Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Error Correction Fault Tolerance
AlphaSyndrome: Tackling the Syndrome Measurement Circuit Scheduling Problem for QEC Codes
arXiv
Authors: Yuhao Liu, Shuohao Ping, Junyu Zhou, Ethan Decker, Justin Kalloor, Mathias Weiden, Kean Chen, Yunong Shi, Ali Javadi-Abhari, Costin Iancu, Gushu Li
Year
2026
Paper ID
3655
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
163
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Quantum error correction (QEC) is essential for scalable quantum computing, yet repeated syndrome-measurement cycles dominate its spacetime and hardware cost. Although stabilizers commute and admit many valid execution orders, different schedules induce distinct error-propagation paths under realistic noise, leading to large variations in logical error rate. Outside of surface codes, effective syndrome-measurement scheduling remains largely unexplored. We present AlphaSyndrome, an automated synthesis framework for scheduling syndrome-measurement circuits in general commuting-stabilizer codes under minimal assumptions: mutually commuting stabilizers and a heuristic decoder. AlphaSyndrome formulates scheduling as an optimization problem that shapes error propagation to (i) avoid patterns close to logical operators and (ii) remain within the decoder's correctable region. The framework uses Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) to explore ordering and parallelism, guided by code structure and decoder feedback. Across diverse code families, sizes, and decoders, AlphaSyndrome reduces logical error rates by 80.6% on average (up to 96.2%) relative to depth-optimal baselines, matches Google's hand-crafted surface-code schedules, and outperforms IBM's schedule for the Bivariate Bicycle code.
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.