Letters, 134 (21):210601, 2025

    Zhaoyou Wang, Hong Qiao, Andrew N Cleland, and Liang Jiang. Quantum random access memory with transmon-controlled phonon routing.Physical Review Letters, 134 (21):210601, 2025

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Universal quantum computing using single-particle discrete-time quantum walk.Scientific Reports, 11(1):11551, 2021

    Shivani Singh, Prateek Chawla, Anupam Sarkar, and CM Chandrashekar. Universal quantum computing using single-particle discrete-time quantum walk.Scientific Reports, 11(1):11551, 2021

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Multi-qubit quantum computing using discrete-time quantum walks on closed graphs.Scientific Reports, 13(1):12078, 2023

    Prateek Chawla, Shivani Singh, Aman Agarwal, Sarvesh Srinivasan, and CM Chan- drashekar. Multi-qubit quantum computing using discrete-time quantum walks on closed graphs.Scientific Reports, 13(1):12078, 2023

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Quantum error correction via multi-particle discrete-time quantum walk.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07941, 2025

    Ryo Asaka and Ryusei Minamikawa. Quantum error correction via multi-particle discrete-time quantum walk.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07941, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Quantum random access memory via quantum walk.Quantum Science and Technology, 6(3):035004, 2021

    Ryo Asaka, Kazumitsu Sakai, and Ryoko Yahagi. Quantum random access memory via quantum walk.Quantum Science and Technology, 6(3):035004, 2021

    work page 2021

  25. [26]

    A resource-efficient quantum-walker Quantum RAM

    Giuseppe De Riso, Giuseppe Catalano, Seth Lloyd, Vittorio Giovannetti, and Dario De Santis. A resource-efficient quantum-walker quantum ram.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.02855, 2025. 24

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [27]

    Universal computation by quantum walk.Physical review letters, 102 (18):180501, 2009

    Andrew M Childs. Universal computation by quantum walk.Physical review letters, 102 (18):180501, 2009

    work page 2009

  27. [28]

    Universal computation by multiparticle quantum walk.Science, 339(6121):791–794, 2013

    Andrew M Childs, David Gosset, and Zak Webb. Universal computation by multiparticle quantum walk.Science, 339(6121):791–794, 2013

    work page 2013

  28. [29]

    Universal quantum computation by scattering in the fermi–hubbard model.New Journal of Physics, 17(9): 093028, 2015

    Ning Bao, Patrick Hayden, Grant Salton, and Nathaniel Thomas. Universal quantum computation by scattering in the fermi–hubbard model.New Journal of Physics, 17(9): 093028, 2015

    work page 2015

  29. [30]

    Two-level quantum walkers on directed graphs

    Ryo Asaka, Kazumitsu Sakai, and Ryoko Yahagi. Two-level quantum walkers on directed graphs. ii. application to quantum random access memory.Physical Review A, 107(2): 022416, 2023

    work page 2023

  30. [31]

    Class of quantum error-correcting codes saturating the quantum hamming bound.Physical Review A, 54(3):1862, 1996

    Daniel Gottesman. Class of quantum error-correcting codes saturating the quantum hamming bound.Physical Review A, 54(3):1862, 1996

    work page 1996

  31. [32]

    California Institute of Technology, 1997

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

    work page 1997

  32. [33]

    Stabilizer formalism for operator quantum error correction.Physical review letters, 95(23):230504, 2005

    David Poulin. Stabilizer formalism for operator quantum error correction.Physical review letters, 95(23):230504, 2005

    work page 2005

  33. [34]

    Unified and generalized approach to quantum error correction.Physical review letters, 94(18):180501, 2005

    David Kribs, Raymond Laflamme, and David Poulin. Unified and generalized approach to quantum error correction.Physical review letters, 94(18):180501, 2005

    work page 2005

  34. [35]

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

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

    work page 1995

  35. [36]

    Both toffoli and controlled-not need little help to do universal quantum computation.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0205115, 2002

    Yaoyun Shi. Both toffoli and controlled-not need little help to do universal quantum computation.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0205115, 2002

    work page arXiv 2002

  36. [37]

    A simple proof that toffoli and hadamard are quantum universal.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0301040, 2003

    Dorit Aharonov. A simple proof that toffoli and hadamard are quantum universal.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0301040, 2003

    work page arXiv 2003

  37. [38]

    Theory of quantum error cor- rection for general noise.Physical Review Letters, 84(11):2525, 2000

    Emanuel Knill, Raymond Laflamme, and Lorenza Viola. Theory of quantum error cor- rection for general noise.Physical Review Letters, 84(11):2525, 2000

    work page 2000

  38. [39]

    Stabilizing quantum information.Physical Review A, 63(1):012301, 2000

    Paolo Zanardi. Stabilizing quantum information.Physical Review A, 63(1):012301, 2000

    work page 2000

  39. [40]

    Preserving coherence in quantum computation by pairing quantum bits.Physical Review Letters, 79(10):1953, 1997

    Lu-Ming Duan and Guang-Can Guo. Preserving coherence in quantum computation by pairing quantum bits.Physical Review Letters, 79(10):1953, 1997

    work page 1953

  40. [41]

    Reducing decoherence in quantum-computer mem- ory with all quantum bits coupling to the same environment.Physical Review A, 57(2): 737, 1998

    Lu-Ming Duan and Guang-Can Guo. Reducing decoherence in quantum-computer mem- ory with all quantum bits coupling to the same environment.Physical Review A, 57(2): 737, 1998

    work page 1998

  41. [42]

    Error avoiding quantum codes.Modern Physics Letters B, 11(25):1085–1093, 1997

    Paolo Zanardi and Mario Rasetti. Error avoiding quantum codes.Modern Physics Letters B, 11(25):1085–1093, 1997. doi: 10.1142/S0217984997001304

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217984997001304 1997

  42. [43]

    Decoherence free subspaces for quantum computation.arXiv preprint quant-ph/9807004, 1998

    Daniel A Lidar, Isaac L Chuang, and K Birgitta Whaley. Decoherence free subspaces for quantum computation.arXiv preprint quant-ph/9807004, 1998. 25

    work page arXiv 1998

  43. [44]

    Using parity kicks for decoherence control.Physical Review A, 59(6):4178, 1999

    David Vitali and Paolo Tombesi. Using parity kicks for decoherence control.Physical Review A, 59(6):4178, 1999

    work page 1999

  44. [45]

    Dynamical suppression of decoherence in two-state quan- tum systems.Physical Review A, 58(4):2733, 1998

    Lorenza Viola and Seth Lloyd. Dynamical suppression of decoherence in two-state quan- tum systems.Physical Review A, 58(4):2733, 1998

    work page 1998

  45. [46]

    Theory of decoherence-free fault-tolerant universal quantum computation.Physical Review A, 63 (4):042307, 2001

    Julia Kempe, Dave Bacon, Daniel A Lidar, and K Birgitta Whaley. Theory of decoherence-free fault-tolerant universal quantum computation.Physical Review A, 63 (4):042307, 2001

    work page 2001

  46. [47]

    Fault- tolerant control of an error-corrected qubit.Nature, 598(7880):281–286, 2021

    Laird Egan, Dripto M Debroy, Crystal Noel, Andrew Risinger, Daiwei Zhu, Debopriyo Biswas, Michael Newman, Muyuan Li, Kenneth R Brown, Marko Cetina, et al. Fault- tolerant control of an error-corrected qubit.Nature, 598(7880):281–286, 2021

    work page 2021

  47. [48]

    Operator quantum error-correcting subsystems for self-correcting quantum memories.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 73(1):012340, 2006

    Dave Bacon. Operator quantum error-correcting subsystems for self-correcting quantum memories.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 73(1):012340, 2006

    work page 2006

  48. [49]

    Subsystem fault tolerance with the bacon-shor code.Physical review letters, 98(22):220502, 2007

    Panos Aliferis and Andrew W Cross. Subsystem fault tolerance with the bacon-shor code.Physical review letters, 98(22):220502, 2007

    work page 2007

  49. [50]

    Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices.Nature, 434(7029): 39–44, 2005

    Emanuel Knill. Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices.Nature, 434(7029): 39–44, 2005

    work page 2005

  50. [51]

    Algebraic and information-theoretic conditions for operator quantum error correction.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 75(6):064304, 2007

    Michael A Nielsen and David Poulin. Algebraic and information-theoretic conditions for operator quantum error correction.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 75(6):064304, 2007

    work page 2007

  51. [52]

    Cambridge university press, 2010

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

    work page 2010

  52. [53]

    Design of efficient reversible logic- based binary and bcd adder circuits.ACM Journal on Emerging Technologies in Com- puting Systems (JETC), 9(3):1–31, 2013

    Himanshu Thapliyal and Nagarajan Ranganathan. Design of efficient reversible logic- based binary and bcd adder circuits.ACM Journal on Emerging Technologies in Com- puting Systems (JETC), 9(3):1–31, 2013

    work page 2013

  53. [54]

    Mapping of subtractor and adder-subtractor circuits on re- versible quantum gates

    Himanshu Thapliyal. Mapping of subtractor and adder-subtractor circuits on re- versible quantum gates. InTransactions on Computational Science XXVII, pages 10–34. Springer, 2016

    work page 2016

  54. [55]

    Quantum circuit for the fast fourier transform.Quantum Information Processing, 19:1–20, 2020

    Ryo Asaka, Kazumitsu Sakai, and Ryoko Yahagi. Quantum circuit for the fast fourier transform.Quantum Information Processing, 19:1–20, 2020. 26

    work page 2020