- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review A

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Bayesian inference of general noise-model parameters from the syndrome statistics of surface codes

Takumi Kobori*

Synge Todo†

  • *Contact author: takumi.kobori@phys.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
  • †Contact author: wisteria@phys.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
PDF

Phys. Rev. A 112, 052448 – Published 24 November, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/wg5h-spy6

Abstract

The performance of error correction in the surface code can be enhanced by leveraging the knowledge of the noise model for physical qubits. To provide accurate noise information to the decoder in parallel with quantum computation, an adaptive estimation of the noise model based on syndrome measurement statistics is an effective approach. While noise-model estimation based on syndrome measurement statistics is well established for Pauli noise, it remains unexplored for more complex and realistic scenarios such as amplitude damping, which cannot be represented as a Pauli channel. In this paper, we propose Bayesian inference methods for general noise models, integrating a tensor network simulator of surface code, which can efficiently simulate various noise models, with Monte Carlo sampling techniques. For stationary noise, we propose a method based on the Markov chain Monte Carlo. For time-varying noise, which is a more realistic scenario, we introduce another method based on the sequential Monte Carlo. We present numerical results of applying our proposed methods to various noise models, such as static, time-varying, and nonuniform cases, and evaluate their performance in detail.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (70)

  1. R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467 (1982).
  2. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University, Cambridge, 2010).
  3. P. W. Shor, Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer, SIAM Rev. 41, 303 (1999).
  4. A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 150502 (2009).
  5. G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Optimal Hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 010501 (2017).
  6. A. Steane, Multiple-particle interference and quantum error correction, Proc. R. Soc. London A 452, 2551 (1996).
  7. A. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Ann. Phys. (NY) 303, 2 (2003).
  8. S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary, arXiv:quant-ph/9811052.
  9. E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Topological quantum memory, J. Math. Phys. 43, 4452 (2002).
  10. S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, A. Remm, A. Di Paolo, E. Genois, C. Leroux, C. Hellings, S. Lazar, F. Swiadek, J. Herrmann, G. J. Norris, C. K. Andersen, M. Müller, A. Blais, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Realizing repeated quantum error correction in a distance-three surface code, Nature (London) 605, 669 (2022).
  11. R. Acharya et al. ( Google Quantum AI), Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, Nature (London) 614, 676 (2023).
  12. R. Acharya et al. ( Google Quantum AI), Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature (London) 638, 920 (2025).
  13. D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. B. Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. S. Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature (London) 626, 58 (2024).
  14. S. T. Spitz, B. Tarasinski, C. W. J. Beenakker, and T. E. O'Brien, Adaptive weight estimator for quantum error correction in a time-dependent environment, Adv. Quantum Technol. 1, 1800012 (2018).
  15. S. Huang, M. Newman, and K. R. Brown, Fault-tolerant weighted union-find decoding on the toric code, Phys. Rev. A 102, 012419 (2020).
  16. C. T. Chubb, General tensor network decoding of 2D Pauli codes, arXiv:2101.04125.
  17. A. S. Darmawan and D. Poulin, Linear-time general decoding algorithm for the surface code, Phys. Rev. E 97, 051302(R) (2018).
  18. V. Sivak, M. Newman, and P. Klimov, Optimization of decoder priors for accurate quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 150603 (2024).
  19. E. T. Hockings, A. C. Doherty, and R. Harper, Improving error suppression with noise-aware decoding, arXiv:2502.21044.
  20. J. P. B. Ataides, D. K. Tuckett, S. D. Bartlett, S. T. Flammia, and B. J. Brown, The XZZX surface code, Nat. Commun. 12, 2172 (2021).
  21. D. K. Tuckett, S. D. Bartlett, and S. T. Flammia, Ultrahigh error threshold for surface codes with biased noise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 050505 (2018).
  22. A. Dua, A. Kubica, L. Jiang, S. T. Flammia, and M. J. Gullans, Clifford-deformed surface codes, PRX Quantum 5, 010347 (2024).
  23. A. S. Darmawan and D. Poulin, Tensor-network simulations of the surface code under realistic noise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 040502 (2017).
  24. I. L. Chuang and M. A. Nielsen, Prescription for experimental determination of the dynamics of a quantum black box, J. Mod. Opt. 44, 2455 (1997).
  25. T. Evans, W. Huang, J. Yoneda, R. Harper, T. Tanttu, K. Chan, F. Hudson, K. Itoh, A. Saraiva, C. Yang, A. Dzurak, and S. Bartlett, Fast Bayesian tomography of a two-qubit gate set in silicon, Phys. Rev. Appl. 17, 024068 (2022).
  26. J. E. Martinez, P. Fuentes, P. Crespo, and J. Garcia-Frias, Time-varying quantum channel models for superconducting qubits, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 115 (2021).
  27. P. V. Klimov, J. Kelly, Z. Chen, M. Neeley, A. Megrant, B. Burkett, R. Barends, K. Arya, B. Chiaro, Y. Chen, A. Dunsworth, A. Fowler, B. Foxen, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, T. Huang, E. Jeffrey, E. Lucero, J. Y. Mutus et al., Fluctuations of energy-relaxation times in superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 090502 (2018).
  28. T. Wagner, H. Kampermann, D. Bruß, and M. Kliesch, Optimal noise estimation from syndrome statistics of quantum codes, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 013292 (2021).
  29. T. Wagner, H. Kampermann, D. Bruß, and M. Kliesch, Pauli channels can be estimated from syndrome measurements in quantum error correction, Quantum 6, 809 (2022).
  30. E. T. Hockings, A. C. Doherty, and R. Harper, Scalable noise characterization of syndrome-extraction circuits with averaged circuit eigenvalue sampling, PRX Quantum 6, 010334 (2025).
  31. M.-X. Huo and Y. Li, Learning time-dependent noise to reduce logical errors: Real time error rate estimation in quantum error correction, New J. Phys. 19, 123032 (2017).
  32. J. Kelly, R. Barends, A. G. Fowler, A. Megrant, E. Jeffrey, T. C. White, D. Sank, J. Y. Mutus, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, C. Neill, P. J. J. O'Malley, C. Quintana, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher et al., Scalable in situ qubit calibration during repetitive error detection, Phys. Rev. A 94, 032321 (2016).
  33. S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Phys. Rev. A 70, 052328 (2004).
  34. C. Gidney, Stim: A fast stabilizer circuit simulator, Quantum 5, 497 (2021).
  35. J. J. Wallman and J. Emerson, Noise tailoring for scalable quantum computation via randomized compiling, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052325 (2016).
  36. T. Bayes, LII. An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. By the late Rev. Mr. Bayes, F. R. S. communicated by Mr. Price, in a letter to John Canton, A. M. F. R. S, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London 53, 370 (1763).
  37. N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines, J. Chem. Phys. 21, 1087 (1953).
  38. S. Chib and E. Greenberg, Understanding the metropolis-hastings algorithm, Am. Stat. 49, 327 (1995).
  39. W. K. Hastings, Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications, Biometrika 57, 97 (1970).
  40. G. Kitagawa, Monte Carlo filter and smoother for non-Gaussian nonlinear state space models, J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 5, 1 (1996).
  41. A. Doucet, N. De Freitas, N. J. Gordon et al., Sequential Monte Carlo Methods in Practice (Springer, New York, 2001), Vol. 1.
  42. R. Orus, Tensor networks for complex quantum systems, Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 538 (2019).
  43. D. Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology, 1997.
  44. L. Riesebos, X. Fu, S. Varsamopoulos, C. G. Almudever, and K. Bertels, Pauli frames for quantum computer architectures, in Proceedings of the 54th Annual Design Automation Conference 2017, DAC '17 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2017).
  45. H. Bombin and M. A. Martin-Delgado, Optimal resources for topological two-dimensional stabilizer codes: Comparative study, Phys. Rev. A 76, 012305 (2007).
  46. F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Renormalization algorithms for quantum-many body systems in two and higher dimensions, arXiv:cond-mat/0407066.
  47. U. Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Ann. Phys. (NY) 326, 96 (2011).
  48. A. S. Darmawan, Optimal adaptation of surface-code decoders to local noise, Phys. Rev. A 112, 042431 (2025).
  49. N. Gordon, D. Salmond, and A. Smith, Novel approach to nonlinear/non-Gaussian bayesian state estimation, IEE Proc. F Radar Signal Process. UK 140, 107 (1993).
  50. J. Carpenter, P. Clifford, and P. Fearnhead, Improved particle filter for nonlinear problems, IEE Proc. Radar Sonar Navig. 146, 2 (1999).
  51. E. Beadle and P. Djuric, A fast-weighted bayesian bootstrap filter for nonlinear model state estimation, IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 33, 338 (1997).
  52. J. S. Liu and R. Chen, Sequential Monte Carlo methods for dynamic systems, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 93, 1032 (1998) .
  53. R. Douc and O. Cappe, Comparison of resampling schemes for particle filtering, in Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Image and Signal Processing and Analysis, ISPA, 2005, Zagreb, Croatia (IEEE, 2005), pp. 64–69.
  54. T. Li, M. Bolic, and P. M. Djuric, Resampling methods for particle filtering: Classification, implementation, and strategies, IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 32, 70 (2015).
  55. A. Doucet, S. Godsill, and C. Andrieu, On sequential Monte Carlo sampling methods for Bayesian filtering, Stat. Comput. 10, 197 (2000).
  56. G. A. L. White, C. D. Hill, F. A. Pollock, L. C. L. Hollenberg, and K. Modi, Demonstration of non-Markovian process characterisation and control on a quantum processor, Nat. Commun. 11, 6301 (2020).
  57. G. White, F. Pollock, L. Hollenberg, K. Modi, and C. Hill, Non-Markovian quantum process tomography, PRX Quantum 3, 020344 (2022).
  58. I. de Vega and D. Alonso, Dynamics of non-Markovian open quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015001 (2017).
  59. P. E. Jacob, S. M. M. Alavi, A. Mahdi, S. J. Payne, and D. A. Howey, Bayesian inference in non-Markovian state-space models with applications to battery fractional-order systems, IEEE Trans. Contr. Syst. Technol. 26, 497 (2018).
  60. C. A. Naesseth, F. Lindsten, and T. B. Schön, Elements of sequential Monte Carlo, Found. Trends Mach. Learn. 12, 307 (2019).
  61. E. Knill, Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices, Nature (London) 434, 39 (2005).
  62. Z. Cai and S. C. Benjamin, Constructing smaller Pauli twirling sets for arbitrary error channels, Sci. Rep. 9, 11281 (2019).
  63. A. Hashim, R. K. Naik, A. Morvan, J.-L. Ville, B. Mitchell, J. M. Kreikebaum, M. Davis, E. Smith, C. Iancu, K. P. O'Brien, I. Hincks, J. J. Wallman, J. Emerson, and I. Siddiqi, Randomized compiling for scalable quantum computing on a noisy superconducting quantum processor, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041039 (2021).
  64. H. Perrin, T. Scoquart, A. Shnirman, J. Schmalian, and K. Snizhko, Mitigating crosstalk errors by randomized compiling: Simulation of the BCS model on a superconducting quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013142 (2024).
  65. D. Madigan and A. E. Raftery, Model selection and accounting for model uncertainty in graphical models using Occam's window, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 89, 1535 (1994).
  66. A. E. Raftery, D. Madigan, and J. A. Hoeting, Bayesian model averaging for linear regression models, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 92, 179 (1997).
  67. R. H. Swendsen and J.-S. Wang, Replica Monte Carlo simulation of spin-glasses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 2607 (1986).
  68. K. Hukushima and K. Nemoto, Exchange Monte Carlo method and application to spin glass simulations, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 65, 1604 (1996).
  69. A. J. Ferris, Unbiased Monte Carlo for the age of tensor networks, arXiv:1507.00767.
  70. S. Todo, Markov chain Monte Carlo in tensor network representation, arXiv:2412.02974.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. A 112, 052448– Published 24 November, 2025
  • Received 19 March 2025
  • Accepted 8 October 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation