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

Nonadditive quantum codes

Markus Grassl, Martin Rötteler

Published Sep 5, 2013• 6 citations
Publisher

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.1017/cbo9781139034807.012

Related papers

Non-additive quantum codes from Goethals and Preparata codes

Markus Grassl, Martin Rötteler

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.

arXiv:0801.2144•IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW)•May 1, 2008•19 citations

Codeword Stabilized Quantum Codes

Andrew W. Cross, Graeme Smith, John A. Smolin +1 more

We present a unifying approach to quantum error correcting code design that encompasses additive (stabilizer) codes, as well as all known examples of nonadditive codes with good parameters. We use this framework to generate new codes with superior parameters to any previously known. In particular, we find ((10,18,3)) and ((10,20,3)) codes. We also show how to construct encoding circuits for all codes within our framework.

arXiv:0708.1021•IEEE Transactions on Information Theory•Jan 1, 2009•117 citations

Codeword stabilized quantum codes

Andrew W. Cross, Graeme Smith, John A. Smolin +1 more

We present a unifying approach to quantum error correcting code design that encompasses additive (stabilizer) codes, as well as all known examples of nonadditive codes with good parameters. We use this framework to generate new codes with superior parameters to any previously known. In particular, we find ((10, 18, 3)) and ((10, 20, 3)) codes. We also show how to construct encoding circuits for all codes within our framework.

IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT)•Jul 1, 2008•21 citations

Entanglement-assisted codeword stabilized quantum codes

Jeonghwan Shin, Jun Heo, Todd A. Brun

Entangled qubits can increase the capacity of quantum error-correcting codes based on stabilizer codes. In addition, by using entanglement quantum stabilizer codes can be construct from classical linear codes that do not satisfy the dual-containing constraint. We show that it is possible to construct both additive and nonadditive quantum codes using the codeword stabilized quantum code framework. Nonadditive codes may offer improved performance over the more common stabilizer codes. Like other entanglement-assisted codes, the encoding procedure acts only on the qubits on Alice's side, and only these qubits are assumed to pass through the channel. However, errors in the codeword stabilized quantum code framework give rise to effective $Z$ errors on Bob's side. We use this scheme to construct entanglement-assisted nonadditive quantum codes, in particular, $($(5,16,2;1)$)$ and $($(7,4,5;4)$)$ codes.

arXiv:1109.3358•Physical Review A•Dec 22, 2011•25 citations

Nonbinary codeword-stabilized quantum codes

Xie Chen, Bei Zeng, Isaac L. Chuang

The codeword-stabilized (CWS) quantum code formalism presents a unifying approach to both additive and nonadditive quantum error-correcting codes [see A. Cross et al., e-print arXiv:0708.1021], but only for binary states. Here we generalize the CWS framework to the nonbinary case (of both prime and nonprime dimensions) and map the search for nonbinary quantum codes to a corresponding search problem for classical nonbinary codes with specific error patterns. We show that while the additivity properties of nonbinary CWS codes are similar to the binary case, the structural properties of the nonbinary codes differ substantially from the binary case, even for prime dimensions. In particular, we identify specific structure patterns of stabilizer groups, based on which efficient constructions might be possible for codes that encode more dimensions than any stabilizer codes of the same length and distance; similar methods cannot be applied in the binary case. Understanding of these structural properties can help prune the search space and facilitate the identification of good nonbinary CWS codes.

arXiv:0808.3086•Physical Review A•Dec 8, 2008•31 citations

Quotient Space Quantum Codes

JingLei Xia

Additive codes and some nonadditive codes use the single and multiple invariant subspaces of the stabilizer G, respectively, to construct quantum codes, so the selection of the invariant subspaces is a key problem. In this paper, I provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for this problem and, establish the quotient space codes to construct quantum codes. These new codes unify additive codes and codeword stabilized codes and can transmit classical codewords. Actually, I give an alternative approach to constructing union stabilizer codes, which is different from that of Markus Grassl and Martin Roetteler, and which is easier to deal with degenerate codes. I also present new bounds for quantum codes and provide a simple proof of the quantum Singleton bound. The quotient space approach provides a concise and clear mathematical framework for the study of quantum error-correcting codes.

arXiv:2311.07265•Nov 13, 2023•0 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.
Entangled qubits can increase the capacity of quantum error-correcting codes based on stabilizer codes. In addition, by using entanglement quantum stabilizer codes can be construct from classical linear codes that do not satisfy the dual-containing constraint. We show that it is possible to construct both additive and nonadditive quantum codes using the codeword stabilized quantum code framework. Nonadditive codes may offer improved performance over the more common stabilizer codes. Like other entanglement-assisted codes, the encoding procedure acts only on the qubits on Alice's side, and only these qubits are assumed to pass through the channel. However, errors in the codeword stabilized quantum code framework give rise to effective ZZZ errors on Bob's side. We use this scheme to construct entanglement-assisted nonadditive quantum codes, in particular, ((((5,16,2;1)))) and ((((7,4,5;4)))) codes.
The codeword-stabilized (CWS) quantum code formalism presents a unifying approach to both additive and nonadditive quantum error-correcting codes [see A. Cross et al., e-print arXiv:0708.1021], but only for binary states. Here we generalize the CWS framework to the nonbinary case (of both prime and nonprime dimensions) and map the search for nonbinary quantum codes to a corresponding search problem for classical nonbinary codes with specific error patterns. We show that while the additivity properties of nonbinary CWS codes are similar to the binary case, the structural properties of the nonbinary codes differ substantially from the binary case, even for prime dimensions. In particular, we identify specific structure patterns of stabilizer groups, based on which efficient constructions might be possible for codes that encode more dimensions than any stabilizer codes of the same length and distance; similar methods cannot be applied in the binary case. Understanding of these structural properties can help prune the search space and facilitate the identification of good nonbinary CWS codes.
Additive codes and some nonadditive codes use the single and multiple invariant subspaces of the stabilizer G, respectively, to construct quantum codes, so the selection of the invariant subspaces is a key problem. In this paper, I provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for this problem and, establish the quotient space codes to construct quantum codes. These new codes unify additive codes and codeword stabilized codes and can transmit classical codewords. Actually, I give an alternative approach to constructing union stabilizer codes, which is different from that of Markus Grassl and Martin Roetteler, and which is easier to deal with degenerate codes. I also present new bounds for quantum codes and provide a simple proof of the quantum Singleton bound. The quotient space approach provides a concise and clear mathematical framework for the study of quantum error-correcting codes.