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

Quantum Information and Computation

Non-stabilizer quantum codes from abelian subggroups of the error group

V. Arvind, Piyush P. Kururi, Kalyanapuram Rangachari Parthasarathy

Published Dec 1, 2004• 5 citations
Publisher

Abstract

This paper is motivated by the computer-generated nonadditive code describedin Rains et al [1]. We describe a theory of non-stabilizer codes of which thenonadditive code of Rains et al is an example. Furthermore, we give a general strategyof constructing good nonstabilizer codes from good stabilizer codes and give someexplicit constructions and asymptotically good nonstabilizer codes. Like in the case ofstabilizer codes, we can design fairly efficient encoding and decoding procedures.

DOI
10.5555/2011593.2011595

Related papers

Non-stabilizer quantum codes from Abelian subgroups of the error group

V. Arvind, Piyush P. Kurur, Kalyanapuram Rangachari Parthasarathy

This paper is motivated by the computer-generated nonadditive code described in Rains et al\cite{rains97nonadditive}. We describe a theory of non-stabilizer codes of which the nonadditive code of Rains et al is an example. Furthermore, we give a general strategy of constructing good nonstabilizer codes from good stabilizer codes and give some explicit constructions and asymptotically good nonstabilizer codes. Like in the case of stabilizer codes, we can design fairly efficient encoding and decoding procedures.

arXiv:quant-ph/0210097•Quantum Information and Computation•Dec 1, 2004•16 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

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

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

On the Structure of Additive Quantum Codes and the Existence of Nonadditive Codes

Vwani Roychowdhury, Farrokh Vatan

We first present a useful characterization of additive (stabilizer) quantum error-correcting codes. Then we present several examples of We first present a useful characterization of additive (stabilizer) quantum error--correcting codes. Then we present several examples of nonadditive codes. We show that there exist infinitely many non-trivial nonadditive codes with different minimum distances, and high rates. In fact, we show that nonadditive codes that correct t errors can reach the asymptotic rate R=1-2H(2t/n), where H(x) is the binary entropy function. Finally, we introduce the notion of strongly nonadditive codes (i.e., quantum codes with the following property: the trivial code consisting of the entire Hilbert space is the only additive code that is equivalent to any code containing the given code), and provide a construction for an ((11,2,3)) strongly nonadditive code.

arXiv:quant-ph/9710031•Oct 9, 1997•4 citations
This paper is motivated by the computer-generated nonadditive code describedin Rains et al [1]. We describe a theory of non-stabilizer codes of which thenonadditive code of Rains et al is an example. Furthermore, we give a general strategyof constructing good nonstabilizer codes from good stabilizer codes and give someexplicit constructions and asymptotically good nonstabilizer codes. Like in the case ofstabilizer codes, we can design fairly efficient encoding and decoding procedures.
This paper is motivated by the computer-generated nonadditive code described in Rains et al\cite{rains97nonadditive}. We describe a theory of non-stabilizer codes of which the nonadditive code of Rains et al is an example. Furthermore, we give a general strategy of constructing good nonstabilizer codes from good stabilizer codes and give some explicit constructions and asymptotically good nonstabilizer codes. Like in the case of stabilizer codes, we can design fairly efficient encoding and decoding procedures.
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.
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.
We first present a useful characterization of additive (stabilizer) quantum error-correcting codes. Then we present several examples of We first present a useful characterization of additive (stabilizer) quantum error--correcting codes. Then we present several examples of nonadditive codes. We show that there exist infinitely many non-trivial nonadditive codes with different minimum distances, and high rates. In fact, we show that nonadditive codes that correct t errors can reach the asymptotic rate R=1-2H(2t/n), where H(x) is the binary entropy function. Finally, we introduce the notion of strongly nonadditive codes (i.e., quantum codes with the following property: the trivial code consisting of the entire Hilbert space is the only additive code that is equivalent to any code containing the given code), and provide a construction for an ((11,2,3)) strongly nonadditive code.