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

Physical Review A

Upper bound on quantum stabilizer codes

Zhuo Li, Lijuan Xing

Published Mar 31, 2009• 4 citations
Publisher

Abstract

By studying sets of operators having constant weight, we present an analytical upper bound on the pure quantum stabilizer codes whose underlying quantum system can be of arbitrary dimension, which outperforms the well-known quantum Hamming bound, the optimal analytical upper bound so far for small code length.
DOI
10.1103/physreva.79.032342

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

A Hamming-Like Bound for Degenerate Stabilizer Codes

Andrew Nemec, Theerapat Tansuwannont

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.

arXiv:2306.00048•May 31, 2023•0 citations

A Note on Quantum Hamming Bound

Salah A. Aly

Proving the quantum Hamming bound for degenerate nonbinary stabilizer codes has been an open problem for a decade. In this note, I prove this bound for double error-correcting degenerate stabilizer codes. Also, I compute the maximum length of single and double error-correcting MDS stabilizer codes over finite fields.

arXiv:0711.4603•Nov 29, 2007•2 citations

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

Asymptotics of the quantum Hamming bound for subsystem codes

Andreas Klappenecker, Pradeep Kiran Sarvepalli

Ashikhmin and Litsyn showed that all binary stabilizer codes - pure or impure - of sufficiently large length obey the quantum Hamming bound, ruling out the possibility that impure codes of large length can outperform pure codes with respect to sphere packing. In contrast we show that impure subsystem codes do not obey the quantum Hamming bound for pure subsystem codes, not even asymptotically. We show that there exist arbitrarily long Bacon-Shor codes that violate the quantum Hamming bound.

arXiv:0710.4271•Oct 23, 2007•1 citation

All the optimal stabilizer codes of distance 3

Sixia Yu, Ying Dong, Qing Chen

Abstract — Optimal quantum stabilizer codes of distance 3 are explicitly constructed for all lengths except for the following four families of lengths 8fm − {1, 2} and fm+2 − {2, 3} with fm = 4 m −1 3 and m ≥ 2 being integer, for which our codes are of the best parameters known and are only one logical qubit less than the quantum Hamming bound. The optimality of our codes is ensured by saturating either the quantum Hamming bound or a stronger bound for three families of lengths 8fm + {1, 2} and fm+2 − 1 with m ≥ 1 derived from the linear programming bound. For the lengths less than 128 three previously unknown codes [[36, 29, 3]], [[37, 30, 3]] and [[81, 73, 3]] have been found. Index Terms — quantum error correction, 1-error correcting stabilizer codes, quantum Hamming bound, linear programming bound, optimal codes I.

•Jan 14, 2009•3 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.
Abstract — Optimal quantum stabilizer codes of distance 3 are explicitly constructed for all lengths except for the following four families of lengths 8fm − {1, 2} and fm+2 − {2, 3} with fm = 4 m −1 3 and m ≥ 2 being integer, for which our codes are of the best parameters known and are only one logical qubit less than the quantum Hamming bound. The optimality of our codes is ensured by saturating either the quantum Hamming bound or a stronger bound for three families of lengths 8fm + {1, 2} and fm+2 − 1 with m ≥ 1 derived from the linear programming bound. For the lengths less than 128 three previously unknown codes [[36, 29, 3]], [[37, 30, 3]] and [[81, 73, 3]] have been found. Index Terms — quantum error correction, 1-error correcting stabilizer codes, quantum Hamming bound, linear programming bound, optimal codes I.