Decoder Dependence in Surface-Code Threshold Estimation with Native Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill Digitization and Parallelized Sampling
Dennis Delali Kwesi Wayo, Chinonso Onah, Leonardo Goliatt, Sven Groppe

TL;DR
This paper evaluates how different decoders affect surface-code threshold estimates under various noise models, emphasizing the importance of estimator-conditional reporting for reproducibility.
Contribution
It systematically benchmarks multiple decoders using a unified framework, revealing their relative performance, stability, and the impact of estimator sensitivity on threshold localization.
Findings
MWPM and UF define the Pareto frontier in runtime and LER.
Neural-guided MWPM is slower and less accurate than MWPM and UF.
Estimator- and window-sensitive threshold localization is confirmed by dense-window scanning.
Abstract
We quantify decoder dependence in surface-code threshold studies under two matched regimes: Pauli noise and native GKP-style Gaussian displacement digitization. Using LiDMaS+ v1.1.0, we benchmark MWPM, Union-Find (UF), Belief Propagation (BP), and neural-guided MWPM with fixed seeds, identical sweep grids, and unified reporting across runs 06--14. At and , MWPM and UF define the Pareto frontier, with (runtime, LER) = (1.341 s, 0.2273) and (1.332 s, 0.2303); neural-guided MWPM is slower and less accurate (1.396 s, 0.3730), and BP is dominated (7.640 s, 0.6107). Crossing-bootstrap diagnostics are stable only for MWPM, with median (1911/2000 valid) and (1941/2000 valid), while other decoders show no valid crossing samples. Dense-window scanning over returns NaN crossings for all decoders,…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
