pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19035 · v2 · pith:WHREGSYHnew · submitted 2026-06-17 · 🪐 quant-ph

Scalable quantum circuit knitting using a weak-coupling approximation

John P. T. Stenger , Daniel Gunlycke , Nikos Chrisochoides This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 20:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords distributed quantum computingcircuit knittingweak coupling approximationquantum approximate optimization algorithmscalable quantum algorithmsquantum circuit partitioning
0
0 comments X

The pith

Weak coupling between one qubit and the rest reduces the classical cost of distributed quantum computing to polynomial scaling.

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

The paper presents a method for distributed quantum computing that uses a weak-coupling approximation to control errors when partitioning circuits. Exact methods for distributing quantum computations require an exponential amount of classical information to reconstruct the process, which becomes impractical for large systems. By isolating a qubit that interacts weakly with others, the method allows the classical overhead to scale only polynomially with system size. This is shown for layered circuits similar to those in the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, suggesting a path to scalable distributed quantum processing.

Core claim

We present a method for performing distributed quantum computing with controlled approximations. Exact distributed quantum computing requires exponential classical information to reconstruct the quantum process. However, we show how the classical cost is reduced to polynomial if the quantum procedure can be partitioned between a qubit that is weakly coupled the other qubits. We demonstrate our method for a layered circuit based on the circuits used for the quantum approximate optimization algorithm.

What carries the argument

The weak-coupling approximation applied to circuit partitioning around one qubit, which approximates its interaction with the rest to enable polynomial classical reconstruction instead of exponential.

If this is right

  • The classical cost of reconstruction scales polynomially rather than exponentially when the weak-coupling partition exists.
  • Error in the distributed result remains bounded by the strength of the neglected coupling terms.
  • The method applies directly to layered circuits of the kind used in the quantum approximate optimization algorithm.
  • Distributed quantum computation becomes feasible for systems that admit such a weak-coupling qubit partition.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The technique may combine with other circuit-cutting methods to handle cases where multiple weak couplings are present.
  • Hardware designs that enforce tunable weak inter-qubit couplings could be tested specifically for this reconstruction efficiency.
  • Similar partitions might be sought in variational algorithms beyond QAOA if their coupling graphs contain low-degree vertices.

Load-bearing premise

The quantum procedure can be partitioned around a qubit that is only weakly coupled to the others so the approximation keeps reconstruction error under control.

What would settle it

A concrete layered circuit with a demonstrably weak qubit coupling where the measured classical reconstruction cost still grows exponentially with qubit number.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19035 by Daniel Gunlycke, John P. T. Stenger, Nikos Chrisochoides.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A quantum circuit cut along a single qubit line. Left: full circuit. Right: resulting subcircuits. The solid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Depiction of the quantum circuit used in our demonstration. Lines represent qubits and boxes represent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Demonstration for a three layered circuit. (a) the error in the final probability for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a method for performing distributed quantum computing with controlled approximations. Exact distributed quantum computing requires exponential classical information to reconstruct the quantum process. However, we show how the classical cost is reduced to polynomial if the quantum procedure can be partitioned between a qubit that is weakly coupled the other qubits. We demonstrate our method for a layered circuit based on the circuits used for the quantum approximate optimization algorithm.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a method for distributed quantum computing via circuit knitting with a weak-coupling approximation. It claims that exact reconstruction requires exponential classical information, but when a circuit can be partitioned around a qubit that is weakly coupled to the others, the approximation reduces the classical cost to polynomial while controlling error; the approach is demonstrated on layered circuits inspired by QAOA.

Significance. If the error bound from the weak-coupling approximation can be shown to yield polynomial classical resources at fixed target precision, the result would address a key scalability barrier in distributed quantum computation by relaxing the exponential overhead of exact knitting methods. The QAOA demonstration provides a concrete test case, but the absence of explicit scaling analysis limits immediate impact.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim states that the classical cost reduces to polynomial 'if the quantum procedure can be partitioned between a qubit that is weakly coupled the other qubits,' yet no quantitative definition of weak coupling (e.g., a bound on interaction strength) or derivation showing how approximation error scales with that strength to preserve polynomial cost at fixed precision is supplied. This leaves the polynomial reduction conditional on an unverified regime.
  2. [Demonstration section (inferred from abstract)] The QAOA-layered demonstration is described at high level only; without explicit scaling plots or tables relating coupling strength, approximation error, and total classical resources (e.g., number of samples or communication bits versus system size), it is not possible to verify that the method achieves the claimed polynomial scaling while meeting a target accuracy.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract contains a grammatical error: 'weakly coupled the other qubits' should read 'weakly coupled to the other qubits.'

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We respond point-by-point below and will revise the manuscript to address the identified gaps.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim states that the classical cost reduces to polynomial 'if the quantum procedure can be partitioned between a qubit that is weakly coupled the other qubits,' yet no quantitative definition of weak coupling (e.g., a bound on interaction strength) or derivation showing how approximation error scales with that strength to preserve polynomial cost at fixed precision is supplied. This leaves the polynomial reduction conditional on an unverified regime.

    Authors: We agree the abstract lacks an explicit quantitative definition and scaling derivation. The main text defines weak coupling via a small interaction parameter whose higher-order contributions are neglected, with error linear in that parameter, but this is not stated in the abstract. We will revise the abstract to include a bound (interaction strength bounded by a fixed small constant ε) and a one-sentence derivation showing the sample count remains polynomial for any fixed target precision. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Demonstration section (inferred from abstract)] The QAOA-layered demonstration is described at high level only; without explicit scaling plots or tables relating coupling strength, approximation error, and total classical resources (e.g., number of samples or communication bits versus system size), it is not possible to verify that the method achieves the claimed polynomial scaling while meeting a target accuracy.

    Authors: We agree the demonstration section is high-level and does not contain explicit scaling plots or tables. We will add these in the revision, including plots of classical resources versus system size at fixed coupling strength and target accuracy, plus a table relating ε, error, and sample count, to make the polynomial scaling verifiable. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation remains conditional on external assumption without self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper's central claim reduces classical reconstruction cost to polynomial under the assumption that a qubit is weakly coupled, allowing controlled approximation. This is presented as a conditional method rather than a derivation that loops back to its own fitted parameters or definitions. No equations are shown that equate a prediction to its input by construction, no self-citations are load-bearing for uniqueness or ansatz, and no renaming of known results occurs. The derivation is therefore self-contained against the stated assumption, with the quantitative error scaling left as an external condition rather than internally forced.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review based on abstract only; no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be identified from the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5584 in / 881 out tokens · 22711 ms · 2026-06-26T20:55:13.143510+00:00 · methodology

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

43 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abanin, Rajeev Acharya, Laleh Aghababaie-Beni, Georg Aigeldinger, Ashok Ajoy, Ross Alcaraz, Igor Aleiner, Trond I

    Dmitry A. Abanin, Rajeev Acharya, Laleh Aghababaie-Beni, Georg Aigeldinger, Ashok Ajoy, Ross Alcaraz, Igor Aleiner, Trond I. Andersen, Markus Ansmann, Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Abraham Asfaw, Nikita Astrakhantsev, Juan Atalaya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Brian Ballard, Joseph C. Bardin, Christian Bengs, Andreas Bengtsson, Alexander Bilmes, Sergio Boixo, Gin...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09526-6 2025

  2. [2]

    Nature , author =

    Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C. Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando G. S. L. Brandao, David A. Buell, Brian Burkett, Yu Chen, Zijun Chen, Ben Chiaro, Roberto Collins, William Courtney, Andrew Dunsworth, Edward Farhi, Brooks Foxen, Austin Fowler, Craig Gidney, Marissa Giustina, Rob Graff, Keith Guerin, St...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5 2019

  3. [3]

    Bardin, Rami Barends, Sergio Boixo, Michael Broughton, Bob B

    Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C. Bardin, Rami Barends, Sergio Boixo, Michael Broughton, Bob B. Buckley, David A. Buell, Brian Burkett, Nicholas Bushnell, Yu Chen, Zijun Chen, Benjamin Chiaro, Roberto Collins, William Courtney, Sean Demura, Andrew Dunsworth, Edward Farhi, Austin Fowler, Brooks Foxen, Craig Gidney, Marissa Giusti...

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abb9811 2020

  4. [4]

    Thomas Ayral, François-Marie Le Régent, Zain Saleem, Yuri Alexeev, and Martin Suchara. 2020. Quantum Divide and Compute: Hardware Demonstrations and Noisy Simulations. In2020 IEEE Computer Society Annual Symposium on VLSI (ISVLSI). 138–140. doi:10.1109/ISVLSI49217.2020.00034

    work page doi:10.1109/isvlsi49217.2020.00034 2020

  5. [5]

    Saikat Basu, Arnav Das, Amit Saha, Amlan Chakrabarti, and Susmita Sur-Kolay. 2024. FragQC: An efficient quantum error reduction technique using quantum circuit fragmentation.Journal of Systems and Software214 (2024), 112085. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2024.112085

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jss.2024.112085 2024

  6. [6]

    Emmanuel Billias and Nikos Chrisochoides. 2025. Towards a Utility-Scale Quantum Edge Detection for Real-World Medical Image Data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.10939(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Sergey Bravyi, Graeme Smith, and John A. Smolin. 2016. Trading Classical and Quantum Computational Resources. Phys. Rev. X6 (Jun 2016), 021043. Issue 2. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.6.021043

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.6.021043 2016

  8. [8]

    Marlon Brenes, Brett Min, Nicholas Anto-Sztrikacs, Nir Bar-Gill, and Dvira Segal. 2024. Bath-induced interactions and transient dynamics in open quantum systems at strong coupling: Effective Hamiltonian approach.The Journal of Chemical Physics160, 24 (June 2024). doi:10.1063/5.0207028

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0207028 2024

  9. [9]

    Lukas Brenner, Christophe Piveteau, and David Sutter. 2023. Optimal wire cutting with classical communication.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03366(2023)

    arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Bruzewicz, John Chiaverini, Robert McConnell, and Jeremy M

    Colin D. Bruzewicz, John Chiaverini, Robert McConnell, and Jeremy M. Sage. 2019. Trapped-ion quantum computing: Progress and challenges.Applied Physics Reviews6, 2 (05 2019), 021314. doi:10.1063/1.5088164

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5088164 2019

  11. [11]

    Gujarati, Sergey Bravyi, Antonio Mezzacapo, Charles Hadfield, and Sarah Sheldon

    Andrew Eddins, Mario Motta, Tanvi P. Gujarati, Sergey Bravyi, Antonio Mezzacapo, Charles Hadfield, and Sarah Sheldon. 2022. Doubling the Size of Quantum Simulators by Entanglement Forging.PRX Quantum3 (Jan 2022), 010309. Issue 1. doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.010309

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3.010309 2022

  12. [12]

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. 2014. A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm. arXiv:1411.4028 [quant-ph] https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.4028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  13. [13]

    Richard P. Feynman. 1982. Simulating physics with computers.International Journal of Theoretical Physics21, 6-7 (1982), 467–488. doi:10.1007/BF02650179

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02650179 1982

  14. [14]

    Golub and Charles F

    Gene H. Golub and Charles F. Van Loan. 2013.Matrix Computations(4th ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD

    2013

  15. [15]

    T. M. Graham, M. Kwon, B. Grinkemeyer, Z. Marra, X. Jiang, M. T. Lichtman, Y. Sun, M. Ebert, and M. Saffman. 2019. Rydberg-Mediated Entanglement in a Two-Dimensional Neutral Atom Qubit Array.Phys. Rev. Lett.123 (Dec 2019), 230501. Issue 23. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.230501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.230501 2019

  16. [16]

    Rieffel, Bryan O’Gorman, Davide Venturelli, and Rupak Biswas

    Stuart Hadfield, Zhihui Wang, Eleanor G. Rieffel, Bryan O’Gorman, Davide Venturelli, and Rupak Biswas. 2017. Quantum Approximate Optimization with Hard and Soft Constraints. InProceedings of the Second International Workshop on Post Moores Era Supercomputing(Denver, CO, USA)(PMES’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 15–21. doi:10.1...

    work page doi:10.1145/3149526.3149530 2017

  17. [17]

    Hiroyuki Harada, Kaito Wada, Naoki Yamamoto, and Suguru Endo. 2025. Exponential-to-polynomial scaling of measurement overhead in circuit knitting via quantum tomography. arXiv:2512.19623 [quant-ph] https://arxiv.org/ abs/2512.19623

    arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Wen Wei Ho and Timothy H. Hsieh. 2019. Efficient variational simulation of non-trivial quantum states.SciPost Physics 6, 3 (mar 2019). doi:10.21468/scipostphys.6.3.029

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.6.3.029 2019

  19. [19]

    Coons, Yunseong Nam, Shunji Matsuura, Alejandro J

    Yukio Kawashima, Erika Lloyd, Marc P. Coons, Yunseong Nam, Shunji Matsuura, Alejandro J. Garza, Sonika Johri, Lee Huntington, Valentin Senicourt, Andrii O. Maksymov, Jason H. V. Nguyen, Jungsang Kim, Nima Alidoust, Arman Zaribafiyan, and Takeshi Yamazaki. 2021. Optimizing Electronic Structure Simulations on a Trapped-ion Quantum Computer using Problem Dec...

    arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Youngseok Kim, Andrew Eddins, Sajant Anand, Ken Xuan Wei, Ewout van den Berg, Sami Rosenblatt, Hasan Nayfeh, Yantao Wu, Michael Zaletel, Kristan Temme, and Abhinav Kandala. 2023. Evidence for the utility of quantum computing J. ACM, Vol. 37, No. 4, Article 111. Publication date: August 2018. 111:12 John P. T. Stenger, Daniel Gunlycke, and Nikos Chrisochoi...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06096-3 2023

  21. [21]

    and Braumüller, Jochen and Krantz, Philip and Wang, Joel I.-J

    Morten Kjaergaard, Mollie E. Schwartz, Jochen Braumüller, Philip Krantz, Joel I.-J. Wang, Simon Gustavsson, and William D. Oliver. 2020. Superconducting Qubits: Current State of Play.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics11, Volume 11, 2020 (2020), 369–395. doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031119-050605

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031119-050605 2020

  22. [22]

    Kreula, Laura García-Álvarez, Lucas Lamata, Stephen R

    Juha M. Kreula, Laura García-Álvarez, Lucas Lamata, Stephen R. Clark, Enrique Solano, and Dieter Jaksch. 2016. Few-qubit quantum-classical simulation of strongly correlated lattice fermions.EPJ Quantum Technology3, 1 (2016),

    2016

  23. [23]

    doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507-016-0049-1

    work page doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507-016-0049-1

  24. [24]

    Seth Lloyd. 1995. Almost Any Quantum Logic Gate is Universal.Phys. Rev. Lett.75 (Jul 1995), 346–349. Issue 2. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.346

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.75.346 1995

  25. [25]

    Andrew Maciejunes, John Stenger, Daniel Gunlycke, and Nikos Chrisochoides. 2025. Solving Large-Scale Vehicle Routing Problems with Hybrid Quantum-Classical Decomposition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.05373(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Kosuke Mitarai and Keisuke Fujii. 2021. Constructing a virtual two-qubit gate by sampling single-qubit operations. New Journal of Physics23, 2 (feb 2021), 023021. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/abd7bc

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/abd7bc 2021

  27. [27]

    Harrow, Maris Ozols, and Xiaodi Wu

    Tianyi Peng, Aram W. Harrow, Maris Ozols, and Xiaodi Wu. 2020. Simulating Large Quantum Circuits on a Small Quantum Computer.Phys. Rev. Lett.125 (Oct 2020), 150504. Issue 15. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.150504

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.150504 2020

  28. [28]

    Perlin, Zain H

    Michael A. Perlin, Zain H. Saleem, Martin Suchara, and James C. Osborn. 2021. Quantum circuit cutting with maximum-likelihood tomography.npj Quantum Information7, 1 (April 2021). doi:10.1038/s41534-021-00390-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-021-00390-6 2021

  29. [29]

    Christophe Piveteau and David Sutter. 2023. Circuit knitting with classical communication.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.00016(2023). Presented at QIP 2023

    arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Christophe Piveteau and David Sutter. 2024. Circuit Knitting With Classical Communication.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory70, 4 (April 2024), 2734–2745. doi:10.1109/tit.2023.3310797

    work page doi:10.1109/tit.2023.3310797 2024

  31. [31]

    John Preskill. 2018. Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond.Quantum2 (aug 2018), 79. doi:10.22331/q-2018- 08-06-79

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2018- 2018

  32. [32]

    Almudéver, Eduard Alarcón, and Sergi Abadal

    Sahar Ben Rached, Zezhou Sun, Guilu Long, Santiago Rodrigo, Carmen G. Almudéver, Eduard Alarcón, and Sergi Abadal. 2026. Accurate and Scalable Simulation of Cavity-Based Networks in Modular Quantum Architectures.IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering(2026)

    2026

  33. [33]

    Nicholas C. Rubin. 2016. A Hybrid Classical/Quantum Approach for Large-Scale Studies of Quantum Systems with Density Matrix Embedding Theory. arXiv:1610.06910 [quant-ph] https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.06910

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  34. [34]

    John P. T. Stenger, Daniel Gunlycke, and C. Stephen Hellberg. 2022. Expanding variational quantum eigensolvers to larger systems by dividing the calculations between classical and quantum hardware.Physical Review A105, 2 (feb 2022). doi:10.1103/physreva.105.022438

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.105.022438 2022

  35. [35]

    2025.Enabling Large-Scale Quantum Computing via Distributed and Hybrid Architectures

    Wei Tang. 2025.Enabling Large-Scale Quantum Computing via Distributed and Hybrid Architectures. Ph. D. Dissertation. Princeton University

    2025

  36. [36]

    Wei Tang and Margaret Martonosi. 2022. ScaleQC: A Scalable Framework for Hybrid Computation on Quantum and Classical Processors. arXiv:2207.00933 [cs.ET] https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.00933

    arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    Wei Tang, Teague Tomesh, Martin Suchara, Jeffrey Larson, and Margaret Martonosi. 2021. CutQC: using small Quantum computers for large Quantum circuit evaluations. InProceedings of the 26th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS ’21). ACM, 473–486. doi:10.1145/ 3445814.3446758

    arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Hastings, Nathan Wiebe, Bryan K

    Dave Wecker, Matthew B. Hastings, Nathan Wiebe, Bryan K. Clark, Chetan Nayak, and Matthias Troyer. 2015. Solving strongly correlated electron models on a quantum computer.Phys. Rev. A92 (Dec 2015), 062318. Issue 6. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.92.062318

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.92.062318 2015

  39. [39]

    Roeland Wiersema, Cunlu Zhou, Yvette de Sereville, Juan Felipe Carrasquilla, Yong Baek Kim, and Henry Yuen. 2020. Exploring Entanglement and Optimization within the Hamiltonian Variational Ansatz.PRX Quantum1, 2 (dec 2020). doi:10.1103/prxquantum.1.020319

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.1.020319 2020

  40. [40]

    Takeshi Yamazaki, Shunji Matsuura, Ali Narimani, Anushervon Saidmuradov, and Arman Zaribafiyan. 2018. To- wards the Practical Application of Near-Term Quantum Computers in Quantum Chemistry Simulations: A Problem Decomposition Approach. arXiv:1806.01305 [quant-ph] https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.01305

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  41. [41]

    Xiao Yuan, Jinzhao Sun, Junyu Liu, Qi Zhao, and You Zhou. 2021. Quantum Simulation with Hybrid Tensor Networks. Physical Review Letters127, 4 (July 2021). doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.040501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.040501 2021

  42. [42]

    Leo Zhou, Sheng-Tao Wang, Soonwon Choi, Hannes Pichler, and Mikhail D. Lukin. 2020. Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm: Performance, Mechanism, and Implementation on Near-Term Devices.Phys. Rev. X10 (Jun 2020), 021067. Issue 2. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.10.021067

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.10.021067 2020

  43. [43]

    Ping Zou. 2025. Multiscale quantum approximate optimization algorithm.Phys. Rev. A111 (Jan 2025), 012427. Issue 1. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.111.012427 J. ACM, Vol. 37, No. 4, Article 111. Publication date: August 2018. Scalable quantum circuit knitting using a weak-coupling approximation 111:13 A Weak coupling in the model This appendix discusses how weak cou...

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.111.012427 2025