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

The geometry of quantum stabiliser codes

Aina Centelles

Published May 1, 2020• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

The aim of this project is to bring together quantum error-correcting codes theory and the study of finite geometries. A quantum code is used to protect quantum information from errors that may occur due to quantum decoherence. We give a geometric interpretation of the codes as sets of lines in certain finite projective spaces. We exploit the geometric aspect of codes to rewrite proofs in a more intuitive way and explore their properties through visualization. Some examples of stabiliser codes and their associated quantum sets of lines are presented. We also discuss how to build nonadditive codes as the union of stabiliser codes. Finite geometry has proved to be a powerful tool to work on quantum error-correcting codes. Some of its applications include finding new codes or proving the non-existence of codes with certain parameters.

Related papers

Quantum error-correcting codes and their geometries

Simeon Ball, Aina Centelles, Felix Huber

This is an expository article aiming to introduce the reader to the underlying mathematics and geometry of quantum error correction. Information stored on quantum particles is subject to noise and interference from the environment. Quantum error-correcting codes allow the negation of these effects in order to successfully restore the original quantum information. We briefly describe the necessary quantum-mechanical background to be able to understand how quantum error correction works. We go on to construct quantum codes: firstly qubit stabilizer codes, then qubit non-stabilizer codes, and finally codes with a higher local dimension. We will delve into the geometry of these codes. This allows one to deduce the parameters of the code efficiently, deduce the inequivalence between codes that have the same parameters, and presents a useful tool in deducing the feasibility of certain parameters. We also include sections on quantum maximum distance separable codes and the quantum MacWilliams identities.

arXiv:2007.05992•Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré D Combinatorics Physics and their Interactions•Feb 9, 2023•9 citations

Quantum codes are quantized codes: Stabilizer codes from quantization over finite fields

Michael Zurel

We present a discrete analogue of geometric quantization over finite fields which, when applied to certain classical error-correcting codes, yields quantum error-correcting codes. This provides a physical interpretation for a previously known quantum-classical correspondence in coding theory.

quant-pharXiv:2610.06607•Oct 6, 2026•0 citations

Graded Quantum Codes

Tony Shaska

This work develops a geometric framework for constructing quantum error-correcting codes from weighted projective and orbifold structures, integrating algebraic geometry, divisor theory, and the CSS stabilizer formalism. Beginning with weighted projective spaces and their associated height and defect structures, the study builds classical AG-codes via evaluation on divisors adapted to orbifold singularities. These classical codes are lifted to quantum codes using self-orthogonality conditions and homological constructions, yielding a class of Quantum Weighted Algebraic Geometric (QWAG) codes. A central contribution is the formulation of a refined Singleton-type bound motivated by orbifold defect terms and effective genus corrections. While the classical quantum Singleton bound is recovered in the smooth case, the orbifold setting suggests additional geometric contributions that may adjust the theoretical distance bound. The refined bound is presented with partial justification under specific geometric hypotheses and framed as a conjectural extension in full generality. The monograph further provides explicit constructions, computational implementations in Sage/Python, and illustrative examples demonstrating how weighted geometry influences code parameters. This work establishes a structured bridge between orbifold geometry and quantum coding theory, outlining both concrete constructions and open problems for further mathematical development.

arXiv:2508.07542•Aug 11, 2025•0 citations

The geometry of quantum codes

Jürgen Bierbrauer, Giorgio Faina, Massimo Giulietti +2 more

We give a geometric interpretation of additive quantum stabilizer codes in terms of sets of lines in binary symplectic space.It is used to obtain synthetic geometric constructions and non-existence results.In particular several open problems are removed from Grassl's database [13].

Innovations in incidence geometry•Jan 1, 2008•18 citations

Hybrid Clifford Codes via Operator Algebra Quantum Error Correction and Projective Representation Theory

Jonas Eidesen, David W. Kribs, Andrew Nemec

Clifford codes are a natural generalization of quantum stabilizer codes based primarily on representation theory. This class of codes has previously been extended to the setting of quantum subsystem codes. We formulate a two-fold generalization of Clifford codes, for both the hybrid classical and quantum information and projective representation theory settings. This leads to new classes of hybrid subspace and subsystem Clifford codes. We extend the fundamental representation theoretic quantum error correction theorem to include these codes, based on the operator algebra quantum error correction framework. We also discuss several examples throughout the presentation, of both stabilizer and non-stabilizer type.

quant-pharXiv:2606.02531•Jun 2, 2026•0 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
The aim of this project is to bring together quantum error-correcting codes theory and the study of finite geometries. A quantum code is used to protect quantum information from errors that may occur due to quantum decoherence. We give a geometric interpretation of the codes as sets of lines in certain finite projective spaces. We exploit the geometric aspect of codes to rewrite proofs in a more intuitive way and explore their properties through visualization. Some examples of stabiliser codes and their associated quantum sets of lines are presented. We also discuss how to build nonadditive codes as the union of stabiliser codes. Finite geometry has proved to be a powerful tool to work on quantum error-correcting codes. Some of its applications include finding new codes or proving the non-existence of codes with certain parameters.
This is an expository article aiming to introduce the reader to the underlying mathematics and geometry of quantum error correction. Information stored on quantum particles is subject to noise and interference from the environment. Quantum error-correcting codes allow the negation of these effects in order to successfully restore the original quantum information. We briefly describe the necessary quantum-mechanical background to be able to understand how quantum error correction works. We go on to construct quantum codes: firstly qubit stabilizer codes, then qubit non-stabilizer codes, and finally codes with a higher local dimension. We will delve into the geometry of these codes. This allows one to deduce the parameters of the code efficiently, deduce the inequivalence between codes that have the same parameters, and presents a useful tool in deducing the feasibility of certain parameters. We also include sections on quantum maximum distance separable codes and the quantum MacWilliams identities.
This work develops a geometric framework for constructing quantum error-correcting codes from weighted projective and orbifold structures, integrating algebraic geometry, divisor theory, and the CSS stabilizer formalism. Beginning with weighted projective spaces and their associated height and defect structures, the study builds classical AG-codes via evaluation on divisors adapted to orbifold singularities. These classical codes are lifted to quantum codes using self-orthogonality conditions and homological constructions, yielding a class of Quantum Weighted Algebraic Geometric (QWAG) codes. A central contribution is the formulation of a refined Singleton-type bound motivated by orbifold defect terms and effective genus corrections. While the classical quantum Singleton bound is recovered in the smooth case, the orbifold setting suggests additional geometric contributions that may adjust the theoretical distance bound. The refined bound is presented with partial justification under specific geometric hypotheses and framed as a conjectural extension in full generality. The monograph further provides explicit constructions, computational implementations in Sage/Python, and illustrative examples demonstrating how weighted geometry influences code parameters. This work establishes a structured bridge between orbifold geometry and quantum coding theory, outlining both concrete constructions and open problems for further mathematical development.
Clifford codes are a natural generalization of quantum stabilizer codes based primarily on representation theory. This class of codes has previously been extended to the setting of quantum subsystem codes. We formulate a two-fold generalization of Clifford codes, for both the hybrid classical and quantum information and projective representation theory settings. This leads to new classes of hybrid subspace and subsystem Clifford codes. We extend the fundamental representation theoretic quantum error correction theorem to include these codes, based on the operator algebra quantum error correction framework. We also discuss several examples throughout the presentation, of both stabilizer and non-stabilizer type.
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.