pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.06792 · v2 · submitted 2026-05-07 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Mid-Circuit Measurements for Clifford Noise Reduction in Hamiltonian Simulations

James Brown , Jason Iaconis , Yuri Alexeev , Linta Joseph , Spencer Churchill , Kenny Heitritter , William Aguilar-Calvo , Martin Roetteler
show 1 more author
Martin Suchara
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 20:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum simulationmid-circuit measurementClifford noise reductionGeneralized Superfast EncodingTrotter synthesisstabilizer verificationlogical error ratedynamic circuits
0
0 comments X

The pith

Mid-circuit stabilizer measurements in encoded Hamiltonian simulations reduce logical error rates by up to 54 percent on barium hardware.

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

The paper establishes a noise-reduction method for Trotter-based quantum simulations of fermionic Hamiltonians that combines the Generalized Superfast Encoding with Clifford Noise Reduction and mid-circuit Shor-style stabilizer checks. It demonstrates this on a six-qubit encoded Clifford Trotter step executed on a barium development system, showing materially lower logical error rates than direct unencoded execution. The key evidence is that the improvement vanishes when the same stabilizer readouts are postponed until the circuit ends, isolating timely fault detection as the active mechanism rather than verification overhead alone. A secondary result shows that machine-learning selection of verification operators can beat random choices. The approach aims to improve practical Hamiltonian simulation on noisy hardware without requiring full quantum error correction.

Core claim

The encoded CliNR execution with mid-circuit stabilizer verification achieves up to 54% lower logical error rate than direct execution of the same Trotter step. This advantage requires timely mid-circuit fault detection: deferring stabilizer readout to the circuit end eliminates the benefit. The framework uses symplectic-transvection-based Trotter synthesis inside the Generalized Superfast Encoding together with device-matched Clifford noise reduction and Shor-style checks enabled by mid-circuit measurement.

What carries the argument

Symplectic-transvection-based Trotter synthesis inside the Generalized Superfast Encoding combined with Clifford Noise Reduction and mid-circuit Shor-style stabilizer verification.

If this is right

  • Timely mid-circuit stabilizer readout is required for the observed error reduction; end-of-circuit verification alone does not suffice.
  • Machine-learning selection of stabilizer operators can identify verification sets that outperform random selection.
  • The method improves application-level Hamiltonian simulation accuracy without incurring the full resource cost of quantum error correction.
  • The combination of GSE encoding and dynamic-circuit primitives can be applied to deeper Trotter circuits on similar hardware.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Hardware platforms with faster and quieter mid-circuit measurements could see even larger gains from this style of verification.
  • The same mid-circuit verification strategy might extend to other encodings or to variational algorithms that already use dynamic circuits.
  • If mid-circuit latency remains high, the net benefit may shrink for very shallow circuits where measurement overhead dominates.
  • Systematic benchmarking across multiple encodings would clarify whether GSE plus CliNR is uniquely compatible with barium-style ion traps.

Load-bearing premise

The target hardware supports mid-circuit measurements with low enough added noise and latency that timely fault detection improves net performance.

What would settle it

An experiment on the same barium system in which the encoded CliNR circuit with mid-circuit measurements shows no error-rate advantage or a higher error rate than the direct circuit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.06792 by James Brown, Jason Iaconis, Kenny Heitritter, Linta Joseph, Martin Roetteler, Martin Suchara, Spencer Churchill, William Aguilar-Calvo, Yuri Alexeev.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustrative CliNR circuit with graph state resource (G) and single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The Physical Trotter (C) implementation of the logical operation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The Physical Trotter (C) implementation of the logical operation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Hardware results for the stabilizer pairs listed in Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Noisy-simulation results for the same random stabilizer pairs as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulation of the circuits in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of one stabilizer measured mid-circuit (1 MCM), one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulation results for different numbers of mid-circuit stabilizer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulation of the circuits in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Incorrect-state probability, Pfail(%) = (P(0, 0, 0)+P(1, 0, 1))× 100, across 150 independent simulation trials as a function of noise level p1q, comparing physical Trotter circuit implementation (no CliNR), CliNR with a randomly drawn stabilizer pair, and CliNR with a model-guided stabilizer pair choice. Each point represents one independent trial (105 shots). (b) Distribution of incorrect-state probab… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum simulation of fermionic Hamiltonians is a leading application of quantum computing, but accurate execution on present-day hardware is limited by error accumulation in deep Trotter circuits. We present a device-matched noise-reduction framework for encoded Hamiltonian simulation that combines symplectic-transvection-based Trotter synthesis in the Generalized Superfast Encoding (GSE) with Clifford Noise Reduction (CliNR) and Shor-style stabilizer verification enabled by mid-circuit measurement. We implement this approach for a six-qubit encoded Clifford Trotter step on a Barium development system similar to the forthcoming IonQ Tempo line and benchmark it against direct execution using both hardware experiments and a calibrated device-level noise model. The encoded CliNR execution achieves up to 54% lower logical error rate. Crucially, this advantage disappears when stabilizer readout is deferred to the end of the circuit, showing that timely mid-circuit fault detection, rather than verification overhead alone, drives the improvement. As a proof of concept, we further show that machine-learning-guided stabilizer selection can identify verification operators that outperform random choices. These results demonstrate that encoding-native verification combined with dynamic-circuit primitives can materially improve application-motivated quantum simulation without the full overhead of quantum error correction.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a device-matched noise-reduction framework for encoded Hamiltonian simulation that combines symplectic-transvection-based Trotter synthesis in the Generalized Superfast Encoding (GSE) with Clifford Noise Reduction (CliNR) and Shor-style stabilizer verification enabled by mid-circuit measurement. For a six-qubit encoded Clifford Trotter step on a Barium development system, hardware experiments and a calibrated device-level noise model show that the encoded CliNR execution achieves up to 54% lower logical error rate than direct execution. This advantage vanishes when stabilizer readout is deferred to the circuit end, indicating that timely mid-circuit fault detection (rather than verification overhead) drives the improvement. A proof-of-concept demonstration of machine-learning-guided stabilizer selection is also included.

Significance. If the central empirical claims hold, the work demonstrates a practical route to error reduction in near-term quantum simulation by leveraging encoding-native verification together with dynamic-circuit primitives, without incurring the full overhead of quantum error correction. The inclusion of both hardware experiments on a Barium ion system and a calibrated device-level noise model supplies concrete empirical support, which strengthens the application relevance of the results.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.2] §4.2 (hardware experiments and noise model): The 54% logical-error-rate reduction and its attribution to timely mid-circuit fault detection rest on the assumption that mid-circuit measurements add negligible extra decoherence or latency; the manuscript does not report an independent characterization of measurement fidelity under the exact pulse sequences used in the Trotter step, leaving open whether the calibrated noise model underestimates correlated errors or scheduling-induced dephasing.
  2. [Results section] Results section (comparison with deferred readout): The key control experiment showing that the advantage disappears when readout is deferred is load-bearing for the claim that timely detection (not overhead) is responsible, yet the text provides no error bars, shot counts, or data-exclusion criteria, making it impossible to assess the statistical significance of the reported 54% reduction or its absence in the deferred case.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The acronym CliNR is introduced without a one-sentence definition or citation to prior work, which would improve accessibility for readers unfamiliar with the technique.
  2. [§3.1] §3.1: The GSE encoding mapping for the six-qubit case would benefit from an explicit table or diagram showing the logical-to-physical qubit correspondence.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive suggestions. We have revised the manuscript to address the concerns about measurement characterization and statistical reporting. Point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 (hardware experiments and noise model): The 54% logical-error-rate reduction and its attribution to timely mid-circuit fault detection rest on the assumption that mid-circuit measurements add negligible extra decoherence or latency; the manuscript does not report an independent characterization of measurement fidelity under the exact pulse sequences used in the Trotter step, leaving open whether the calibrated noise model underestimates correlated errors or scheduling-induced dephasing.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit characterization of measurement fidelity under the precise pulse sequences would strengthen the attribution. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated paragraph in §4.2 (and a new supplementary figure) reporting calibration data taken on the same Barium system with the identical mid-circuit measurement pulses used in the Trotter steps. These data show measurement-induced dephasing and latency remain below the level of the dominant two-qubit gate errors, and the calibrated noise model already incorporates the observed scheduling overhead. We have also added a short discussion explaining why correlated errors from the measurement bus are expected to be negligible for the six-qubit GSE code used here. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results section] Results section (comparison with deferred readout): The key control experiment showing that the advantage disappears when readout is deferred is load-bearing for the claim that timely detection (not overhead) is responsible, yet the text provides no error bars, shot counts, or data-exclusion criteria, making it impossible to assess the statistical significance of the reported 54% reduction or its absence in the deferred case.

    Authors: We apologize for the omission. The revised Results section now reports the number of shots (10 000 per configuration), the standard-error-of-the-mean error bars on all logical-error-rate values, and the data-exclusion rule (shots with anomalous ion fluorescence counts were discarded, affecting <2 % of trials). With these additions the 54 % reduction remains statistically significant (p < 0.01), while the deferred-readout control shows no significant difference from direct execution, reinforcing that timely mid-circuit detection—not verification overhead—is the operative mechanism. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results are empirical hardware benchmarks

full rationale

The paper's central claims are grounded in direct hardware experiments on a Barium development system and a calibrated device-level noise model, comparing encoded CliNR with mid-circuit stabilizer readout against direct execution and a deferred-readout control. The 54% logical-error-rate reduction is shown to vanish in the deferred case, providing an independent experimental control rather than a fitted parameter or self-referential definition. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked to derive the result; the advantage is demonstrated by the physical execution itself. The derivation chain consists of standard GSE encoding, symplectic Trotter synthesis, and CliNR techniques applied to a six-qubit circuit, all externally verifiable through the reported pulse sequences and measurements.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard quantum-computing primitives (mid-circuit measurement capability, stabilizer formalism in GSE) with no new free parameters or invented entities introduced in the abstract; the noise model is calibrated to the device but treated as external input.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The Barium development system supports mid-circuit measurements with low enough additional noise to enable timely fault detection.
    Invoked to explain why the mid-circuit advantage appears in hardware experiments.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5533 in / 1281 out tokens · 40925 ms · 2026-05-14T20:56:16.892004+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Lloyd, Science273, 1073 (1996), URLhttps://doi

    S. Lloyd, “Universal quantum simulators,”Science, vol. 273, no. 5278, pp. 1073–1078, 1996. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10. 1126/science.273.5278.1073

    work page arXiv 1996

  2. [2]

    Polynomial-time quantum algorithm for the simulation of chemical dynamics,

    I. Kassal, S. P. Jordan, P. J. Love, M. Mohseni, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, “Polynomial-time quantum algorithm for the simulation of chemical dynamics,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 105, no. 48, pp. 18 681–18 686, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808245105

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0808245105 2008

  3. [3]

    Quantum computational chemistry,

    S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, “Quantum computational chemistry,”Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 92, no. 1, p. 015003, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.92.015003

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.92.015003 2020

  4. [4]

    Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation,

    A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, “Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation,” Nature, vol. 607, pp. 667–676, July 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04940-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04940-6 2022

  5. [5]

    Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems,

    G. S. Engel, T. R. Calhoun, E. L. Read, T.-K. Ahn, T. Man ˇcal, Y .-C. Cheng, R. E. Blankenship, and G. R. Fleming, “Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems,” Nature, vol. 446, no. 7137, pp. 782–786, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05678

    work page doi:10.1038/nature05678 2007

  6. [6]

    Long-lived quantum coherence in photosynthetic complexes at physiological temperature,

    G. Panitchayangkoon, D. Hayes, K. A. Fransted, J. R. Caram, E. Harel, J. Wen, R. E. Blankenship, and G. S. Engel, “Long-lived quantum coherence in photosynthetic complexes at physiological temperature,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 107, no. 29, pp. 12 766–12 770, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1005484107

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1005484107 2010

  7. [7]

    A series of fast-paced advances in quantum error correction,

    E. Campbell, “A series of fast-paced advances in quantum error correction,”Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 6, pp. 160–161, February

  8. [8]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-024-00706-3

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-024-00706-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-024-00706-3

  9. [9]

    Qubit-reuse compilation with mid-circuit measurement and reset,

    M. DeCross, E. Chertkov, M. Kohagen, and M. Foss-Feig, “Qubit-reuse compilation with mid-circuit measurement and reset,”Physical Review X, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 041057, December 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041057

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041057 2023

  10. [10]

    Measuring error rates of mid-circuit measurements,

    D. Hothem, J. Hines, C. Baldwin, D. Gresh, R. Blume-Kohout, and T. Proctor, “Measuring error rates of mid-circuit measurements,”Nature Communications, vol. 16, p. 5761, July 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-60923-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-025-60923-x 2025

  11. [11]

    Quantum error mitigation,

    Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Huggins, Y . Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, “Quantum error mitigation,”Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 95, no. 4, p. 045005, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.95.045005

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.95.045005 2023

  12. [12]

    Superfast encodings for fermionic quantum simulation,

    K. Setia, S. Bravyi, A. Mezzacapo, and J. D. Whitfield, “Superfast encodings for fermionic quantum simulation,”Physical Review Research, vol. 1, no. 3, p. 033033, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.1.033033

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.1.033033 2019

  13. [13]

    Fermionic quantum computation,

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y . Kitaev, “Fermionic quantum computation,” Annals of Physics, vol. 298, no. 1, pp. 210–226, 2002. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1006/aphy.2002.6254

    work page doi:10.1006/aphy.2002.6254 2002

  14. [14]

    Simulation of electronic structure Hamiltonians using quantum computers,

    J. D. Whitfield, J. Biamonte, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “Simulation of electronic structure Hamiltonians using quantum computers,”Molecular Physics, vol. 109, no. 5, pp. 735–750, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/00268976.2011.552441

    work page doi:10.1080/00268976.2011.552441 2011

  15. [15]

    Mapping local Hamiltonians of fermions to local Hamiltonians of spins,

    F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, “Mapping local Hamiltonians of fermions to local Hamiltonians of spins,”Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, vol. 2005, no. 09, p. P09012, 2005. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2005/09/P09012

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2005/09/p09012 2005

  16. [16]

    Low-cost noise reduction for Clifford circuits,

    N. Delfosse and E. Tham, “Low-cost noise reduction for Clifford circuits,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 134, no. 9, p. 090603, Mar. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.090603

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.090603 2025

  17. [17]

    Efficient and noise-resilient molecular quantum simulation with the generalized superfast encoding,

    J. Brown, T. S. Hardikar, K. Heitritter, and K. Setia, “Efficient and noise-resilient molecular quantum simulation with the generalized superfast encoding,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.09322, November 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.09322

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.09322 2025

  18. [18]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation,

    P. W. Shor, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation,” inProceedings of the 37th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE, October 1996, pp. 56–65. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1996.548464

    work page doi:10.1109/sfcs.1996.548464 1996

  19. [19]

    Adaptive syndrome measurements for shor-style error correction,

    T. Tansuwannont, B. Pato, and K. R. Brown, “Adaptive syndrome measurements for shor-style error correction,”Quantum, vol. 7, p. 1075, August 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/ q-2023-08-08-1075

    2023

  20. [20]

    Machine learning for practical quantum error mitigation,

    H. Liao, D. S. Wang, I. Sitdikov, C. Salcedo, A. Seif, and Z. K. Minev, “Machine learning for practical quantum error mitigation,” Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 6, pp. 1478–1486, November 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-024-00927-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s42256-024-00927-2 2024

  21. [21]

    Optimized Clifford Noise Reduction: Theory, Simulations and Experiments,

    E. Tham and N. Delfosse, “Optimized Clifford Noise Reduction: Theory, Simulations and Experiments,”Quantum, vol. 9, p. 1829, Aug

  22. [22]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2025-08-27-1829

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2025-08-27-1829

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2025-08-27-1829 2025

  23. [23]

    Real-time quantum error correction beyond break-even,

    V . V . Sivak, A. Eickbusch, B. Royer, S. Singh, I. Tsioutsios, S. Ganjam, A. Miano, B. L. Brock, A. Z. Ding, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, “Real-time quantum error correction beyond break-even,”Nature, vol. 616, pp. 50–55, March 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-05782-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05782-6 2023

  24. [24]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 10th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  25. [25]

    Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,

    J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10. 22331/q-2018-08-06-79

    2018

  26. [26]

    Roads towards fault- tolerant universal quantum computation,

    E. T. Campbell, B. M. Terhal, and C. Vuillot, “Roads towards fault- tolerant universal quantum computation,”Nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, pp. 172–179, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23460

    work page doi:10.1038/nature23460 2017

  27. [27]

    Local fault-tolerant quantum computation,

    K. M. Svore, B. M. Terhal, and D. P. DiVincenzo, “Local fault-tolerant quantum computation,”Physical Review A, vol. 72, no. 2, p. 022317,

  28. [28]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.72.022317

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

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.72.022317

  29. [29]

    Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction

    D. Gottesman, “Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction,” Ph.D. dissertation, California Institute of Technology, 1997, ph.D. thesis. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9705052

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  30. [30]

    Efficient algorithms for maximum likelihood decoding in the surface code,

    S. Bravyi, M. Suchara, and A. Vargo, “Efficient algorithms for maximum likelihood decoding in the surface code,”Physical Review A, vol. 90, no. 3, p. 032326, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.90.032326

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.90.032326 2014

  31. [31]

    Abanin, Laleh Aghababaie-Beni, Igor Aleiner, Trond I

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, “Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold,”Nature, vol. 638, no. 8052, pp. 920–926, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08449-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08449-y 2025

  32. [32]

    A fault-tolerant neutral-atom architecture for universal quantum computation,

    D. Bluvstein, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, S. J. Evered, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, G. Baranes, A. Gu, T. Manovitz, M. Xu, M. Kalinowskiet al., “A fault-tolerant neutral-atom architecture for universal quantum computation,”Nature, vol. 649, no. 8095, pp. 39–46, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09848-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09848-5 2026

  33. [33]

    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. I. Campora, 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 . Matsuoka, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, B. Neyenhuis, A. Paz, J. M. Pino, P. Siegfr...

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.02280 2024

  34. [34]

    Simulating physics with computers,

    R. P. Feynman, “Simulating physics with computers,”International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol. 21, no. 6-7, pp. 467–488, 1982. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02650179

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02650179 1982

  35. [35]

    General theory of fractal path integrals with applications to many-body theories and statistical physics,

    M. Suzuki, “General theory of fractal path integrals with applications to many-body theories and statistical physics,”Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 400–407, 1991. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.529425

    work page doi:10.1063/1.529425 1991

  36. [36]

    Theory of Trotter error with commutator scaling,

    A. M. Childs, Y . Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, “Theory of Trotter error with commutator scaling,”Physical Review X, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 011020, 2021. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.11.011020

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.11.011020 2021

  37. [37]

    Resource-optimized fermionic local-hamiltonian simulation on a quantum computer for quantum chemistry,

    Q. Wang, M. Li, C. Monroe, and Y . Nam, “Resource-optimized fermionic local-hamiltonian simulation on a quantum computer for quantum chemistry,”Quantum, vol. 5, p. 509, Jul. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-07-26-509

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2021-07-26-509 2021

  38. [38]

    Optimized quantum program execution ordering to mitigate errors in simulations of quantum systems,

    T. Tomesh, K. Gui, P. Gokhale, Y . Shi, F. T. Chong, M. Martonosi, and M. Suchara, “Optimized quantum program execution ordering to mitigate errors in simulations of quantum systems,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Rebooting Computing (ICRC). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–13. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/ ICRC53822.2021.00013

    work page arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    Logical Clifford synthesis for stabilizer codes,

    N. Rengaswamy, R. Calderbank, S. Kadhe, and H. D. Pfister, “Logical Clifford synthesis for stabilizer codes,”IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 1–17, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TQE.2020.3023419

    work page doi:10.1109/tqe.2020.3023419 2020

  40. [40]

    Accelerating large-scale linear algebra using variational quantum imaginary time evolution,

    Z. Chen, J. O. Weinberg, and N. Rengaswamy, “Fault tolerant quantum simulation via symplectic transvections,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 1. IEEE, 2025, pp. 158–168. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/QCE65121.2025.00027

    work page doi:10.1109/qce65121.2025.00027 2025

  41. [41]

    Between Shor and Steane: A unifying construction for measuring error syndromes,

    S. Huang and K. R. Brown, “Between Shor and Steane: A unifying construction for measuring error syndromes,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 127, no. 9, p. 090505, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.090505

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.090505 2021

  42. [42]

    Quantum error correction with only two extra qubits,

    R. Chao and B. W. Reichardt, “Quantum error correction with only two extra qubits,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 121, no. 5, p. 050502, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.050502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.050502 2018

  43. [43]

    Flag fault-tolerant error correction for any stabilizer code,

    ——, “Flag fault-tolerant error correction for any stabilizer code,” PRX Quantum, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 010302, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.1.010302

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.1.010302 2020

  44. [44]

    Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits,

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, “Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 119, no. 18, p. 180509, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.119.180509

    2017

  45. [45]

    Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimization,

    Y . Li and S. C. Benjamin, “Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimization,”Physical Review X, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 021050, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevX.7.021050

    2017

  46. [46]

    Practical quantum error mitigation for near-future applications,

    S. Endo, S. C. Benjamin, and Y . Li, “Practical quantum error mitigation for near-future applications,”Physical Review X, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 031027,

  47. [47]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.8.031027

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.8.031027

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.8.031027

  48. [48]

    Error-mitigated digital quantum simulation,

    S. McArdle, X. Yuan, and S. Benjamin, “Error-mitigated digital quantum simulation,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 122, no. 18, p. 180501, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.180501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.180501 2019

  49. [49]

    Low-cost error mitigation by symmetry verification,

    X. Bonet-Monroig, R. Sagastizabal, M. Singh, and T. E. O’Brien, “Low-cost error mitigation by symmetry verification,”Physical Review A, vol. 98, no. 6, p. 062339, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.062339

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.98.062339 2018

  50. [50]

    Fundamental limits of quantum error mitigation,

    R. Takagi, S. Endo, S. Minagawa, and M. Gu, “Fundamental limits of quantum error mitigation,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 114, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41534-022-00618-z

    2022

  51. [51]

    Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices,

    E. Knill, “Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices,” Nature, vol. 434, no. 7029, pp. 39–44, 2005. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03350

    work page doi:10.1038/nature03350 2005

  52. [52]

    Tailoring fault-tolerance to quantum algorithms,

    Z. Chen and N. Rengaswamy, “Tailoring fault-tolerance to quantum algorithms,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory, vol. 6, p. 311–324, 2025. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ JSAIT.2025.3602446

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Fault-tolerant syndrome extraction and cat state preparation with fewer qubits,

    P. Prabhu and B. W. Reichardt, “Fault-tolerant syndrome extraction and cat state preparation with fewer qubits,”Quantum, vol. 7, p. 1154,

  54. [54]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-10-24-1154

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-10-24-1154

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2023-10-24-1154 2023

  55. [55]

    Graphical description of the action of local clifford transformations on graph states,

    M. Van den Nest, J. Dehaene, and B. De Moor, “Graphical description of the action of local clifford transformations on graph states,”Physical Review A, vol. 69, no. 2, p. 022316, 2004. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.69.022316

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.69.022316 2004

  56. [56]

    Complexity of graph- state preparation by clifford circuits,

    S. Kumabe, R. Mori, and Y . Yoshimura, “Complexity of graph- state preparation by clifford circuits,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.05874

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Fast stabilizer state preparation via ai-optimized graph decimation,

    M. Doherty, M. Puviani, J. Brewer, G. Matos, D. Amaro, B. Criger, and D. T. Stephen, “Fast stabilizer state preparation via ai-optimized graph decimation,” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.17743

    work page arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    NVIDIA Corporation, “CUDA-Q,” https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-q, 2026, accessed: 2026-05-12

    2026

  59. [59]

    custabilizer: A high-performance library for stabilizer quantum simulators,

    NVIDIA Corporation , “custabilizer: A high-performance library for stabilizer quantum simulators,” https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cuquantum/ latest/custabilizer/, 2026, part of the NVIDIA cuQuantum SDK; ac- cessed 2026-04-22

    2026

  60. [60]

    Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator,

    C. Gidney, “Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator,”Quantum, vol. 5, p. 497, Jul. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/ q-2021-07-06-497

    2021

  61. [61]

    IonQ’s New Barium Systems Demonstrate Industry-Leading Qubit Readout Performance,

    IonQ, “IonQ’s New Barium Systems Demonstrate Industry-Leading Qubit Readout Performance,” IonQ News, Mar. 2022, reports barium- qubit state-detection fidelity of 99.96%, approximately 4 SPAM errors per 10,000 computations. [Online]. Available: https://www.ionq.com/ news/march-03-2022-barium-demonstrates-leading-readout

    2022

  62. [62]

    Graph Attention Networks

    P. Veli ˇckovi´c, G. Cucurull, A. Casanova, A. Romero, P. Li `o, and Y . Bengio, “Graph attention networks,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2018. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/1710.10903

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  63. [63]

    Platform architecture for tight coupling of high-performance computing with quantum processors,

    S. A. Caldwell, M. Khazraee, E. Agostini, T. Lassiter, C. Simpson, O. Kahalon, M. Kanuri, J.-S. Kim, S. Stanwyck, M. Li, J. Olle, C. Chamberland, B. Howe, B. Schmitt, J. G. Lietz, A. McCaskey, J. Ye, A. Li, A. B. Magann, C. I. Ostrove, K. Rudinger, R. Blume-Kohout, K. Young, N. E. Miller, Y . Xu, G. Huang, I. Siddiqi, J. Lange, C. Zimmer, and T. Humble, “...

    work page arXiv 2025