Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:0801.2144 · IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW)

Non-additive quantum codes from Goethals and Preparata codes

Markus Grassl, Martin Rötteler

Published May 1, 2008• 19 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We extend the stabilizer formalism to a class of nonadditive quantum codes which are constructed from non-linear classical codes. As an example, we present infinite families of nonadditive codes which are derived from Goethals and Preparata codes.
DOI
10.1109/itw.2008.4578694

Related papers

Nonadditive quantum codes

Markus Grassl, Martin Rötteler

Introduction Most quantum error-correcting codes (QECCs) that are designed to correct local errors are stabilizer codes that correspond to additive classical codes. Because of this correspondence, stabilizer codes are also referred to as additive codes, while nonstabilizer codes are called nonadditive codes. Shortly after the invention of stabilizer codes by Gottesman [G96a] and independently Calderbank et al. [CRS+98], the nonadditive ((5, 6, 2)) code was found [RHS+97], which constitutes the first example of a nonadditive quantum code with a higher dimension than any stabilizer code of equal length and minimum distance. About ten years later, the first one-error-correcting ((9, 12, 3)) code and the optimal ((10, 24, 3)) code were found [YCL+09, YCO07], both better than any stabilizer code of the same length. Here we describe a framework that not only allows a joint description of these codes, but also enables the construction of new nonadditive codes with better parameters than the best known stabilizer codes. These codes are based on the classical nonlinear Goethals and Preparata codes, which themselves are better than any classical linear code. In Section 10.3, the framework will be presented from two different points of view, namely union stabilizer codes and codeword stabilized codes, each highlighting different aspects of the construction. To illustrate the relationship of these nonadditive codes to stabilizer codes we first recall the main aspects of the latter. Section 10.4 is devoted to methods for obtaining new codes, including the aforementioned quantum Goethals–Preparata codes.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Sep 5, 2013•6 citations

Quantum Goethals-Preparata codes

Markus Grassl, Martin Rötteler

We present a family of non-additive quantum codes based on Goethals and Preparata codes with parameters ((2m, 22m-5m+1, 8)). The dimension of these codes is eight times higher than the dimension of the best known additive quantum codes of equal length and minimum distance.

arXiv:0801.2150•IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT)•Jul 1, 2008•26 citations

Nonadditive Quantum Codes from $\Z_4$-Codes

San Ling, Patrick Solé

Non additive binary quantum codes are constructed by using classical $\Z_4$-linear binary codes.

•Jan 1, 2008•1 citation

Two Infinite Families of Nonadditive Quantum Error-Correcting Codes

Sixia Yu, Qing Chen, C. H. Oh

We construct explicitly two infinite families of genuine nonadditive 1-error correcting quantum codes and prove that their coding subspaces are 50% larger than those of the optimal stabilizer codes of the same parameters via the linear programming bound. All these nonadditive codes can be characterized by a stabilizer-like structure, and thus, their encoding circuits can be designed in a straightforward manner.

arXiv:0901.1935•IEEE Transactions on Information Theory•Oct 13, 2015•5 citations

Generalized concatenated quantum codes

Markus Grassl, Peter W. Shor, Graeme Smith +2 more

We discuss the concept of generalized concatenated quantum codes. This generalized concatenation method provides a systematical way for constructing good quantum codes, both stabilizer codes and nonadditive codes. Using this method, we construct families of single-error-correcting nonadditive quantum codes, in both binary and nonbinary cases, which not only outperform any stabilizer codes for finite block length but also asymptotically meet the quantum Hamming bound for large block length.

arXiv:0901.1319•Physical Review A•May 22, 2009•46 citations

Codeword-stabilized quantum codes on subsystems

Jeonghwan Shin, Jun Heo, Todd A. Brun

Codeword-stabilized quantum codes provide a unified approach to constructing quantum error-correcting codes, including both additive and nonadditive quantum codes. Standard codeword-stabilized quantum codes encode quantum information into subspaces. The more general notion of encoding quantum information into a subsystem is known as an operator (or subsystem) quantum error-correcting code. Most operator codes studied to date are based in the usual stabilizer formalism. We introduce operator quantum codes based on the codeword-stabilized quantum code framework. Based on the necessary and sufficient conditions for operator quantum error correction, we derive an error-correction condition for operator codeword-stabilized quantum codes. Based on this condition, the word operators of a operator codeword-stabilized quantum code are constructed from a set of classical binary errors induced by generators of the gauge group. We use this scheme to construct examples of both additive and nonadditive codes that encode quantum information into a subsystem.

arXiv:1208.6039•Physical Review A•Oct 15, 2012•2 citations
Introduction Most quantum error-correcting codes (QECCs) that are designed to correct local errors are stabilizer codes that correspond to additive classical codes. Because of this correspondence, stabilizer codes are also referred to as additive codes, while nonstabilizer codes are called nonadditive codes. Shortly after the invention of stabilizer codes by Gottesman [G96a] and independently Calderbank et al. [CRS+98], the nonadditive ((5, 6, 2)) code was found [RHS+97], which constitutes the first example of a nonadditive quantum code with a higher dimension than any stabilizer code of equal length and minimum distance. About ten years later, the first one-error-correcting ((9, 12, 3)) code and the optimal ((10, 24, 3)) code were found [YCL+09, YCO07], both better than any stabilizer code of the same length. Here we describe a framework that not only allows a joint description of these codes, but also enables the construction of new nonadditive codes with better parameters than the best known stabilizer codes. These codes are based on the classical nonlinear Goethals and Preparata codes, which themselves are better than any classical linear code. In Section 10.3, the framework will be presented from two different points of view, namely union stabilizer codes and codeword stabilized codes, each highlighting different aspects of the construction. To illustrate the relationship of these nonadditive codes to stabilizer codes we first recall the main aspects of the latter. Section 10.4 is devoted to methods for obtaining new codes, including the aforementioned quantum Goethals–Preparata codes.
Nonadditive Quantum Codes from Z4\Z_4Z4​-Codes
Non additive binary quantum codes are constructed by using classical Z4\Z_4Z4​-linear binary codes.
Codeword-stabilized quantum codes provide a unified approach to constructing quantum error-correcting codes, including both additive and nonadditive quantum codes. Standard codeword-stabilized quantum codes encode quantum information into subspaces. The more general notion of encoding quantum information into a subsystem is known as an operator (or subsystem) quantum error-correcting code. Most operator codes studied to date are based in the usual stabilizer formalism. We introduce operator quantum codes based on the codeword-stabilized quantum code framework. Based on the necessary and sufficient conditions for operator quantum error correction, we derive an error-correction condition for operator codeword-stabilized quantum codes. Based on this condition, the word operators of a operator codeword-stabilized quantum code are constructed from a set of classical binary errors induced by generators of the gauge group. We use this scheme to construct examples of both additive and nonadditive codes that encode quantum information into a subsystem.