Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 8 minor 2 cited by

STABSim: A Parallelized Clifford Simulator with Features Beyond Direct Simulation

T0 review · 5 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims the first GPU-accelerated tableau stabilizer simulator that scales better than CPU simulators on quantum error correction workloads, beating the best single-threaded CPU tools at surface-code distances above 11, and it…

desk verdict Plausible GPU speedups for QEC, but the measurement path is unvalidated and the pseudocode for the deterministic case looks off; needs code and a differential test before the headline claim can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03092 v2 pith:EPN2F6K4 submitted 2025-07-03 quant-ph

Sean Garner , Chenxu Liu , Meng Wang , Samuel Stein , Ang Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords stabilizersimulationGPUparallelcomputingquantumerrorcorrectionsurfacecodeCHPtableauwarp-levelreductionT1/T2noisemodelPauli-basedtranspilation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper presents STABSim, a Clifford stabilizer simulator whose GPU implementation is claimed to be the first to outperform CPU-only simulators on quantum error correction workloads. The central claim is that measurement gates, historically the bottleneck that kept GPU stabilizer simulation slower than single-threaded CPU code, can be sped up enough with GPU warp-level reduction primitives and careful grid synchronization that the simulator scales better than the best CPU tools at surface-code distances above 11. A second claim is that composing the relaxation and dephasing channels into one quasi-probability distribution yields an exactly accurate T1/T2 noise model with constant sampling overhead whenever T1 >= T2, a regime covering most physical qubits. A third claim is that the same tableau machinery gives a Clifford+T to Pauli-based-computing transpiler that reaches the same T-count reductions as existing diagrammatic-reasoning optimizers while running orders of magnitude faster. The paper also gives a chemistry use case where Pauli grouping via fast bitwise commutation checks is used for Hamiltonian measurement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the binary tableau of the CHP formalism: an array of X and Z bits plus phase bits that tracks both stabilizers and destabilizers, stored in flat global memory. The mechanism that carries the argument is a two-stage warp-level reduction for deterministic measurements: each thread computes a polynomial that expands the rowsum operation into one expression, intra-warp reductions combine 32 threads, shared memory and a second reduction combine a block, and a grid-wide atomic sum merges blocks into a global total that fixes the phase of a scratch row after a grid synchronization. Random measurements use a block-and-grid atomic-min search for an anti-commuting stabilizer, then the same threaded phase update. For noise, the key identity is the composition of the relaxation and dephasing channels into a single quasi-probability distribution, whose negativity (the sampling overhead) vanishes in the regime T1 >= T2.

What would settle it

Run a set of circuits with both deterministic and random measurements through the GPU simulator and through a sequential tableau reference, then compare the full tableau bits and measurement-outcome records bit for bit; any mismatch after a deterministic measurement would indicate a synchronization or reduction error. A cheaper check is to apply a known single-qubit error to a surface-code patch and verify that the syndrome read out matches the parity of the error pattern.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that the measurement gate, the operation that previously kept GPU stabilizer simulators slower than sequential CPU code, can be parallelized successfully. The construction encodes the full tableau with destabilizers (the CHP formalism) in global memory with one thread per stabilizer row, trivializes Clifford gates as per-row bit flips, and handles measurement with a two-stage warp-level reduction that computes an outcome and simultaneously updates the tableau; deterministic measurements use a scratch row accumulated by all participating rows, with a global atomic reduction over blocks. Taken together, these choices produce a simulator whose per-qubit cost for QEC circuits is near-constant, crossing the CPU baseline at surface-code distance 11. The paper further claims that composing T1 relaxation and T2 dephasing into one quasi-probability distribution gives an exactly accurate channel with constant sampling overhead whenever T1 >= T2, and that the same tableau machinery lowers the runtime of Clifford+T to Pauli-based-computing transpilation by large factors while matching the T-count reductions of an existing diagrammatic-reasoning optimizer.

Load-bearing premise

The speedup claim rests on the assumption that the GPU's parallel measurement code, the two-stage warp reduction and the grid-wide scratch-row update, reproduces exactly the same phase bits and tableau rows as the sequential rowsum algorithm, since any race condition or misordered grid synchronization would silently corrupt measurements and invalidate the benchmarks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Surface-code simulation with distance beyond 11 becomes faster on GPU than on the fastest CPU simulators, and the per-qubit cost stays almost constant as distance grows.
  • QEC workloads dominated by repeated syndrome measurements, normally the runtime bottleneck, no longer dominate the same way because measurements are parallelized across the tableau.
  • For physical qubits where T1 >= T2, the T1/T2 noise channel can be sampled exactly with a constant number of tableau samples per error location, avoiding the Pauli-twirling approximation error.
  • When T2 > T1, exact sampling still requires fewer tableau samples than prior quasi-probability methods.
  • Clifford+T circuits can be transpiled to Pauli-based computing with the same T-count reduction as existing optimizers but in a fraction of the runtime, easing the scheduling of T-gate factories in fault-tolerant architectures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The gate-parallel mode of the simulator, which had little effect on QEC because measurements dominate, could give large speedups on Clifford-only workloads with few measurements, such as equivalence-checking tasks that previously relied on GPU gate simulation without measurement support.
  • The composite T1/T2 distribution suggests a general recipe: any non-Pauli noise channel whose combined quasi-probability distribution is non-negative could be sampled exactly with constant overhead, widening the class of physically realistic noise models accessible to stabilizer simulation.
  • A formal bit-for-bit cross-check between the GPU measurement reduction and a sequential tableau oracle would be a cheap and valuable addition, because without an independent oracle a race condition in the warp reduction would be nearly impossible to distinguish from a circuit or noise-model bug in the benchmarks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper presents STABSim, a stabilizer-tableau simulator with both a CPU implementation and a CUDA GPU implementation. The GPU design assigns one thread per stabilizer row for Clifford gates and uses warp-level primitives and block/grid reductions for measurement gates. The authors claim four contributions: (1) the first GPU tableau simulator to scale better than CPU simulators in QEC workloads, with a crossover at surface-code distance 11; (2) a T1/T2 noise model that is exact with constant overhead when T1 >= T2, obtained by compositing relaxation and dephasing into a single quasi-probability distribution; (3) a Pauli-grouping module for molecular Hamiltonians; and (4) a Clifford+T to Pauli-based-computing transpiler with T-count reductions matching PyZX at lower runtime. Section 3.1 describes the GPU kernel and Algorithm 2 gives the deterministic-measurement warp reduction; Section 4 reports benchmarks; the appendices provide pseudocode for the transpiler and for CHP rowsum.

Significance. If the algorithmic claims hold, the paper would address a real and important gap: QEC simulation is dominated by mid-circuit measurements, and earlier GPU Clifford simulators either did not beat CPU baselines or omitted measurements entirely. The row-parallel tableau layout and the use of warp primitives to reduce synchronization costs are a credible design direction. Contributions (2) through (4) are also potentially useful: an exact non-Pauli noise model with constant sampling overhead would improve on Pauli twirling, and a faster tableau-based PBC transpiler is practically relevant. The paper makes concrete quantitative predictions—the d>11 crossover, the exact T1/T2 sampling behavior, and the T-count reductions—that are checkable. However, the manuscript ships no code, data, commit hash, or machine-checked proofs, the central GPU measurement kernel is documented only by pseudocode that appears to contain a race condition and a contradictory guard, and the performance plots lack error bars and shot-count specifications. These issues are fixable in revision, but as submitted the central claims are not yet verifiable.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.1.3, Algorithm 2] The deterministic-measurement reduction in Algorithm 2 must be reconciled with the CHP rowsum recurrence before any benchmark can be trusted. For a deterministic Z measurement every stabilizer row has X bit 0 at the measured qubit, so the guard `if anticommutes then` on lines 2–3 excludes exactly the rows that the deterministic branch needs; if the guard is intended to mean `if not anticommutes`, the pseudocode never says so. In addition, lines 12–13 perform a read-modify-write of the same `x_arr[scratch]` and `z_arr[scratch]` from every participating row, which is a race condition unless an ordering is defined; the text in Section 3.1.3 acknowledges that this single-index update is the race-prone part, but the pseudocode does not resolve it. Because Figures 6–8 are downstream of measurement correctness, the paper needs either a corrected race-free pseudocode with a proof that it reproduces sequential CHP rowsum, or a differential test against an independent tableau oracle on randomized circuits, and preferably both.
  2. [§4.1, Figure 6] The headline QEC speedup is not yet defined as a workload. Figure 6 reports wall-clock seconds for a surface-code circuit but does not state the number of shots, the noise model, or whether Stim was run in its default Pauli-frame sampling mode or in full-tableau mode. Stim's QEC advantage is substantially due to frame-based shot sampling, so a single-shot full-tableau time does not by itself establish that STABSim 'scales better than CPU methods in QEC workloads'. The revision should report the exact circuit generation procedure, number of rounds, error model, shot count, GPU and CPU clock/boost settings, and repeated-run statistics, and should compare against both Stim's sampler and Stim's tableau simulator. The platform description is also inconsistent: Figure 1's caption says the CPU is an AMD EPYC 7763, while Section 4 says CPU evaluations were performed on an AMD EPYC 7502.
  3. [§4.2, Figure 8] The exact-T1/T2 noise claim is asserted rather than demonstrated. The text states that the composite probability distribution is 'entirely positive' when T1 >= T2 and that the number of shots required scales as ∝ Γ^2, but no derivation of the composite quasi-probability is given, the conditions for positivity are not proved, and the figure is not compared against exact density-matrix simulation. Since the claim is that the method is exact with constant overhead, the authors should provide the explicit composite probability distribution or an equation-level derivation from the channel definitions, a proof of positivity for T1 >= T2, and a numerical comparison with a density-matrix solver for the same T1/T2 values.
  4. [§3.3.3, Algorithm 5] The T-optimization pseudocode is not self-contained. In the inner loop, `rowsum(T,S)` is invoked without defining the tableau `T`; the prose says a copy of the repeated stabilizer is appended to the next P tableau, while the pseudocode removes `S` from `P_{i+1}` and appends it to `P_{i+2}` inside the anti-commutation loop; and the convergence criterion only compares total row counts, which does not by itself certify that the extracted quarter rotations are correct. Please align the pseudocode with the prose, define all variables, and provide a correctness argument for the `rowsum+i` rule, ideally by checking the optimized circuits against an independent T-count and Clifford-equivalence tool.
  5. [Reproducibility] The paper provides no artifact, repository URL, commit hash, or raw benchmark data. For a performance-focused paper with several quantitative claims, this prevents independent verification of every figure in Section 4. The revision should include a reproducibility appendix with the source code, experiment scripts, benchmark data, and software versions for all baselines.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§1] The abstract and Section 1 repeat 'first GPU-accelerated tableau stabilizer simulator' almost verbatim; after the first use, the later phrasing should be softened or cross-referenced.
  2. [§1] 'large sale QEC' should be 'large-scale QEC'.
  3. [§2.7] The sentence 'To achieve these effects in stabilizer simulation,' is a fragment followed immediately by a new paragraph; it should be completed or removed.
  4. [§3.1.4] The function name `sim2d(cirucit, chunk_size)` contains a typo (`cirucit`), and the gate scheduler is described but not benchmarked, so its inclusion in the contribution list should be qualified.
  5. [Figure 8 caption] The caption and axis labels are difficult to parse: the left and right panels use different dimensionless ratios without clearly defining τ, and the text 'T2 2T1 Bound' is not explained. Please define every symbol in the caption.
  6. [Table 2] The table uses both 'GWC' and 'GC' for group-wise commutation; unify the terminology and state whether 'GWC' is the same as the 'GC' defined in Section 2.9.
  7. [Table 3] The column header 'Python Time' actually lists a speedup ratio relative to a Python reference, not a time; rename the column and state which reference implementation and version were used.
  8. [§3.3.1] The prose says 'Detailed tableau construction psuedocode is provided in Appendix 3'; this should read 'Appendix A.1' and the spelling 'psuedocode' should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; the central claims are benchmarked against external tools and the only self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's main performance claim is validated against external simulators (Stim, Qiskit, PyZX) on standard QEC and benchmark circuits, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The GPU measurement path in Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 and Algorithm 2 is an implementation-equivalence claim: it asserts that a parallel warp reduction reproduces the sequential CHP rowsum phase updates, which is a strong correctness claim with a genuine race-condition risk, but it is not circular because the target output is defined by the external CHP formalism [2], not by the parallel algorithm itself. The T1/T2 noise model is traced to the external quasi-probability decomposition of Bennink et al. [6], and the claimed positivity for T1 >= T2 is a mathematical property of that decomposition, not a fit to the paper's own output. The Clifford+T to PBC transpiler applies the published transformation rules of Litinski [38] and is compared against PyZX, with both converging to the same T-counts. The only self-citation, reference [50], appears in the Conclusion as an example of applications of large stabilizer simulation and is not used as evidence for any load-bearing premise. Therefore there is no substantive or partial circularity; the score reflects only one minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters or invented entities are introduced. The claims rest on standard stabilizer and CHP formalism, on an unverified equivalence between the parallel CUDA reductions and sequential rowsum, and on an unproven positivity property of the composite T1/T2 quasi-distribution. These are the entries that should be checked before the noise and performance claims are accepted.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math The CHP stabilizer tableau formalism and Gottesman-Knill theorem correctly simulate Clifford gates, Pauli measurements, and resets in polynomial time.
    Used as the computational foundation throughout Sections 2.2 through 2.4; the GPU implementation is built on this model.
  • domain assumption The CUDA execution model, including __shfl_down_sync, atomicMin, atomicAdd, and grid.sync, reproduces sequential CHP rowsum exactly with no race conditions.
    Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 and Algorithm 2 assume that parallel reductions and scratch-row updates yield identical phase bits to the sequential algorithm; no formal proof or oracle test is provided.
  • domain assumption The composite T1/T2 quasi-probability distribution is entirely positive when T1 >= T2, so it can be sampled with constant overhead and exact statistics.
    Section 4.2 and Figure 8 assert this property; the text defers the decomposition to Bennink et al. but does not derive the positivity bound or demonstrate exactness against density-matrix simulation.
  • standard math Litinski's rules for commuting Clifford gates through Pauli rotations and absorbing them into measurements (Equation 2) are valid and complete for the transpiler.
    Section 2.8 and Section 3.3 rely on these commutation rules from Litinski; they are treated as proven background.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of STABSim: A Parallelized Clifford Simulator with Features Beyond Direct Simulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EPN2F6K4

@misc{pith2026250703092,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: STABSim: A Parallelized Clifford Simulator with Features Beyond Direct Simulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EPN2F6K4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03092}
}
read the original abstract

The quantum stabilizer formalism became foundational for understanding error correction soon after the realization of the first useful quantum error correction codes. Stabilizers provide a way to describe sets of quantum states which are valid codewords within a quantum error correction (QEC) scheme. Existing stabilizer simulators are single threaded applications used to sample larger codes than is possible with other methods. However, there is an outstanding gap in the scaling and accuracy of current simulators for QEC as quantum computing exceeds hundreds of qubits, along with an under-utilization of the capabilities of highly-efficient stabilizer simulation across other quantum domains. In this work, we present the first GPU-accelerated tableau stabilizer simulator to scale better than CPU methods in QEC workloads, by trivializing Clifford gates and exploiting the large parallelism of dedicated GPUs with CUDA warp-level primitives to quickly overcome costly measurement gates. We then implement a new error model that captures non-unitarity in T1/T2 error channels much faster and with exact accuracy for most physical qubits, demonstrate a chemistry use case, and present a new Clifford+T to Pauli-Based Computing (PBC) transpilation optimization through our simulator.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03092 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simulation time of surface codes with distances [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Race condition-safe processing of a Clifford circuit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Planar surface code. One thoroughly explored QEC code is the planar surface code. Planar surface code is a topological QEC code realized on a two￾dimensional grid of physical qubits with open boundary conditions, enabling local stabilizer measurements and scalable fault tolerance. The qubit layout in a distance 5 surface code patch is shown in Fig. 3a, where the data qubits (blue) are the qubits encoding the quantum… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: T-Separation. The T-Gate tableau is separated into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Full tableau simulation time of the planar surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Full tableau simulation of a randomly generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Samples to acheive equal precision, 𝑛 = qubits. Left: Selected 𝜏 show how sampling overhead is proportional to the negativity N which is a function of the ratio of 𝜏, the error duration, to T1, the relaxation time. The composite probability distribution P is positive w…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Lower is faster. Transpilation 𝑙𝑜𝑔10 time for STAB￾Sim using the design discussed in Section 3.3 vs PyZX op￾timizing on ZX-calculus [54]. Both converge on the same T-counts. Most of the substantial time gain found with STABSim is an im￾provement in the optimization ste…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. SymFT: Universal Fault-Tolerant Quantum Circuit Simulation via Symbolic Clifford--Pauli Frames and Stabilizer Coordinates

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    SymFT reaches state-of-the-art exact sampling of Clifford-dominated FT circuits by combining symbolic Clifford–Pauli frames with planned dense stabilizer-coordinate updates.

  2. Efficient simulation of logical magic state preparation protocols

    quant-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A classical simulation method that propagates circuit-level Pauli noise to a Clifford error makes logical magic-state preparation protocols simulable in time polynomial in qubits and the target state's stabilizer rank.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    tqec/tqec

    2025. tqec/tqec. https://github.com/tqec/tqec original-date: 2023-10- 19T16:33:34Z

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Scott Aaronson and Daniel Gottesman. 2004. Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits. Phys. Rev. A 70 (Nov 2004), 052328. Issue 5. https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevA.70.052328

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

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

    Rajeev Acharya, Dmitry A. Abanin, Laleh Aghababaie-Beni, 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, Johannes Bausch, Andreas Bengtsson, Alexander Bilmes, Sam Black- well, Sergio Boixo, Gina Bortoli, Alexandre Bourass...

    2025

  4. [4]

    Andersen, Markus Ans- mann, Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Abraham Asfaw, Juan Atalaya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C

    Rajeev Acharya, Igor Aleiner, Richard Allen, Trond I. Andersen, Markus Ans- mann, Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Abraham Asfaw, Juan Atalaya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C. Bardin, Joao Basso, Andreas Bengtsson, Sergio Boixo, Gina Bortoli, Alexandre Bourassa, Jenna Bovaird, Leon Brill, Michael Broughton, Bob B. Buckley, David A. Buell, Tim Burger, Brian Bu...

    2023

  5. [5]

    Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando G

    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 Court- ney, Andrew Dunsworth, Edward Farhi, Brooks Foxen, Austin Fowler, Craig Gid- ney, Marissa Giustina, Rob Graff, Keith Guerin...

    2019

  6. [6]

    Bennink, Erik M

    Ryan S. Bennink, Erik M. Ferragut, Travis S. Humble, Jason A. Laska, James J. Nutaro, Mark G. Pleszkoch, and Raphael C. Pooser. 2017. Unbiased Simulation of Near-Clifford Quantum Circuits. Physical Review A 95, 6 (June 2017), 062337. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.95.062337 arXiv:1703.00111 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Evered, Alexandra A

    Dolev Bluvstein, Simon J. Evered, Alexandra A. Geim, Sophie H. Li, Hengyun Zhou, Tom Manovitz, Sepehr Ebadi, Madelyn Cain, Marcin Kalinowski, Dominik Hangleiter, J. Pablo Bonilla Ataides, Nishad Maskara, Iris Cong, Xun Gao, Pedro Sales Rodriguez, Thomas Karolyshyn, Giulia Semeghini, Michael J. Gullans, Markus Greiner, Vladan Vuletić, and Mikhail D. Lukin....

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06927- 2024

  8. [8]

    Cross, Jay M

    Sergey Bravyi, Andrew W. Cross, Jay M. Gambetta, Dmitri Maslov, Patrick Rall, and Theodore J. Yoder. 2024. High-threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory. Nature 627, 8005 (2024), 778–782. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41586-024-07107-7

    work page 2024

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Cross, Jay M

    Sergey Bravyi, Andrew W. Cross, Jay M. Gambetta, Dmitri Maslov, Patrick Rall, and Theodore J. Yoder. 2024. High-threshold and low-overhead fault- tolerant quantum memory. Nature 627, 8005 (March 2024), 778–782. https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07107-7 Publisher: Nature Publ...

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Sergey Bravyi and David Gosset. 2016. Improved Classical Simulation of Quan- tum Circuits Dominated by Clifford Gates. Physical Review Letters 116, 25 (June 2016), 250501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.250501 Publisher: Amer- ican Physical Society

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    Sergey Bravyi, Graeme Smith, and John A. Smolin. 2016. Trading Classical and Quantum Computational Resources. Phys. Rev. X 6 (Jun 2016), 021043. Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.6.021043

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C

    M. Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C. Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jarrod R. McClean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J. Coles. 2021. Variational quantum algorithms. Nature Reviews Physics 3, 9 (2021), 625–644. https://doi.org/10.10...

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    Kuan-Cheng Chen, Tai-Yue Li, Yun-Yuan Wang, Simon See, Chun-Chieh Wang, Robert Wille, Nan-Yow Chen, An-Cheng Yang, and Chun-Yu Lin. 2025. Validat- ing Large-Scale Quantum Machine Learning: Efficient Simulation of Quantum Support Vector Machines Using Tensor Networks. https://d...

    2025 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    Ophelia Crawford, Barnaby van Straaten, Daochen Wang, Thomas Parks, Earl Campbell, and Stephen Brierley. 2021. Efficient quantum measurement of Pauli operators in the presence of finite sampling error. https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.1908.06942 arXiv:1908.06942

    2021 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Andrew Cross, Zhiyang He, Patrick Rall, and Theodore Yoder. 2024. Improved QLDPC Surgery: Logical Measurements and Bridging Codes. arXiv:2407.18393 [quant-ph] https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.18393

    2024

  8. [16]

    Eric Dennis, Alexei Kitaev, Andrew Landahl, and John Preskill. 2002. Topological quantum memory. J. Math. Phys. 43, 9 (09 2002), 4452–4505. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1499754 arXiv:https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/43/9/4452/19183135/4452_1_online.pdf

    2002 doi

  9. [17]

    Cirq Developers. 2021. Cirq: A Python Framework for Creating, Editing, and Invoking Noisy Intermediate Scale Quantum (NISQ) Circuits. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.08571 (2021). https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.08571

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. 2014. A quantum approxi- mate optimization algorithm. (2014). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1411.4028 arXiv:arXiv:1411.4028 [quant-ph]

    2014 doi arXiv

  11. [20]

    Fowler, Matteo Mariantoni, John M

    Austin G. Fowler, Matteo Mariantoni, John M. Martinis, and Andrew N. Cleland

  12. [21]

    Fowler, Adam C

    Austin G. Fowler, Adam C. Whiteside, and Lloyd C. L. Hollenberg. 2012. Towards Practical Classical Processing for the Surface Code. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (May 2012), 180501. Issue 18. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.180501

    2012 doi

  13. [22]

    Phys- ical Review A 86, 3 (Sept

    Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation. Phys- ical Review A 86, 3 (Sept. 2012), 032324. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.86. 032324

    2012 doi

  14. [23]

    Dongxin Gao, Daojin Fan, Chen Zha, Jiahao Bei, Guoqing Cai, Jianbin Cai, Sirui Cao, Fusheng Chen, Jiang Chen, Kefu Chen, Xiawei Chen, Xiqing Chen, Zhe Chen, Zhiyuan Chen, Zihua Chen, Wenhao Chu, Hui Deng, Zhibin Deng, Pei Ding, Xun Ding, Zhuzhengqi Ding, Shuai Dong, Yupeng Don...

    2025

  15. [24]

    Fowler, Adam C

    Austin G. Fowler, Adam C. Whiteside, and Lloyd C. L. Hollenberg. 2012. Towards practical classical processing for the surface code: Timing analysis. Phys. Rev. A 86 (Oct 2012), 042313. Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.86.042313

    2012 doi

  16. [25]

    Craig Gidney. 2021. Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator. https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2103.02202 arXiv:2103.02202

    2021 doi arXiv

  17. [26]

    Iulia M Georgescu, Sahel Ashhab, and Franco Nori. 2014. Quantum simulation. Reviews of Modern Physics 86, 1 (2014), 153

    2014

  18. [27]

    Nicolas Gisin, Grégoire Ribordy, Wolfgang Tittel, and Hugo Zbinden. 2002. Quan- tum cryptography. Reviews of modern physics 74, 1 (2002), 145

    2002

  19. [28]

    Craig Gidney and Martin Ekerå. 2021. How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits. Quantum 5 (April 2021), 433. https: //doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-04-15-433

    doi

  20. [29]

    Daniel Gottesman. 1998. The Heisenberg Representation of Quantum Computers. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/9807006 arXiv:quant-ph/9807006

    1998 doi arXiv

  21. [30]

    Hayato Goto. 2024. High-performance fault-tolerant quantum computing with many-hypercube codes. Science Advances 10, 36 (2024), eadp6388. https://doi. org/10.1126/sciadv.adp6388

    2024 doi

  22. [31]

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

    2025

  23. [32]

    Kuk-Hyun Han and Jong-Hwan Kim. 2002. Quantum-inspired evolutionary algo- rithm for a class of combinatorial optimization. IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation 6, 6 (2002), 580–593

    2002

  24. [33]

    Amara Katabarwa and Michael R. Geller. 2015. Logical error rate in the Pauli twirling approximation. Scientific Reports 5, 1 (Sept. 2015), 14670. https://doi. org/10.1038/srep14670

    2015 doi

  25. [34]

    Amara Katabarwa, Katerina Gratsea, Athena Caesura, and Peter D. Johnson

  26. [35]

    Abhinav Kandala, Antonio Mezzacapo, Kristan Temme, Maika Takita, Markus Brink, Jerry M Chow, and Jay M Gambetta. 2017. Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets. Nature 549, 7671 (2017), 242–246

    2017

  27. [36]

    Knill, D

    E. Knill, D. Leibfried, R. Reichle, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, S. Seidelin, and D. J. Wineland. 2007. Randomized Benchmarking of Quantum Gates. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.77.012307

    2007 doi

  28. [37]

    Norris, Christian Kraglund Andersen, Markus Müller, Alexandre Blais, Christopher Eichler, and Andreas Wallraff

    Sebastian Krinner, Nathan Lacroix, Ants Remm, Agustin Di Paolo, Elie Genois, Catherine Leroux, Christoph Hellings, Stefania Lazar, Francois Swiadek, Johannes Herrmann, Graham J. Norris, Christian Kraglund Andersen, Markus Müller, Alexandre Blais, Christopher Eichler, and Andre...

    2022 doi

  29. [38]

    Daniel Litinski. 2019. A Game of Surface Codes: Large-Scale Quantum Computing with Lattice Surgery. Quantum 3 (March 2019), 128. https://doi.org/10.22331/q- 2019-03-05-128 arXiv:1808.02892 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Aleks Kissinger and John van de Wetering. 2020. Reducing T-count with the ZX-calculus. Physical Review A 102, 2 (Aug. 2020), 022406. https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevA.102.022406 arXiv:1903.10477 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [40]

    NVIDIA Corporation & Affiliates. [n. d.]. CUDA-QX. https://github.com/ NVIDIA/cudaqx If you use CUDA-QX in your work, please also cite CUDA-Q (https://github.com/NVIDIA/cuda-quantum)

  32. [41]

    Muhammad Osama, Dimitrios Thanos, and Alfons Laarman. 2025. Parallel Equivalence Checking of Stabilizer Quantum Circuits on GPUs. In Tools and 12 STABSim: A Parallelized Clifford Simulator with Features Beyond Direct Simulation Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of S...

    2025 doi

  33. [42]

    Filipa C. R. Peres and Ernesto F. Galvão. 2023. Quantum circuit compilation and hybrid computation using Pauli-based computation. Quantum 7 (Oct. 2023),

    2023

  34. [43]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. 2010. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition . Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976667

    2010 doi

  35. [44]

    John Preskill. 2018. Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum 2 (Aug. 2018), 79. https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79

    2018 doi

  36. [45]

    John Preskill. 2025. Beyond NISQ: The Megaquop Machine. ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing (March 2025). https://doi.org/10.1145/3723153 Just Accepted

    2025 doi

  37. [46]

    Qiskit Development Team. 2021. Qiskit: An Open-source Framework for Quan- tum Computing. Zenodo (2021). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2562111

    2021 doi

  38. [47]

    Ryan-Anderson, J

    C. Ryan-Anderson, J. G. Bohnet, K. Lee, D. Gresh, A. Hankin, J. P. Gaebler, D. Francois, A. Chernoguzov, D. Lucchetti, N. C. Brown, T. M. Gatterman, S. K. Halit, K. Gilmore, J. A. Gerber, B. Neyenhuis, D. Hayes, and R. P. Stutz. 2021. Realization of Real-Time Fault-Tolerant Qu...

    2021 doi

  39. [48]

    Love, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L

    Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man-Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Peter J. Love, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L. O’Brien. 2014. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nature Communications 5, 1 (2014), 4213. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5213

    2014 doi

  40. [49]

    Peter W Shor. 1999. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM review 41, 2 (1999), 303–332

    1999

  41. [50]

    Cross, Theodore J

    Samuel Stein, Shifan Xu, Andrew W. Cross, Theodore J. Yoder, Ali Javadi-Abhari, Chenxu Liu, Kun Liu, Zeyuan Zhou, Charles Guinn, Yufei Ding, Yongshan Ding, and Ang Li. 2024. Architectures for Heterogeneous Quantum Error Correction Codes. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.032...

    2024 doi arXiv

  42. [51]

    Booth, and Jonathan Tennyson

    Jules Tilly, Hongxiang Chen, Shuxiang Cao, Dario Picozzi, Kanav Setia, Ying Li, Edward Grant, Leonard Wossnig, Ivan Rungger, George H. Booth, and Jonathan Tennyson. 2022. The Variational Quantum Eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices. Physics Reports 986 (Nov. 202...

    2022 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Yu Tomita and Krysta M. Svore. 2014. Low-distance surface codes under realistic quantum noise. Physical Review A 90, 6 (Dec. 2014), 062320. https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevA.90.062320

    2014

  44. [53]

    Giuseppe Scriva, Nikita Astrakhantsev, Sebastiano Pilati, and Guglielmo Mazzola

  45. [54]

    Physical Review A 109, 3 (March 2024), 032408

    Challenges of variational quantum optimization with measurement shot noise. Physical Review A 109, 3 (March 2024), 032408. https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevA.109.032408 arXiv:2308.00044 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Yulin Wu, Wan-Su Bao, Sirui Cao, Fusheng Chen, Ming-Cheng Chen, Xiawei Chen, Tung-Hsun Chung, Hui Deng, Yajie Du, Daojin Fan, Ming Gong, Cheng Guo, Chu Guo, Shaojun Guo, Lianchen Han, Linyin Hong, He-Liang Huang, Yong-Heng Huo, Liping Li, Na Li, Shaowei Li, Yuan Li, Futian Lia...

    2021

  47. [56]

    Izmaylov

    Tzu-Ching Yen, Aadithya Ganeshram, and Artur F. Izmaylov. 2023. Deterministic improvements of quantum measurements with grouping of compatible operators, non-local transformations, and covariance estimates. npj Quantum Information 9, 1 (2023), 14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s4153...

    2023 doi

  48. [59]

    Izmaylov

    Vladyslav Verteletskyi, Tzu-Ching Yen, and Artur F. Izmaylov. 2020. Measure- ment Optimization in the Variational Quantum Eigensolver Using a Minimum Clique Cover. The Journal of Chemical Physics 152, 12 (March 2020), 124114. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5141458 arXiv:1907.03358 ...

    2020 arXiv

  49. [60]

    John van de Wetering. 2020. ZX-calculus for the working quantum computer scientist. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2012.13966 arXiv:2012.13966 [quant- ph]

    2020 doi arXiv

  50. [1126]

    https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-10-03-1126 arXiv:2203.01789 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  51. [1600]

    https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2025-01-20-1600

    2025 doi

  52. [2012]

    Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation. Phys. Rev. A 86 (Sep 2012), 032324. Issue 3. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.86.032324

    2012 doi

  53. [2024]

    PRX Quantum 5 (Jun 2024), 020101

    Early Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing. PRX Quantum 5 (Jun 2024), 020101. Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.020101

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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