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

IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT)

Codeword stabilized quantum codes

Andrew W. Cross, Graeme Smith, John A. Smolin, Bei Zeng

Published Jul 1, 2008• 21 citations
Publisher

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.1109/isit.2008.4595009

Related papers

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 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

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

Design of additive quantum codes via the code-word-stabilized framework

Alexey A. Kovalev, Ilya I. Dumer, Leonid P. Pryadko

We consider design of the quantum stabilizer codes via a two-step, low-complexity approach based on the framework of codeword-stabilized (CWS) codes. In this framework, each quantum CWS code can be specified by a graph and a binary code. For codes that can be obtained from a given graph, we give several upper bounds on the distance of a generic (additive or nonadditive) CWS code, and the lower Gilbert-Varshamov bound for the existence of additive CWS codes. We also consider additive cyclic CWS codes and show that these codes correspond to a previously unexplored class of single-generator cyclic stabilizer codes. We present several families of simple stabilizer codes with relatively good parameters.

arXiv:1108.5490•Physical Review A•Dec 21, 2011•25 citations

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

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
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.
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.
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.
We consider design of the quantum stabilizer codes via a two-step, low-complexity approach based on the framework of codeword-stabilized (CWS) codes. In this framework, each quantum CWS code can be specified by a graph and a binary code. For codes that can be obtained from a given graph, we give several upper bounds on the distance of a generic (additive or nonadditive) CWS code, and the lower Gilbert-Varshamov bound for the existence of additive CWS codes. We also consider additive cyclic CWS codes and show that these codes correspond to a previously unexplored class of single-generator cyclic stabilizer codes. We present several families of simple stabilizer codes with relatively good parameters.
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.
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.