Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Hardware-tailored logical Clifford circuits for stabilizer codes

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Logical Clifford gates for any stabilizer code can be compiled into hardware-tailored circuits by solving a single discrete optimization problem, using a complete characterization of gauge freedom.

desk verdict A solid, honest framework for compiling logical Clifford circuits via a full gauge characterization and an IQCP reduction; the only real weakness is solver scalability, which the authors openly document. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20261 v1 pith:NAACAYKC submitted 2025-05-26 quant-ph

Eric J. Kuehnke , Kyano Levi , Joschka Roffe , Jens Eisert , Daniel Miller This is my paper
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Pp03.67.Lx
keywords logicalCliffordgatesstabilizercodesgaugefreedomintegerquadraticallyconstrainedprogramhardware-tailoredcircuitsfault-tolerantquantumcomputationHadamardgatecolorcode
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper sets out to turn the construction of logical Clifford gates for stabilizer codes into a single, code-agnostic optimization problem. The authors prove that every physical Clifford circuit implementing a desired logical gate is represented, up to a uniquely determined 'freedom matrix' in a group they fully characterize, by the matrix equation $A_l E' = E'F'_C$, and they formulate the search for such a circuit as an integer quadratically constrained program (IQCP) that can enforce arbitrary hardware connectivity. They demonstrate the method by compiling all 720 logical Clifford gates of the $[[4,2,2]]$ iceberg code, a nine-CZ controlled-$X$ gate for the $[[12,2,3]]$ twisted toric code, and a teleportation-free fault-tolerant logical Hadamard for the $[[8,3,2]]$ color code that uses one auxiliary qubit and 13 CZ gates. If the approach scales, it would give experimentalists a practical compiler that adapts logical circuits to the actual connectivity of their device rather than to a code's special symmetries.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the freedom matrix $F$, a symplectic matrix of the block form in Eq. (12) that encodes every way a logical Clifford operator may act on states outside the code space while leaving the code space action fixed; the set of such matrices forms the freedom gauge group $\mathcal{F}$, whose order Eq. (13) counts exponentially many gauges. It is paired with an ansatz circuit $U_{A_l}=B_{l+1}G_lB_l\cdots G_1B_1$ built from alternating single-qubit Clifford layers $B_i$ and controlled-$\mathrm{Z}$ layers $G_i$ whose adjacency matrices are constrained by the hardware graph. The paper's reduction is to identify implementations with the equality $A_l E' = E'F'_C$, so finding a circuit becomes a binary optimization problem (an IQCP) over the entries of the layers and the reduced freedom matrix.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to try the IQCP on a stabilizer code and logical Clifford gate for which the paper's completeness argument guarantees a solution, and observe whether the solver ever fails to find a feasible circuit of the ansatz form for any length l; finding such a case—or showing that the minimal achievable CZ count for a target gate exceeds the known lower bound—would refute the framework's central completeness claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is Theorem 2: for an $[[n,k,d]]$ stabilizer code with Clifford encoding $E$ and a $k$-qubit Clifford gate $U_C$, every $n$-qubit Clifford gate that realizes $U_C$ on the code space is represented in the symplectic picture as $E C' F E^{-1}$, where $C'$ is the symplectic matrix of $U_C \otimes I$ and $F$ ranges over a group of 'freedom matrices' whose order is explicitly computed. This group parameterizes all choices of action outside the code space—the gauge freedom that previous methods could only exhaust by enumeration. Corollary 3 removes the unused columns and turns the matching condition into a much smaller polynomial system $A_l E' = E'F'_C$, and the compilation task becomes the IQCP in Eq. (19): minimize the two-qubit gate count of an alternating ansatz circuit subject to the equation and to the hardware connectivity graph. The authors verify the framework by compiling all 720 logical Clifford gates of the $[[4,2,2]]$ iceberg code under three connectivities, a nine-CZ logical controlled-$X$ gate for the $[[12,2,3]]$ twisted toric code, and fault-tolerant logical Hadamard gates for the $[[8,3,2]]$ color code that are teleportation-free and need only one auxiliary qubit.

Load-bearing premise

The practical value of the framework depends on the IQCP in Eq. (19) being solvable to feasibility or optimality for the chosen ansatz length in acceptable time; the problem is NP-hard in the worst case, and the paper's own runtime table lists roughly 20 hours for a three-qubit logical Hadamard and about three days for the [[12,2,3]] controlled-X gate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same IQCP formulation applies to any stabilizer code and any logical Clifford gate, so a compiler built on this framework can retarget a logical circuit to a different device simply by changing the connectivity constraint $\Gamma \le \Gamma_{\mathrm{con}}$.
  • Because the optimization runs over all freedom matrices simultaneously, the solver implicitly tries every gauge of the logical gate rather than fixing one gauge, which explains the lower CZ counts than a generator-by-generator baseline.
  • Compiling a whole logical circuit in one step—rather than compiling each gate separately—saves resources; the joint $H^{\otimes 3}$ Hadamard for the $[[8,3,2]]$ code costs 19 CZ gates instead of 63 for the sequential teleportation-based protocol.
  • For distance-2 codes, the flag-gadget construction of Lemma 4 turns any compiled circuit into a fault-tolerant one, and circuit-level simulations confirm the expected quadratic suppression of the logical error rate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: the cost function in Eq. (19) is pluggable, so the same gauge-freedom parameterization should also produce circuits optimized for other objectives, such as weighted noise strength, gate fidelities, or execution time, not just CZ count.
  • Extension: the completeness guarantee of Lemma 1 assumes a connected hardware graph; on sparse or disconnected graphs the ansatz length needed to route qubits may grow sharply, so a useful benchmark would be to measure how the minimum feasible $l$ scales with graph diameter.
  • Extension: the same matrix-equation reduction likely applies to fault-tolerant state preparation and code-switching circuits, which the authors list as future work, because those tasks have the same 'match a hardware-respecting ansatz to a target logical operation' structure.
  • Extension: the reported runtimes of hours to days for a single gate mean the practical bottleneck is the IQCP solver, not the mathematical characterization; specialized solvers or ansatz pruning could make the method viable at larger code sizes.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a framework for compiling logical Clifford circuits for stabilizer codes under arbitrary hardware connectivity constraints. The authors characterize all Clifford implementations of a given logical Clifford gate by a freedom gauge group F (Theorem 2), reduce the matching problem to the simplified linear equation AlE' = E'F'_C (Corollary 3), and formulate circuit compilation as an integer quadratically constrained program (IQCP, Eq. (19)). They demonstrate the approach on the [[4,2,2]] iceberg code, the [[12,2,3]] twisted toric code, the [[8,3,2]] color code, and a [[16,6,2]] code, including flag-gadget fault-tolerant Hadamard gates for the color code verified by circuit-level stim simulations.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a useful and genuinely new angle on logical Clifford compilation: instead of decomposing generators, it optimizes over the full set of Clifford gauges and hardware-tailored ansatz circuits at once. The mathematical core is largely sound: Theorem 2 and Corollary 3 are proved in detail in the appendices, and the gauge count for the [[4,2,2]] code is independently confirmed by the explicit 12,288 value used in Sec. V A. The paper also ships an open-source package and supports its fault-tolerance claims by exhaustive fault enumeration with stim, which is a strength. The main limitation is practical scalability of the IQCP solver, but this is transparently acknowledged in Sec. III C and quantified in Appendix C.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. III B, Eq. (13)] The displayed formula for |F| in Eq. (13) is inconsistent with the proof in Appendix B and with the explicit value used later in Sec. V A. For the [[4,2,2]] code (n=4, k=2), the expression as printed evaluates to 2^{14}/(2^3(3\cdot 2)) = 341.33, which is not an integer, whereas Sec. V A states that each gate has 12,288 gauges and Eq. (B18) gives 2^{8}\cdot 2^{3}\cdot(3\cdot 2)=12,288. This formula is the quantitative content of Theorem 2, so the displayed expression must be corrected; the factorization in Eq. (B18) appears to be the intended one.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III C / Abstract] The paper should explicitly qualify the claim that the framework compiles 'any desired' logical Clifford circuit. Lemma 1 guarantees that some ansatz length l exists, but it gives no usable upper bound, and Eq. (19) can be infeasible for a fixed user-chosen l. While the paper already notes NP-hardness and reports honest runtimes in Appendix C, a one-sentence clarification in Sec. III C would prevent the abstract from overstating the practical guarantee.
  2. [Theorem 2 statement, Sec. III B] There is a typo in the theorem statement: 'precicely' should be 'precisely'.
  3. [Appendix B, Eq. (B18)] The factorization of Eq. (13) into Eq. (B18) is very helpful, but the main-text formula should match it exactly; otherwise readers who skip the appendix will obtain the wrong gauge count.
  4. [Sec. V A / Fig. 1] The comparison with the Qiskit baseline would be clearer if the paper stated explicitly that Qiskit is used only for the fixed-gauge baseline and not for a search over the 12,288 gauges; this is mentioned in the text, but a short remark in the figure caption would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 2 and Corollary 3 are proved from the stabilizer formalism, and the IQCP reduction is a genuine constraint-satisfaction problem rather than a fit renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 2 is proved in Appendix B from Lemmas 5-7, which are themselves proved in Appendix A from standard stabilizer and Schur-lemma arguments, and the cardinality formula in Eq. (13) is obtained by a direct finite-field counting argument. Corollary 3 reduces Eq. (15) to the smaller system Eq. (18), and the converse direction is justified by Lemmas 6 and 7 together with the already-proved converse part of Theorem 2; no equation is assumed equal to itself by construction. The IQCP in Eq. (19) encodes a genuine search problem: the target logical action is fixed by C, and the optimizer chooses ansatz variables and gauge variables to satisfy AlE' = E'F'_C, with the resulting circuits verified independently by stim fault-injection and circuit-level noise simulation. No fitted parameter is later relabeled as a prediction, and no empirical benchmark is needed to validate the mathematical equivalence. The self-citations, notably Refs. [35] and [49], supply prior methods and context, but the expressivity of the ansatz is proved in Lemma 1 within the paper, so these citations are not load-bearing. The practical limitations identified in Sec. IV ('Carrying out this second step in full generality requires significant further work and is therefore beyond the scope of the current paper') and in Appendix C's runtime table are scalability concerns, not circularity. Overall, the paper's mathematical claims are derived from first principles and externally verified where they make contact with simulation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No empirical parameters are fitted to data; the only hand-chosen quantity is the ansatz length l, which is a search-space hyperparameter rather than a scientific constant. The framework relies on standard stabilizer and symplectic mathematics, plus the practical assumptions of a connected hardware graph and an available IQCP solver. No new physical entities, such as particles or forces, are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Ansatz length l = 3 (most circuits), 1 (S gate), 2 (some CX variants)
    Chosen by hand per use case; larger l increases the solution space and runtime. It is a search hyperparameter, not derived from theory, and the reported circuits depend on it.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Symplectic representation of the Clifford group
    Used throughout Secs. II-III; the map U -> A in Sp(F_2^{2n}) is a standard group homomorphism (Eq. 6).
  • domain assumption Stabilizer codes admit Clifford encoding operations
    Sec. II restricts to Clifford encoding operations, which is a known result but assumed rather than proved in this paper.
  • domain assumption Hardware connectivity graph is connected
    Lemma 1 requires a single connected component to guarantee expressivity of the ansatz class for all Clifford gates.
  • standard math Schur's lemma and irreducibility of the logical Pauli representation
    Used in Lemma 7 (App. A) to show that matching logical Pauli transformations implies the same logical action.
  • domain assumption Exhaustive fault enumeration in stim covers all single-fault mechanisms
    The FT verification in Fig. 4 and App. D assumes the noise model of Ref. [87] and that stim enumerates all relevant Pauli faults under that model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hardware-tailored logical Clifford circuits for stabilizer codes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NAACAYKC

@misc{pith2026250520261,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hardware-tailored logical Clifford circuits for stabilizer codes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NAACAYKC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20261}
}
abstract

Quantum error correction is the art of protecting fragile quantum information through suitable encoding and active interventions. After encoding $k$ logical qubits into $n>k$ physical qubits using a stabilizer code, this amounts to measuring stabilizers, decoding syndromes, and applying an appropriate correction. Although quantum information can be protected in this way, it is notoriously difficult to manipulate encoded quantum data without introducing uncorrectable errors. Here, we introduce a mathematical framework for constructing hardware-tailored quantum circuits that implement any desired Clifford unitary on the logical level of any given stabilizer code. Our main contribution is the formulation of this task as a discrete optimization problem. We can explicitly integrate arbitrary hardware connectivity constraints. As a key feature, our framework naturally incorporates an optimization over all Clifford gauges (differing only in their action outside the code space) of a desired logical circuit. In this way, we find, for example, fault-tolerant and teleportation-free logical Hadamard circuits for the $[[8,3,2]]$ code. From a broader perspective, we turn away from the standard generator decomposition approach and instead focus on the holistic compilation of entire logical circuits, leading to significant savings in practice. Our work introduces both the necessary mathematics and open-source software to compile hardware-tailored logical Clifford circuits for stabilizer codes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20261 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: A hardware-tailored circuit implementation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Hardware-tailored circuit implementation of FT logical (a-c) Hadamard and (d) phase gates for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: is that the error rates are slightly larger for the proto￾col mapping [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Enlarging the GKP stabilizer group for enhanced noise protection

    quant-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The authors derive generators of the Gaussian stabilizer group of GKP codes and present a compiler that uses these symmetries to extend the lifetime of square-GKP qubits under bosonic loss, as shown by logical randomi...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052

    D. Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052

    arXiv 1997

  2. [2]

    Calderbank, E

    A. Calderbank, E. Rains, P. Shor, and N. Sloane, IEEE Trans. Inf. Th. 44, 1369 (1998)

    1998

  3. [3]

    Google Quantum AI, Nature 614, 676 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    Google Quantum AI and collaborators, Nature 638, 920 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    L. Egan, D. M. Debroy, C. Noel, A. Risinger, D. Zhu, D. Biswas, M. Newman, M. Li, K. R. Brown, M. Cetina, and C. Monroe, Nature 598, 281 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    Erhard, H

    A. Erhard, H. P. Nautrup, M. Meth, et al. , Nature 589, 220 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    Postler, S

    L. Postler, S. Heußen, I. Pogorelov,et al., Nature605, 675 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, et al. , Nature 626, 58 (2024)

    2024

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Wang, S. Simsek, T. M. Gatterman, J. A. Gerber, K. Gilmore, D. Gresh, N. Hewitt, C. V. Horst, M. Matheny, T. Mengle, B. Neyenhuis, and B. Criger, Science Adv.10, eado9024 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Honciuc Menendez, A

    D. Honciuc Menendez, A. Ray, and M. Vasmer, Phys. Rev. A 109, 062438 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Lacroix, A

    N. Lacroix, A. Bourassa, F. J. H. Heras,et al., Scaling and logic in the color code on a superconducting quantum processor (2024), arXiv:2412.14256

    2024

  4. [12]

    Burton, E

    S. Burton, E. Durso-Sabina, and N. C. Brown, Genons, double covers and fault-tolerant Clifford gates (2024), arXiv:2406.09951

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Ryan-Anderson, N

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

    2024

  6. [14]

    Y. Jin, Z. He, T. Hao, D. Amaro, S. Tannu, R. Shaydulin, and M. Pistoia, Iceberg beyond the tip: Co-compilation of a quan- tum error detection code and a quantum algorithm (2025), arXiv:2504.21172 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Yamamoto, Y

    K. Yamamoto, Y. Kikuchi, D. Amaro, B. Criger, S. Dilkes, C. Ryan-Anderson, A. Tranter, J. M. Dreiling, D. Gresh, C. Foltz, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, P. E. Siegfried, M. D. Urmey, J. J. Burau, A. Hankin, D. Lucchetti, J. P. Gaebler, N. C. Brown, B. Neyen- huis, and D. M. Ramo, Qua...

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Horsman, A

    D. Horsman, A. G. Fowler, S. Devitt, and R. V. Meter, New J. Phys. 14, 123011 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    Litinski, Quantum 3, 128 (2019)

    D. Litinski, Quantum 3, 128 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Bravyi and B

    S. Bravyi and B. Terhal, New J. Phys. 11, 043029 (2009)

    2009

  11. [19]

    Bravyi and R

    S. Bravyi and R. K ¨onig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 170503 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Bravyi and M

    S. Bravyi and M. B. Hastings, Proc. of the 46th ACM Symp. Th. Comp. (STOC 2014) , 273 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, PRX Quantum2, 040101 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Panteleev and G

    P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, in Proceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing , STOC 2022 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,

    2022

  15. [23]

    Leverrier and G

    A. Leverrier and G. Z´emor, IEEE Trans. Inf. Th.69, 5100 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, Nature627, 778 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Q. Xu, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, C. A. Pattison, et al., Nature Phys. 20, 1084 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    L. Z. Cohen, I. H. Kim, S. D. Bartlett, and B. J. Brown, Science Adv. 8, eabn1717 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Cowtan and S

    A. Cowtan and S. Burton, Quantum 8, 1344 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Cowtan, SSIP: automated surgery with quantum LDPC codes (2024), arXiv:2407.09423

    A. Cowtan, SSIP: automated surgery with quantum LDPC codes (2024), arXiv:2407.09423

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Cross, Z

    A. Cross, Z. He, P. Rall, and T. Yoder, Improved QLDPC surgery: Logical measurements and bridging codes (2024), arXiv:2407.18393

    2024

  22. [30]

    D. J. Williamson and T. J. Yoder, Low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum computation by gauging logical operators (2024), arXiv:2410.02213

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Stein, S

    S. Stein, S. Xu, A. W. Cross, T. J. Yoder, A. Javadi-Abhari, C. Liu, K. Liu, Z. Zhou, C. Guinn, Y. Ding, Y. Ding, and A. Li, Ar- chitectures for heterogeneous quantum error correction codes (2024), arXiv:2411.03202

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Swaroop, T

    E. Swaroop, T. Jochym-O’Connor, and T. J. Yoder, Uni- versal adapters between quantum LDPC codes (2024), arXiv:2410.03628

    2024

  25. [33]

    Cowtan, Z

    A. Cowtan, Z. He, D. J. Williamson, and T. J. Yoder, Paral- lel logical measurements via quantum code surgery (2025), arXiv:2503.05003

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Z. He, A. Cowtan, D. J. Williamson, and T. J. Yoder, Extrac- tors: QLDPC Architectures for efficient Pauli-based computa- tion (2025), arXiv:2503.10390

    2025

  27. [35]

    Poirson, J

    C. Poirson, J. Roffe, and R. I. Booth, Engineering CSS surgery: compiling any CNOT in any code (2025), arXiv:2505.01370 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Bombin, New J

    H. Bombin, New J. Phys. 13, 043005 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    Vuillot, L

    C. Vuillot, L. Lao, B. Criger, C. G. Almud ´ever, K. Bertels, and B. M. Terhal, New J. Phys. 21, 033028 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    B. J. Brown, K. Laubscher, M. S. Kesselring, and J. R. Wootton, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021029 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Krishna and D

    A. Krishna and D. Poulin, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011023 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    In the recent literature, however, this notion has been relaxed to include implementations that are only transversal with re- spect to a specific partition of qubits

    Originally, the notion of transversality referred to implemen- tations that only act on one qubit per code block at a time [84]. In the recent literature, however, this notion has been relaxed to include implementations that are only transversal with re- spect to a specific pa...

  33. [41]

    M. A. Webster, A. O. Quintavalle, and S. D. Bartlett, New J. Phys. 25, 103018 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    A. O. Quintavalle, P. Webster, and M. Vasmer, Quantum7, 1153 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    N. P. Breuckmann and S. Burton, Quantum 8, 1372 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Sayginel, S

    H. Sayginel, S. Koutsioumpas, M. Webster, A. Rajput, and D. E. Browne, Fault-tolerant logical Clifford gates from code auto- morphisms (2025), arXiv:2409.18175

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A. J. Malcolm, A. N. Glaudell, P. Fuentes, D. Chandra, A. Schotte, C. DeLisle, R. Haenel, A. Ebrahimi, J. Roffe, A. O. 12 Quintavalle, S. J. Beale, N. R. Lee-Hone, and S. Simmons, Com- puting efficiently in QLDPC codes (2025), arXiv:2502.07150

    2025

  38. [46]

    Lin, Transversal non-Clifford gates for quantum LDPC codes on sheaves (2024), arXiv:2410.14631

    T.-C. Lin, Transversal non-Clifford gates for quantum LDPC codes on sheaves (2024), arXiv:2410.14631

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    P.-S. Hsin, R. Kobayashi, and G. Zhu, Classifying logical gates in quantum codes via cohomology operations and symmetry (2024), arXiv:2411.15848

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Rengaswamy, R

    N. Rengaswamy, R. Calderbank, S. Kadhe, and H. D. Pfister, IEEE Trans. Quant. Eng. 1, 1 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Miller, L

    D. Miller, L. E. Fischer, K. Levi, et al., npj Quant. Inf. 10, 122 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    C. H. Papadimitriou and K. Steiglitz, Combinatorial optimiza- tion: Algorithms and complexity (Dover, Mineola, 1998)

    1998

  43. [51]

    E. T. Campbell, The smallest interesting color code (2016), https://earltcampbell.com/2016/09/26/ the-smallest-interesting-colour-code/ (visited on 03.10.2023)

    2016

  44. [52]

    Z. Chen, J. O. Weinberg, and N. Rengaswamy, Fault toler- ant quantum simulation via symplectic transvections (2025), arXiv:2504.11444

    2025

  45. [53]

    A. R. Calderbank, E. M. Rains, P. W. Shor, and N. J. A. Sloane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 405 (1997)

    1997

  46. [54]

    Dehaene and B

    J. Dehaene and B. De Moor, Phys. Rev. A 68, 042318 (2003)

    2003

  47. [55]

    D. A. Lidar and T. A. Brun, Quantum error correction (Cam- bridge University Press, 2013)

    2013

  48. [56]

    Miller and D

    M. Miller and D. Miller, in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), GraphStateVis: Interactive Visual Analysis of Qubit Graph States and their Sta- bilizer Groups, Vol. (2021) pp. 378–384

    2021

  49. [57]

    Ku, Hybrid Exact Methods for Solving Strictly Convex In- teger Quadratic Programs , PhD Thesis, University of Toronto (2017)

    W.-Y. Ku, Hybrid Exact Methods for Solving Strictly Convex In- teger Quadratic Programs , PhD Thesis, University of Toronto (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    Gurobi Optimization, LLC, Gurobi Optimizer Reference Man- ual (2023), https://www.gurobi.com

    2023

  51. [59]

    Tomita and K

    Y. Tomita and K. M. Svore, Phys. Rev. A 90, 062320 (2014)

    2014

  52. [60]

    M. Li, D. Miller, and K. R. Brown, Phys. Rev. A98, 050301 (2018)

    2018

  53. [61]

    Huang and K

    S. Huang and K. R. Brown, Phys. Rev. A 101, 042312 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    Chao and B

    R. Chao and B. W. Reichardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 050502 (2018)

    2018

  55. [63]

    Chamberland and M

    C. Chamberland and M. E. Beverland, Quantum 2, 53 (2018)

    2018

  56. [64]

    Chao and B

    R. Chao and B. W. Reichardt, PRX Quantum 1, 010302 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    Anker and M

    B. Anker and M. Marvian, PRX Quantum 5, 040340 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    B. Pato, T. Tansuwannont, S. Huang, and K. R. Brown, PRX Quantum 5, 020336 (2024)

    2024

  59. [67]

    For d = 2, a single round of stabilizer measurements at the very end of the experiment is sufficient to detect and remove all errors from all FT gates in the circuit simultaneously

  60. [68]

    Chao, B.W

    R. Chao, B.W. Reichardt, npj Quant. Inf. 4, 24 (2018)

    2018

  61. [69]

    Roffe, The Coherent Parity Check Framework for Quantum Error Correction (2019)

    J. Roffe, The Coherent Parity Check Framework for Quantum Error Correction (2019)

    2019

  62. [70]

    Gonzales, R

    A. Gonzales, R. Shaydulin, Z. H. Saleem, and M. Suchara, Sci. Rep. 13, 2122 (2023)

    2023

  63. [71]

    E. M. Rains, Quantum codes of minimum distance two (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9704043

    1997 arXiv

  64. [72]

    5281/zenodo.2573505

    Qiskit contributors, Qiskit: An Open-source Framework for Quantum Computing ((2023)), https://doi.org/10. 5281/zenodo.2573505

    2023

  65. [73]

    N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, IEEE Trans. Inf. Th. 67, 6653 (2021)

    2021

  66. [74]

    Gidney, Quantum 5, 497 (2021)

    C. Gidney, Quantum 5, 497 (2021)

    2021

  67. [75]

    Shi, Quant

    Y. Shi, Quant. Inf. Comp. 3, 84–92 (2003)

    2003

  68. [76]

    Eastin and E

    B. Eastin and E. Knill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 110502 (2009)

    2009

  69. [77]

    Coecke and R

    B. Coecke and R. Duncan, New J. Phys. 13, 043016 (2011)

    2011

  70. [78]

    J. C. Magdalena de la Fuente, J. Old, A. Townsend-Teague, M. Rispler, J. Eisert, and M. M ¨uller, PRX Quantum 6, 010360 (2025)

    2025

  71. [79]

    R. Zen, J. Olle, L. Colmenarez, M. Puviani, M. M ¨uller, and F. Marquardt, Quantum circuit discovery for fault-tolerant logical state preparation with reinforcement learning (2024), arXiv:2402.17761 [quant-ph]

    2024

  72. [80]

    Peham, L

    T. Peham, L. Schmid, L. Berent, M. M ¨uller, and R. Wille, PRX Quantum 6, 020330 (2025)

    2025

  73. [81]

    J. T. Anderson, G. Duclos-Cianci, and D. Poulin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 080501 (2014)

    2014

  74. [82]

    Bomb ´ın, New J

    H. Bomb ´ın, New J. Phys. 17, 083002 (2015)

    2015

  75. [83]

    F. Butt, S. Heußen, M. Rispler, and M. M¨uller, PRX Quantum 5, 020345 (2024)

    2024

  76. [84]

    Aharonov and M

    D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, inProceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , STOC ’97 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,

  77. [85]

    J. H. William Fulton, Representation theory: A first course (Springer New York, 2013)

    2013

  78. [86]

    M. Li, D. Miller, M. Newman, Y. Wu, and K. R. Brown, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021041 (2019)

    2019

  79. [87]

    (i) ⇒(ii)

    C. Gidney, Quantum 8, 1310 (2024). Appendix A: Characterization of logical Clifford gates In this appendix, we review several well-known results on logical gates, with an emphasis on Clifford operations for sta- bilizer codes. This provides the necessary background to un- ders...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.