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:2306.00048

A Hamming-Like Bound for Degenerate Stabilizer Codes

Andrew Nemec, Theerapat Tansuwannont

Published May 31, 2023• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The quantum Hamming bound was originally put forward as an upper bound on the parameters of nondegenerate quantum codes, but over the past few decades much work has been done to show that many degenerate quantum codes must also obey this bound. In this paper, we show that there is a Hamming-like bound stricter than the quantum Hamming bound that applies to degenerate $t$-error-correcting stabilizer codes of length greater than some positive integer $N(t)$. We show that this bound holds for all single-error-correcting degenerate stabilizer codes, forcing all but a handful of optimal distance-3 stabilizer codes to be nondegenerate.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2306.00048

Related papers

Strengthened quantum Hamming bound

Lijuan Xing, Zhuo Li, Zhang Wu-Jun

By studying sets of operators with constant weight we present for the first time an analytical upper bound on the pure quantum stabilizer codes whose underlying quantum system can be of arbitrary dimension, which outperforms the so far well-known quantum Hamming bound, the optimal analytical upper bound for small code length.

Acta Physica Sinica•Jan 1, 2011•1 citation

The strengthened quantum Hamming bound of Yu, Lai, and Oh

Valery, Grishin, Aryeh Lev Zabokritskiy

We prove a conjecture of Yu, Lai, and Oh: their strengthened quantum Hamming bounds, a family that interpolates between Hamming-type bounds and the Singleton bound, hold for all quantum codes of dimension $K>1$, including impure and nonadditive codes. The result covers every integer local dimension $p\ge2$, not necessarily a prime power, every integer $t\ge1$, both distances $2t+1$ and $2t+2$, and every interpolation parameter $e\in\{0,\ldots,t\}$. The case $e=0$ implies the ordinary quantum Hamming bound for general codes, recently proved by Zhang and Chen. Yu, Lai, and Oh proved their bounds for pure codes and for general codes of distance three or four. More generally, for every integer $p\ge2$ and every quantum code of length $n$, dimension $K>1$ and distance $d\ge3$, we prove $Kf(0)\le p^n\mathbb{E} f(X)$, where $X\sim\operatorname{Bin}(n,1-p^{-2})$, for every real polynomial $f$ of degree less than $d$ that is nonnegative on $\{0,\ldots,n\}$ and positive at zero. For pure codes this inequality is implicit in the argument of Yu, Lai, and Oh. The proof uses the linear-programming method with quantum weight enumerators.

quant-pharXiv:2610.30088•Oct 22, 2026•0 citations

No $((n,K,d< 127))$ Code Can Violate the Quantum Hamming Bound

Emanuel Dallas, Faidon Andreadakis, Daniel A. Lidar

It is well-known that non-degenerate quantum error correcting codes (QECCs) are constrained by a quantum version of the Hamming bound. Whether degenerate codes also obey such a bound, however, remains a long-standing question with practical implications for the efficacy of QECCs. We employ a combination of previously derived bounds on QECCs to demonstrate that a subset of all codes must obey the quantum Hamming bound. Specifically, we combine an analytical bound due to Rains with a numerical bound due to Li and Xing to show that no$((n,K,d))$code with$d< 127$can violate the quantum Hamming bound.

arXiv:2208.11800•IEEE BITS the Information Theory Magazine•Dec 1, 2022•2 citations

The Quantum Hamming Bound in Arbitrary Local Dimension

Yu-Xuan Zhang, Jing-Ling Chen

The quantum Hamming bound arises from a direct dimension estimate for exact quantum error-correcting codes. For nondegenerate codes, distinct correctable errors map the code space into orthogonal subspaces, so dimension counting directly gives the bound; degeneracy allows these subspaces to overlap and invalidates the argument. Although linear-programming, asymptotic, and structural approaches have advanced the problem from several directions, the general local-dimension case has remained open. Here we prove the quantum Hamming bound for every local dimension $q\ge3$. Building on the exact two-center Fourier reduction, we develop new overlap estimates for nonbinary Hamming spaces. For $q\ge4$, Jacobi estimates and monotonicity give a uniform gap; qutrits form the boundary case where the gap vanishes and are handled by a filtered correction. This completes the finite-length nonbinary case; together with the existing qubit result, it establishes the quantum Hamming bound for arbitrary local dimension.

quant-pharXiv:2606.22538•Jun 23, 2026•0 citations

Degeneracy Cannot Violate the Quantum Hamming Bound

Yu-Xuan Zhang, Jing-Ling Chen

The quantum Hamming bound is the standard finite-length sphere-packing bound for exact correction of arbitrary qubit errors. Whether degeneracy can evade this bound has remained unresolved in full generality for nearly three decades: distinct correctable errors may act identically on the code space, so the usual disjoint-sphere argument breaks down. We prove that every exact binary quantum subspace code with $K>1$ obeys the bound, without assuming either nondegeneracy or additivity. Our proof turns the Li--Xing linear-programming polynomial into an exact intersection count for quaternary Hamming balls. Monotonicity in block length and in ball-center separation then reduces the problem to a local node--edge charging inequality at the shortest admissible length. Thus degeneracy can merge correctable error sectors, but cannot enlarge the finite-length binary Hamming bound.

quant-pharXiv:2606.15558•Jun 16, 2026•0 citations

Entanglement-assisted quantum codes achieving the quantum singleton bound but violating the quantum hamming bound

LiRuihu, GuoLuobin, XuZongben

We give an infinite family of degenerate entanglement-assisted quantum error-correcting codes (EAQECCs) which violate the EA-quantum Hamming bound for nondegenerate EAQECCs and achieve the EA-quant...

Quantum Information and Computation•Oct 1, 2014•0 citations
The quantum Hamming bound was originally put forward as an upper bound on the parameters of nondegenerate quantum codes, but over the past few decades much work has been done to show that many degenerate quantum codes must also obey this bound. In this paper, we show that there is a Hamming-like bound stricter than the quantum Hamming bound that applies to degenerate ttt-error-correcting stabilizer codes of length greater than some positive integer N(t)N(t)N(t). We show that this bound holds for all single-error-correcting degenerate stabilizer codes, forcing all but a handful of optimal distance-3 stabilizer codes to be nondegenerate.
We prove a conjecture of Yu, Lai, and Oh: their strengthened quantum Hamming bounds, a family that interpolates between Hamming-type bounds and the Singleton bound, hold for all quantum codes of dimension K>1K>1K>1, including impure and nonadditive codes. The result covers every integer local dimension p≥2p\ge2p≥2, not necessarily a prime power, every integer t≥1t\ge1t≥1, both distances 2t+12t+12t+1 and 2t+22t+22t+2, and every interpolation parameter e∈{0,…,t}e\in\{0,\ldots,t\}e∈{0,…,t}. The case e=0e=0e=0 implies the ordinary quantum Hamming bound for general codes, recently proved by Zhang and Chen. Yu, Lai, and Oh proved their bounds for pure codes and for general codes of distance three or four. More generally, for every integer p≥2p\ge2p≥2 and every quantum code of length nnn, dimension K>1K>1K>1 and distance d≥3d\ge3d≥3, we prove Kf(0)≤pnEf(X)Kf(0)\le p^n\mathbb{E} f(X)Kf(0)≤pnEf(X), where X∼Bin⁡(n,1−p−2)X\sim\operatorname{Bin}(n,1-p^{-2})X∼Bin(n,1−p−2), for every real polynomial fff of degree less than ddd that is nonnegative on {0,…,n}\{0,\ldots,n\}{0,…,n} and positive at zero. For pure codes this inequality is implicit in the argument of Yu, Lai, and Oh. The proof uses the linear-programming method with quantum weight enumerators.
No ((n,K,d<127))((n,K,d< 127))((n,K,d<127)) Code Can Violate the Quantum Hamming Bound
It is well-known that non-degenerate quantum error correcting codes (QECCs) are constrained by a quantum version of the Hamming bound. Whether degenerate codes also obey such a bound, however, remains a long-standing question with practical implications for the efficacy of QECCs. We employ a combination of previously derived bounds on QECCs to demonstrate that a subset of all codes must obey the quantum Hamming bound. Specifically, we combine an analytical bound due to Rains with a numerical bound due to Li and Xing to show that no((n,K,d))((n,K,d))((n,K,d))code withd<127d< 127d<127can violate the quantum Hamming bound.
The quantum Hamming bound arises from a direct dimension estimate for exact quantum error-correcting codes. For nondegenerate codes, distinct correctable errors map the code space into orthogonal subspaces, so dimension counting directly gives the bound; degeneracy allows these subspaces to overlap and invalidates the argument. Although linear-programming, asymptotic, and structural approaches have advanced the problem from several directions, the general local-dimension case has remained open. Here we prove the quantum Hamming bound for every local dimension q≥3q\ge3q≥3. Building on the exact two-center Fourier reduction, we develop new overlap estimates for nonbinary Hamming spaces. For q≥4q\ge4q≥4, Jacobi estimates and monotonicity give a uniform gap; qutrits form the boundary case where the gap vanishes and are handled by a filtered correction. This completes the finite-length nonbinary case; together with the existing qubit result, it establishes the quantum Hamming bound for arbitrary local dimension.
The quantum Hamming bound is the standard finite-length sphere-packing bound for exact correction of arbitrary qubit errors. Whether degeneracy can evade this bound has remained unresolved in full generality for nearly three decades: distinct correctable errors may act identically on the code space, so the usual disjoint-sphere argument breaks down. We prove that every exact binary quantum subspace code with K>1K>1K>1 obeys the bound, without assuming either nondegeneracy or additivity. Our proof turns the Li--Xing linear-programming polynomial into an exact intersection count for quaternary Hamming balls. Monotonicity in block length and in ball-center separation then reduces the problem to a local node--edge charging inequality at the shortest admissible length. Thus degeneracy can merge correctable error sectors, but cannot enlarge the finite-length binary Hamming bound.