- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

PRX Quantum

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

Color It, Code It, Cancel It: k-Local Dynamical Decoupling from Classical Additive Codes

Minh T.P. Nguyen*, Maximilian Rimbach-Russ, and Stefano Bosco†

  • *Contact author: m.t.phamnguyen@tudelft.nl
  • †Contact author: s.bosco@tudelft.nl
PDF

PRX Quantum 7, 020338 – Published 27 May, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/8q24-zj73

Abstract

Dynamical decoupling is a central technique in quantum computing for actively suppressing decoherence and systematic imperfections through sequences of single-qubit operations. Conventional sequences typically aim to completely freeze system dynamics, often resulting in long protocols whose length scales exponentially with system size. In this work, we introduce a general framework for constructing time-optimal, selectively tailored sequences that remove only specific local interactions. By combining techniques from graph coloring and classical coding theory, our approach enables compact and hardware-tailored sequences across diverse qubit platforms, efficiently canceling undesired Hamiltonian terms while preserving target interactions. This opens up broad applications in quantum computing and simulation. At the core of our method is a mapping between dynamical decoupling sequence design and error-detecting codes, which allows us to leverage powerful coding-theoretic tools to construct customized sequences. To overcome exponential overheads, we exploit symmetries in colored interaction hypergraphs, extending graph-coloring strategies to arbitrary many-body Hamiltonians. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework through concrete examples, including compact sequences that suppress residual ZZ and ZZZ interactions in superconducting qubits and Heisenberg exchange coupling in spin qubits. We also show how it enables Hamiltonian engineering by simulating the anisotropic Kitaev honeycomb model using only isotropic Heisenberg interactions.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Popular Summary

Residual interactions between qubits are a key obstacle to scaling quantum computers because they generate correlated errors that standard error-correction schemes struggle to handle. Current dynamical decoupling methods can suppress these interactions, but they typically require long pulse sequences whose duration grows quickly with system size, limiting their practicality on today’s devices.

We present a framework that systematically designs shorter and more efficient decoupling sequences by connecting the problem to well-established ideas from classical error correction and graph theory. The resulting protocols are tailored to a device’s connectivity and noise environment, with sequence lengths that remain independent of the number of qubits.

Our approach is directly compatible with realistic experimental conditions, including finite pulse shapes, and can be implemented on leading platforms such as superconducting and semiconductor-based qubits. Beyond error suppression, the same framework can be applied to Hamiltonian engineering and digital-analog quantum simulation, paving the way for near-term demonstrations of scalable quantum computing.

Article Text

References (88)

  1. E. L. Hahn, Spin echoes, Phys. Rev. 80, 580 (1950).
  2. S. Meiboom and D. Gill, Modified spin-echo method for measuring nuclear relaxation times, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 29, 688 (1958).
  3. A. A. Maudsley, Modified Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill sequence for NMR Fourier imaging applications, J. Magn. Reson. (1969) 69, 488 (1986).
  4. A. Brinkmann, Introduction to average Hamiltonian theory. I. Basics, Concept Magn. Reson. A 45, e21414 (2016).
  5. A. Brinkmann, Introduction to average Hamiltonian theory. II. Advanced examples, J. Magn. Reson. Open 23, 100191 (2025).
  6. D. Vitali and P. Tombesi, Using parity kicks for decoherence control, Phys. Rev. A 59, 4178 (1999).
  7. L. Viola and S. Lloyd, Dynamical suppression of decoherence in two-state quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 58, 2733 (1998).
  8. L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, Dynamical decoupling of open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2417 (1999).
  9. L.-M. Duan and G.-C. Guo, Suppressing environmental noise in quantum computation through pulse control, Phys. Lett. A 261, 139 (1999).
  10. T. Gullion, D. B. Baker, and M. S. Conradi, New, compensated Carr-Purcell sequences, J. Magn. Reson. (1969) 89, 479 (1990).
  11. Z.-H. Wang, W. Zhang, A. M. Tyryshkin, S. A. Lyon, J. W. Ager, E. E. Haller, and V. V. Dobrovitski, Effect of pulse error accumulation on dynamical decoupling of the electron spins of phosphorus donors in silicon, Phys. Rev. B 85, 085206 (2012).
  12. Z.-H. Wang, G. de Lange, D. Ristè, R. Hanson, and V. V. Dobrovitski, Comparison of dynamical decoupling protocols for a nitrogen-vacancy center in diamond, Phys. Rev. B 85, 155204 (2012).
  13. J. R. West, B. H. Fong, and D. A. Lidar, Near-optimal dynamical decoupling of a qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 130501 (2010).
  14. S. Pasini and G. S. Uhrig, Optimized dynamical decoupling for time-dependent Hamiltonians, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 43, 132001 (2010).
  15. G. S. Uhrig, Keeping a quantum bit alive by optimized π-pulse sequences, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 100504 (2007).
  16. Z.-Y. Wang and R.-B. Liu, Protection of quantum systems by nested dynamical decoupling, Phys. Rev. A—At., Mol. Opt. Phys. 83, 022306 (2011).
  17. W. Yang and R.-B. Liu, Universality of Uhrig dynamical decoupling for suppressing qubit pure dephasing and relaxation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 180403 (2008).
  18. P. Szańkowski, G. Ramon, J. Krzywda, D. Kwiatkowski, and Ł. Cywiński, Environmental noise spectroscopy with qubits subjected to dynamical decoupling, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 29, 333001 (2017).
  19. G. A. Alvareź and D. Suter, Measuring the spectrum of colored noise by dynamical decoupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 230501 (2011).
  20. G. A. Paz-Silva and D. A. Lidar, Optimally combining dynamical decoupling and quantum error correction, Sci. Rep. 3, 1530 (2013).
  21. A. Vezvaee, V. Tripathi, M. Morford-Oberst, F. Butt, V. Kasatkin, and D. A. Lidar, Demonstration of high-fidelity entangled logical qubits using transmons, Nat. Commun. 17, 3281 (2026).
  22. V. Tripathi, H. Chen, M. Khezri, K.-W. Yip, E. Levenson-Falk, and D. A. Lidar, Suppression of crosstalk in superconducting qubits using dynamical decoupling, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 024068 (2022).
  23. J. Qiu, Y. Zhou, C.-K. Hu, J. Yuan, L. Zhang, J. Chu, W. Huang, W. Liu, K. Luo, Z. Ni et al., Suppressing coherent two-qubit errors via dynamical decoupling, Phys. Rev. Appl. 16, 054047 (2021).
  24. B. Evert, Z. G. Izquierdo, J. Sud, H.-Y. Hu, S. Grabbe, E. G. Rieffel, M. J. Reagor, and Z. Wang, Syncopated dynamical decoupling for suppressing crosstalk in quantum circuits, arXiv:2403.07836.
  25. J. S. Waugh, L. M. Huber, and U. Haeberlen, Approach to high-resolution NMR in solids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 180 (1968).
  26. K. Agarwal and I. Martin, Dynamical enhancement of symmetries in many-body systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 080602 (2020).
  27. A. F. Brown and D. A. Lidar, Efficient chromatic-number-based multi-qubit decoherence and crosstalk suppression, arXiv:2406.13901.
  28. P. Coote, R. Dimov, S. Maity, G. S. Hartnett, M. J. Biercuk, and Y. Baum, Resource-efficient context-aware dynamical decoupling embedding for arbitrary large-scale quantum algorithms, PRX Quantum 6, 010332 (2025).
  29. E. Hickman, X. Wu, and G. Quiroz, Crosstalk-robust dynamical decoupling for bipartite-topology quantum processors, arXiv:2506.18010.
  30. J. Choi, H. Zhou, H. S. Knowles, R. Landig, S. Choi, and M. D. Lukin, Robust dynamic Hamiltonian engineering of many-body spin systems, Phys. Rev. X 10, 031002 (2020).
  31. M. Rotteler and P. Wocjan, Equivalence of decoupling schemes and orthogonal arrays, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 52, 4171 (2006).
  32. A. D. Bookatz, M. Roetteler, and P. Wocjan, Improved bounded-strength decoupling schemes for local Hamiltonians, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 62, 2881 (2016).
  33. M. Votto, J. Zeiher, and B. Vermersch, Universal quantum processors in spin systems via robust local pulse sequences, Quantum 8, 1513 (2024).
  34. F. Rajabi, S. Motlakunta, C.-Y. Shih, N. Kotibhaskar, Q. Quraishi, A. Ajoy, and R. Islam, Dynamical Hamiltonian engineering of 2D rectangular lattices in a one-dimensional ion chain, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 32 (2019).
  35. L. Viola and E. Knill, Robust dynamical decoupling of quantum systems with bounded controls, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 037901 (2003).
  36. C. Tong, H. Zhang, and B. Pokharel, Empirical learning of dynamical decoupling on quantum processors, PRX Quantum 6, 030319 (2025).
  37. A. Rahman, D. J. Egger, and C. Arenz, Learning how to dynamically decouple by optimizing rotational gates, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 054074 (2024).
  38. J. Zhang, B. Peng, Y. Wang, C. K. Cheung, G. Bian, A. M. Edmonds, M. Markham, Z. Zhao, D. B. R. Dasari, R. Peng, Y. Wei, and J. Wrachtrup, Learning to steer quantum many-body dynamics with tree optimization, arXiv:2510.07802.
  39. F. Casas, Sufficient conditions for the convergence of the Magnus expansion, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40, 15001 (2007).
  40. T. Mori, Floquet states in open quantum systems, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 14, 35 (2023).
  41. A. Iserles, Expansions that grow on trees, Not. Am. Math. Soc. 49, 430 (2002).
  42. K. Khodjasteh and D. A. Lidar, Rigorous bounds on the performance of a hybrid dynamical-decoupling quantum-computing scheme, Phys. Rev. A 78, 012355 (2008).
  43. A. Parra-Rodriguez, P. Lougovski, L. Lamata, E. Solano, and M. Sanz, Digital-analog quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 101, 022305 (2020).
  44. T. Mostafaie, F. M. Khiyabani, and N. J. Navimipour, A systematic study on meta-heuristic approaches for solving the graph coloring problem, Comput. Oper. Res. 120, 104850 (2020).
  45. P. Zanardi, Symmetrizing evolutions, Phys. Lett. A 258, 77 (1999).
  46. M. Stollsteimer and G. Mahler, Suppression of arbitrary internal coupling in a quantum register, Phys. Rev. A 64, 052301 (2001).
  47. A. S. Hedayat, N. J. A. Sloane, and J. Stufken, Orthogonal Arrays: Theory and Applications (Springer Science & Business Media, New York, 2012).
  48. Orthogonal arrays—neilsloane.com, http://neilsloane.com/oadir/index.html.
  49. P. Delsarte, Four fundamental parameters of a code and their combinatorial significance, Inf. Control 23, 407 (1973).
  50. M. F. Ezerman, S. Ling, and P. Sole, Additive asymmetric quantum codes, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 57, 5536 (2011).
  51. R. C. Bose and D. K. Ray-Chaudhuri, On a class of error correcting binary group codes, Inf. Control 3, 68 (1960).
  52. D. Gorenstein and N. Zierler, A class of error-correcting codes in pm symbols, J. Soc. Ind. Appl. Math. 9, 207 (1961).
  53. A. R. Calderbank, E. M. Rains, P. M. Shor, and N. J. A. Sloane, Quantum error correction via codes over GF(4), IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 44, 1369 (1998).
  54. B. Zeng, A. Cross, and I. L. Chuang, Transversality versus universality for additive quantum codes, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 57, 6272 (2011).
  55. J. Haah, Algebraic methods for quantum codes on lattices, arXiv:1607.01387.
  56. G. Burkard, T. D. Ladd, A. Pan, J. M. Nichol, and J. R. Petta, Semiconductor spin qubits, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 025003 (2023).
  57. X. Xue, M. Russ, N. Samkharadze, B. Undseth, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Quantum logic with spin qubits crossing the surface code threshold, Nature 601, 343 (2022).
  58. A. Noiri, K. Takeda, T. Nakajima, T. Kobayashi, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and S. Tarucha, Fast universal quantum gate above the fault-tolerance threshold in silicon, Nature 601, 338 (2022).
  59. A. R. Mills, C. R. Guinn, M. J. Gullans, A. J. Sigillito, M. M. Feldman, E. Nielsen, and J. R. Petta, Two-qubit silicon quantum processor with operation fidelity exceeding 99%, Sci. Adv. 8, eabn5130 (2022).
  60. M. T. P. Nguyen, M. Rimbach-Russ, L. M. K. Vandersypen, and S. Bosco, Single-step high-fidelity three-qubit gates by anisotropic chiral interactions, PRX Quantum 6, 030326 (2025).
  61. S. Geyer, B. Hetényi, S. Bosco, L. C. Camenzind, R. S. Eggli, A. Fuhrer, D. Loss, R. J. Warburton, D. M. Zumbühl, and A. V. Kuhlmann, Anisotropic exchange interaction of two hole-spin qubits, Nat. Phys. 20, 1152 (2024).
  62. J. Saez-Mollejo, D. Jirovec, Y. Schell, J. Kukucka, S. Calcaterra, D. Chrastina, G. Isella, M. Rimbach-Russ, S. Bosco, and G. Katsaros, Exchange anisotropies in microwave-driven singlet-triplet qubits, Nat. Commun. 16, 3862 (2025).
  63. P. C. Fariña, D. Jirovec, X. Zhang, E. Morozova, S. D. Oosterhout, S. Reale, T.-K. Hsiao, G. Scappucci, M. Veldhorst, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Site-resolved magnon and triplon dynamics on a programmable quantum dot spin ladder, arXiv:2506.08663.
  64. T.-K. Hsiao, P. Cova Fariña, S. D. Oosterhout, D. Jirovec, X. Zhang, C. J. van Diepen, W. I. L. Lawrie, C.-A. Wang, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, M. Veldhorst, E. Demler, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Exciton transport in a germanium quantum dot ladder, Phys. Rev. X 14, 011048 (2024).
  65. S. P. Pedersen, K. S. Christensen, and N. T. Zinner, Native three-body interaction in superconducting circuits, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033123 (2019).
  66. T. Menke, W. P. Banner, T. R. Bergamaschi, A. Di Paolo, A. Vepsäläinen, S. J. Weber, R. Winik, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, D. Rosenberg, K. Serniak, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Yoder, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. Gustavsson, J. A. Grover, C. F. Hirjibehedin, A. J. Kerman, and W. D. Oliver, Demonstration of tunable three-body interactions between superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 220501 (2022).
  67. C. Berke, E. Varvelis, S. Trebst, A. Altland, and D. P. DiVincenzo, Transmon platform for quantum computing challenged by chaotic fluctuations, Nat. Commun. 13, 2495 (2022).
  68. P. Nation, H. Paik, A. W. Cross, and Z. Nazario, The IBM quantum heavy hex lattice, https://www.ibm.com/quantum/blog/heavy-hex-lattice (2021).
  69. Google Quantum AI et al., Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature 638, 920 (2025).
  70. E. Abbe, A. Shpilka, and M. Ye, Reed–Muller codes: Theory and algorithms, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 67, 3251 (2020).
  71. S. Bosco and M. Rimbach-Russ, Exchange-only spin-orbit qubits in silicon and germanium, arXiv:2410.05461.
  72. D. Sen and R. Chitra, Large-U limit of a Hubbard model in a magnetic field: Chiral spin interactions and paramagnetism, Phys. Rev. B 51, 1922 (1995).
  73. M. J. Gullans and J. R. Petta, Protocol for a resonantly driven three-qubit Toffoli gate with silicon spin qubits, Phys. Rev. B 100, 085419 (2019).
  74. J. Qi, Z.-H. Liu, and H. Xu, Multi-qubit DC gates over an inhomogeneous array of quantum dots, New J. Phys. 27, 114503 (2025).
  75. V. John, C. X. Yu, B. van Straaten, E. A. Rodríguez-Mena, M. Rodríguez, S. D. Oosterhout, L. E. A. Stehouwer, G. Scappucci, M. Rimbach-Russ, S. Bosco et al., Robust and localised control of a 10-spin qubit array in germanium, Nat. Commun. 16, 10560 (2025).
  76. Q. Fu, R. Li, L. Guo, and G. Xu, Large caps in projective space PG(r,4), Finite Fields Appl. 35, 231 (2015).
  77. A. Blokhuis and A. Brouwer, Small additive quaternary codes, Eur. J. Comb. 25, 161 (2004).
  78. D. Leung, Simulation and reversal of n-qubit Hamiltonians using Hadamard matrices, J. Mod. Opt. 49, 1199 (2002).
  79. J. H. Conway and N. J. A. Sloane, Sphere Packings, Lattices and Groups (Springer Science & Business Media, New York, 2013), Vol. 290.
  80. A. Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) 321, 2 (2006), January Special Issue.
  81. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University, New York, 2010).
  82. G. T. Genov, D. Schraft, N. V. Vitanov, and T. Halfmann, Arbitrarily accurate pulse sequences for robust dynamical decoupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 133202 (2017).
  83. A. M. Childs, Y. Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011020 (2021).
  84. C. Read, E. Serrano-Ensástiga, and J. Martin, Platonic dynamical decoupling sequences for interacting spin systems, Quantum 9, 1661 (2025).
  85. C. Read, E. Serrano-Ensástiga, and J. Martin, Dynamical decoupling of interacting spins through group factorization, Phys. Rev. A 112, 042601 (2025).
  86. K. Khodjasteh and L. Viola, Dynamically error-corrected gates for universal quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 080501 (2009).
  87. D. Hayes, S. T. Flammia, and M. J. Biercuk, Programmable quantum simulation by dynamic Hamiltonian engineering, New J. Phys. 16, 083027 (2014).
  88. M. F. O’Keeffe, L. Horesh, J. F. Barry, D. A. Braje, and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian engineering with constrained optimization for quantum sensing and control, New J. Phys. 21, 023015 (2019).

Outline

Information

PRX Quantum 7, 020338– Published 27 May, 2026
  • Received 25 August 2025
  • Revised 19 December 2025
  • Accepted 25 March 2026
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