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

Cambridge University Press eBooks

Quantum error correction

E. Desurvire

Published Feb 19, 2009• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

This chapter deals with the subject of quantum error correction and the related codes (QECC), which can be applied to noisy quantum channels and quantum memories with the purpose of preserving or protecting the information integrity. I first describe the basics of quantum repetition codes , as applicable to bit-flip and phase-flip quantum channels. Then I consider the 9-qubit Shor code , which has the capability of diagnosing and correcting any combination of bit-flip and phase-flip errors, up to one error of each type. Furthermore, it is shown that the Shor code is, in fact, capable of fully restoring qubit integrity under a continuum of bit or phase errors, a property that has no counterpart in the classical world of error-correction codes. But the exploration of QECC does not stop here! We shall discover the elegant Calderbank–Shor–Steane (CSS) codes, which have the capability of correcting any number of errors t , both bit-flip and phase-flip. As an application of the CSS code, I then describe the 7-qubit Hadamard–Steane code , which can correct up to one error on single qubits. A corresponding quantum circuit, based on an original generator-matrix example, is presented. Quantum repetition code In Chapter 11, we saw that the simplest form of error-correction code (ECC) is the repetition code , based on the principle of majority logic . The background assumption is that in a given message sequence, or bit string, the probability of a bit error is sufficiently small for the majority of bits to be correctly transmitted through the channel.

DOI
10.1017/cbo9780511803758.026

Related papers

Quantum Steganography and Quantum Error-Correction

Bilal Shaw

In the current thesis we first talk about the six-qubit quantum error-correcting code and show its connections to entanglement-assisted error-correcting coding theory and then to subsystem codes. This code bridges the gap between the five-qubit (perfect) and Steane codes. We discuss two methods to encode one qubit into six physical qubits. Each of the two examples corrects an arbitrary single-qubit error. The first example is a degenerate six-qubit quantum error-correcting code. We prove that a six-qubit code without entanglement assistance cannot simultaneously possess a Calderbank-Shor-Steane (CSS) stabilizer and correct an arbitrary single-qubit error. A corollary of this result is that the Steane seven-qubit code is the smallest single-error correcting CSS code. Our second example is the construction of a non-degenerate six-qubit CSS entanglement-assisted code. This code uses one bit of entanglement (an ebit) shared between the sender (Alice) and the receiver (Bob) and corrects an arbitrary single-qubit error. In the second half of this thesis we explore the yet uncharted and relatively undiscovered area of quantum steganography. Steganography is the process of hiding secret information by embedding it in an innocent message. We present protocols for hiding quantum information in a codeword of a quantum error-correcting code passing through a channel. Using either a shared classical secret key or shared entanglement Alice disguises her information as errors in the channel. Bob can retrieve the hidden information, but an eavesdropper (Eve) with the power to monitor the channel, but without the secret key, cannot distinguish the message from channel noise. We analyze how difficult it is for Eve to detect the presence of secret messages, and estimate rates of steganographic communication and secret key consumption for certain protocols.

arXiv:1008.0425•Aug 2, 2010•1 citation

Quantum Error Correction

Robert Hundt

This chapter discusses quantum noise and techniques for quantum error correction, a necessity for quantum computing. It discusses bit-flip errors, phase-flip errors, and their combination. The formalism of quantum operations is introduced, along with the operator-sum representation, and Krauss operators. With this, the chapter discusses the depolarization channel and imprecise gates, as well as (briefly) amplitude and phase damping. For error correction, repetition codes are introduced to motivate Shor’s 9-qubit error correction technique.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Feb 28, 2022•0 citations

A Comprehensive Overview of the Steane Code [[7,1,3]] CSS Quantum Error Correction Scheme

Neeraj Kumar, Arpit Anand, Aijaz Mehdi Zaidi +2 more

Since quantum states are limited in their ease of manipulation, quantum computing has great advantages when used for computation. These interactions, even if infinitesimal, are the very reason why errors arise, be it bit-flip, phase-flip, or composite, thus diminishing the accuracy in computation. Quantum error correction (QEC) intervenes systematically to guard against the loss of coherence from quantum information. Amongst the various QEC protocols developed so far, Steane code [ [7], [1], [3]] is a very famous CSS stabilizer code that was derived from a classical Hamming code. It will encode a single logical qubit into seven physical qubits, which corrects all single-qubit errors by separating X and Z syndrome measurements. The Steane code enables the implementation of transversal Clifford gates, making it an ideal playground to study fault-tolerant quantum computation. Although surface codes remain the codes of choice for scaling implementations, the Steane code will forever remain one of the cornerstone codes due to its clear structure of error correction and ease in teaching.

International Conference on Intelligent Processing, Hardware, Electronics, and Radio Systems (CIPHER)•Feb 13, 2026•0 citations

Qubit Error Correction in Quantum Computing Simulations: Do Larger Repetition Codes Reduce Logical Errors?

Sanjeev Tamilselvan, Tanuj Ranjith

Abstract Quantum computers are powerful tools for certain computational problems, but their fragile quantum states are easily disrupted by environmental noise, causing errors that degrade computational accuracy. Quantum error correction (QEC) addresses this challenge by encoding one logical qubit across multiple physical qubits, so that individual errors can be identified and reversed through redundancy. We used Qiskit Aer, a free open-source quantum circuit simulator, to test the repetition code, one of the simplest QEC methods, under three types of noise: bit-flip, phase-flip, and depolarizing. We compared an unprotected single-qubit baseline (n = 1) to 3-qubit (n = 3) and 5-qubit (n = 5) repetition codes, sweeping the physical error rate p from 0 to 0.15 with 4,000 simulation shots per data point. We hypothesized that larger codes would achieve higher logical success probabilities at all tested noise levels, with n = 5 outperforming n = 3, which would outperform the unprotected baseline. Our results confirmed this scaling trend across all three noise types. At p = 0.10 under bit-flip noise, the baseline achieved 0.713 logical success, while n = 3 reached 0.791 and n = 5 reached 0.843. At low noise (p = 0.02), the n = 5 code approached 0.994 logical success. Simulation results closely matched exact theoretical predictions derived from the binomial failure probability formula, validating our experimental implementation. These findings confirm that even the simplest QEC methods provide meaningful error reduction and that larger codes offer greater protection, demonstrating a foundational principle of quantum error correction using only free simulation tools.

•Mar 31, 2026•0 citations

Qubit Error Correction in Quantum Computing Simulations: Do Larger Repetition Codes Reduce Logical Errors?

Sanjeev Tamilselvan, Tanuj Ranjith

Abstract Quantum computers are powerful tools for certain computational problems, but their fragile quantum states are easily disrupted by environmental noise, causing errors that degrade computational accuracy. Quantum error correction (QEC) addresses this challenge by encoding one logical qubit across multiple physical qubits, so that individual errors can be identified and reversed through redundancy. We used Qiskit Aer, a free open-source quantum circuit simulator, to test the repetition code, one of the simplest QEC methods, under three types of noise: bit-flip, phase-flip, and depolarizing. We compared an unprotected single-qubit baseline (n = 1) to 3-qubit (n = 3) and 5-qubit (n = 5) repetition codes, sweeping the physical error rate p from 0 to 0.15 with 4,000 simulation shots per data point. We hypothesized that larger codes would achieve higher logical success probabilities at all tested noise levels, with n = 5 outperforming n = 3, which would outperform the unprotected baseline. Our results confirmed this scaling trend across all three noise types. At p = 0.10 under bit-flip noise, the baseline achieved 0.713 logical success, while n = 3 reached 0.791 and n = 5 reached 0.843. At low noise (p = 0.02), the n = 5 code approached 0.994 logical success. Simulation results closely matched exact theoretical predictions derived from the binomial failure probability formula, validating our experimental implementation. These findings confirm that even the simplest QEC methods provide meaningful error reduction and that larger codes offer greater protection, demonstrating a foundational principle of quantum error correction using only free simulation tools.

•Jun 12, 2026•0 citations

Introducing Quantum Error Correction

Steven H. Simon

Abstract We briefly introduce some basic ideas of information and quantum information. We start by comparing a classical memory with a quantum memory. Simple repetition codes can protect classical memories from error and we introduce the idea of a code space, physical bits, and logical bits. However, the quantum no-cloning theorem prevents a straightforward generalization to the quantum case. Nonetheless quantum error correction is indeed possible. We show the 9 qubit Shor code as an example.

•Sep 29, 2023•0 citations
This chapter deals with the subject of quantum error correction and the related codes (QECC), which can be applied to noisy quantum channels and quantum memories with the purpose of preserving or protecting the information integrity. I first describe the basics of quantum repetition codes , as applicable to bit-flip and phase-flip quantum channels. Then I consider the 9-qubit Shor code , which has the capability of diagnosing and correcting any combination of bit-flip and phase-flip errors, up to one error of each type. Furthermore, it is shown that the Shor code is, in fact, capable of fully restoring qubit integrity under a continuum of bit or phase errors, a property that has no counterpart in the classical world of error-correction codes. But the exploration of QECC does not stop here! We shall discover the elegant Calderbank–Shor–Steane (CSS) codes, which have the capability of correcting any number of errors t , both bit-flip and phase-flip. As an application of the CSS code, I then describe the 7-qubit Hadamard–Steane code , which can correct up to one error on single qubits. A corresponding quantum circuit, based on an original generator-matrix example, is presented. Quantum repetition code In Chapter 11, we saw that the simplest form of error-correction code (ECC) is the repetition code , based on the principle of majority logic . The background assumption is that in a given message sequence, or bit string, the probability of a bit error is sufficiently small for the majority of bits to be correctly transmitted through the channel.
In the current thesis we first talk about the six-qubit quantum error-correcting code and show its connections to entanglement-assisted error-correcting coding theory and then to subsystem codes. This code bridges the gap between the five-qubit (perfect) and Steane codes. We discuss two methods to encode one qubit into six physical qubits. Each of the two examples corrects an arbitrary single-qubit error. The first example is a degenerate six-qubit quantum error-correcting code. We prove that a six-qubit code without entanglement assistance cannot simultaneously possess a Calderbank-Shor-Steane (CSS) stabilizer and correct an arbitrary single-qubit error. A corollary of this result is that the Steane seven-qubit code is the smallest single-error correcting CSS code. Our second example is the construction of a non-degenerate six-qubit CSS entanglement-assisted code. This code uses one bit of entanglement (an ebit) shared between the sender (Alice) and the receiver (Bob) and corrects an arbitrary single-qubit error. In the second half of this thesis we explore the yet uncharted and relatively undiscovered area of quantum steganography. Steganography is the process of hiding secret information by embedding it in an innocent message. We present protocols for hiding quantum information in a codeword of a quantum error-correcting code passing through a channel. Using either a shared classical secret key or shared entanglement Alice disguises her information as errors in the channel. Bob can retrieve the hidden information, but an eavesdropper (Eve) with the power to monitor the channel, but without the secret key, cannot distinguish the message from channel noise. We analyze how difficult it is for Eve to detect the presence of secret messages, and estimate rates of steganographic communication and secret key consumption for certain protocols.
This chapter discusses quantum noise and techniques for quantum error correction, a necessity for quantum computing. It discusses bit-flip errors, phase-flip errors, and their combination. The formalism of quantum operations is introduced, along with the operator-sum representation, and Krauss operators. With this, the chapter discusses the depolarization channel and imprecise gates, as well as (briefly) amplitude and phase damping. For error correction, repetition codes are introduced to motivate Shor’s 9-qubit error correction technique.
Since quantum states are limited in their ease of manipulation, quantum computing has great advantages when used for computation. These interactions, even if infinitesimal, are the very reason why errors arise, be it bit-flip, phase-flip, or composite, thus diminishing the accuracy in computation. Quantum error correction (QEC) intervenes systematically to guard against the loss of coherence from quantum information. Amongst the various QEC protocols developed so far, Steane code [ [7], [1], [3]] is a very famous CSS stabilizer code that was derived from a classical Hamming code. It will encode a single logical qubit into seven physical qubits, which corrects all single-qubit errors by separating X and Z syndrome measurements. The Steane code enables the implementation of transversal Clifford gates, making it an ideal playground to study fault-tolerant quantum computation. Although surface codes remain the codes of choice for scaling implementations, the Steane code will forever remain one of the cornerstone codes due to its clear structure of error correction and ease in teaching.
Abstract Quantum computers are powerful tools for certain computational problems, but their fragile quantum states are easily disrupted by environmental noise, causing errors that degrade computational accuracy. Quantum error correction (QEC) addresses this challenge by encoding one logical qubit across multiple physical qubits, so that individual errors can be identified and reversed through redundancy. We used Qiskit Aer, a free open-source quantum circuit simulator, to test the repetition code, one of the simplest QEC methods, under three types of noise: bit-flip, phase-flip, and depolarizing. We compared an unprotected single-qubit baseline (n = 1) to 3-qubit (n = 3) and 5-qubit (n = 5) repetition codes, sweeping the physical error rate p from 0 to 0.15 with 4,000 simulation shots per data point. We hypothesized that larger codes would achieve higher logical success probabilities at all tested noise levels, with n = 5 outperforming n = 3, which would outperform the unprotected baseline. Our results confirmed this scaling trend across all three noise types. At p = 0.10 under bit-flip noise, the baseline achieved 0.713 logical success, while n = 3 reached 0.791 and n = 5 reached 0.843. At low noise (p = 0.02), the n = 5 code approached 0.994 logical success. Simulation results closely matched exact theoretical predictions derived from the binomial failure probability formula, validating our experimental implementation. These findings confirm that even the simplest QEC methods provide meaningful error reduction and that larger codes offer greater protection, demonstrating a foundational principle of quantum error correction using only free simulation tools.
Abstract Quantum computers are powerful tools for certain computational problems, but their fragile quantum states are easily disrupted by environmental noise, causing errors that degrade computational accuracy. Quantum error correction (QEC) addresses this challenge by encoding one logical qubit across multiple physical qubits, so that individual errors can be identified and reversed through redundancy. We used Qiskit Aer, a free open-source quantum circuit simulator, to test the repetition code, one of the simplest QEC methods, under three types of noise: bit-flip, phase-flip, and depolarizing. We compared an unprotected single-qubit baseline (n = 1) to 3-qubit (n = 3) and 5-qubit (n = 5) repetition codes, sweeping the physical error rate p from 0 to 0.15 with 4,000 simulation shots per data point. We hypothesized that larger codes would achieve higher logical success probabilities at all tested noise levels, with n = 5 outperforming n = 3, which would outperform the unprotected baseline. Our results confirmed this scaling trend across all three noise types. At p = 0.10 under bit-flip noise, the baseline achieved 0.713 logical success, while n = 3 reached 0.791 and n = 5 reached 0.843. At low noise (p = 0.02), the n = 5 code approached 0.994 logical success. Simulation results closely matched exact theoretical predictions derived from the binomial failure probability formula, validating our experimental implementation. These findings confirm that even the simplest QEC methods provide meaningful error reduction and that larger codes offer greater protection, demonstrating a foundational principle of quantum error correction using only free simulation tools.