Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Error Correction Fault Tolerance
LightStim: A Framework for QEC Protocol Evaluation and Prototyping with Automated DEM Construction
arXiv
Authors: Xiang Fang, Ming Wang, Yue Wu, Sharanya Prabhu, Dean Tullsen, Narasinga Rao Miniskar, Frank Mueller, Travis Humble, Yufei Ding
Year
2026
Paper ID
52154
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
157
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Fault-tolerant quantum computing increasingly demands rigorous, circuit-level evaluation of diverse quantum error correction (QEC) protocols and efficient prototyping of new ones. Such evaluation requires both the physical circuit and its Detector Error Model (DEM) to simulate end-to-end logical error rates. However, DEM construction today is performed by manual annotation, a tedious and error-prone process that effectively limits evaluation to simple memory experiments. We present LightStim, a framework that automates DEM construction concurrently with circuit compilation by maintaining a Pauli tableau augmented with measurement records, with no protocol-specific input required. We benchmark LightStim across protocols from memory experiments to end-to-end distillation circuits; cross-validation against public implementations confirms exact detector and observable counts and consistent logical error rates. LightStim additionally accelerates the exploration of new protocols, which we demonstrate through a novel heterogeneous cross-code lattice surgery design between surface and punctured quantum Reed-Muller codes. These capabilities together make LightStim a unified infrastructure for systematic QEC protocol evaluation and exploration.
Paper Tools
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.