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

Innovations in incidence geometry

The geometry of quantum codes

Jürgen Bierbrauer, Giorgio Faina, Massimo Giulietti, Stefano Marcugini, Fernanda Pambianco

Published Jan 1, 2008• 18 citations
Publisher

Abstract

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].
DOI
10.2140/iig.2008.6.53

Related papers

Quantum twisted codes

J�rgen Bierbrauer, Yves Edel

A major contribution of [1] is a reduction of the problem of correcting errors in quantum computations to the construction of codes in binary symplectic spaces. This mechanism is known as the additive or stabilizer construction. We consider an obvious generalization of these quantum codes in the symplectic geometry setting and obtain general constructions using our theory of twisted BCH-codes (also known as Reed–Solomon subspace subcodes). This leads to families of quantum codes with good parameters. Moreover, the generator matrices of these codes can be described in a canonical way. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Combin Designs 8: 174–188, 2000

Journal of Combinatorial Designs•Jan 1, 2000•154 citations

The geometry of quantum stabiliser codes

Aina Centelles

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.

•May 1, 2020•0 citations

New quantum caps in PG(4,4)

Daniele Bartoli, Stefano Marcugini, Fernanda Pambianco

Calderbank, Rains, Shor and Sloane (see \cite{Sloane}) showed that error-correction is possible in the context of quantum computations. Quantum stabilizer codes are a class of additive quaternary codes in binary projective spaces, which are self-orthogonal with respect to the symplectic form. A geometric description is given in \cite{Bierbra}, where also the notion of quantum cap is introduced. Quantum caps correspond to the special case of quantum stabilizer codes of distance $d=4$ when the code is linear over GF(4). In the present paper we review the translation from quantum error-correction to symplectic geometry and study quantum codes in PG(4,4) where we construct complete quantum caps with 20, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36 and 38 points and incomplete quantum caps with 10, 12, 13, 20, 23, 24, 25 and 26 points and we prove the non existence of 11-quantum caps. In particular the quantum caps of sizes 36 and 38 yield positive answers to the existence questions of quantum codes $[[36,26,4]]$ and $[[38,28,4]]$ that remained open in the data base \cite{codetable}.

arXiv:0905.1059•May 7, 2009•2 citations

New Quantum Caps in PG(4, 4)

Daniele Bartoli, Giorgio Faina, Stefano Marcugini +1 more

Abstract Calderbank, Rains, Shor, and Sloane (see [10]) showed that quantum stabilizer codes correspond to additive quaternary codes in binary projective spaces, which are self‐orthogonal with respect to the symplectic form. A geometric description is given in [8, 19]. In [8] the notion of a quantum cap is introduced. Quantum caps are equivalent to quantum stabilizer codes of minimum distance when the code is linear over . In this paper, we determine the valuesksuch that there exists a quantumk‐cap in , corresponding to pure linear quantum codes, proving, by exhaustive search, that no 11, 37, 39‐quantum caps exist. Moreover we give examples of quantum caps in not already known in the literature.

Journal of Combinatorial Designs•Jun 18, 2012•17 citations

Quantum Anticodes

ChunJun Cao, Giuseppe Cotardo, Brad Lackey

This work introduces a symplectic framework for quantum error correcting codes in which local structure is analyzed through an anticode perspective. In this setting, a code is treated as a symplectic space, and anticodes arise as maximal symplectic subspaces whose elements vanish on a prescribed set of components, providing a natural quantum analogue of their classical counterparts. This framework encompasses several families of quantum codes, including stabilizer and subsystem codes, provides a natural extension of generalized distances in quantum codes, and yields new invariants that capture local algebraic and combinatorial features. The notion of anticodes also naturally leads to operations such as puncturing and shortening for symplectic codes, which in turn provide algebraic interpretations of key phenomena in quantum error correction, such as the cleaning lemma and complementary recovery and yield new descriptions of weight enumerators.

quant-pharXiv:2512.13891•Dec 17, 2025•0 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
A major contribution of [1] is a reduction of the problem of correcting errors in quantum computations to the construction of codes in binary symplectic spaces. This mechanism is known as the additive or stabilizer construction. We consider an obvious generalization of these quantum codes in the symplectic geometry setting and obtain general constructions using our theory of twisted BCH-codes (also known as Reed–Solomon subspace subcodes). This leads to families of quantum codes with good parameters. Moreover, the generator matrices of these codes can be described in a canonical way. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Combin Designs 8: 174–188, 2000
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.
Calderbank, Rains, Shor and Sloane (see \cite{Sloane}) showed that error-correction is possible in the context of quantum computations. Quantum stabilizer codes are a class of additive quaternary codes in binary projective spaces, which are self-orthogonal with respect to the symplectic form. A geometric description is given in \cite{Bierbra}, where also the notion of quantum cap is introduced. Quantum caps correspond to the special case of quantum stabilizer codes of distance d=4d=4d=4 when the code is linear over GF(4). In the present paper we review the translation from quantum error-correction to symplectic geometry and study quantum codes in PG(4,4) where we construct complete quantum caps with 20, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36 and 38 points and incomplete quantum caps with 10, 12, 13, 20, 23, 24, 25 and 26 points and we prove the non existence of 11-quantum caps. In particular the quantum caps of sizes 36 and 38 yield positive answers to the existence questions of quantum codes [[36,26,4]][[36,26,4]][[36,26,4]] and [[38,28,4]][[38,28,4]][[38,28,4]] that remained open in the data base \cite{codetable}.
Abstract Calderbank, Rains, Shor, and Sloane (see [10]) showed that quantum stabilizer codes correspond to additive quaternary codes in binary projective spaces, which are self‐orthogonal with respect to the symplectic form. A geometric description is given in [8, 19]. In [8] the notion of a quantum cap is introduced. Quantum caps are equivalent to quantum stabilizer codes of minimum distance when the code is linear over . In this paper, we determine the valuesksuch that there exists a quantumk‐cap in , corresponding to pure linear quantum codes, proving, by exhaustive search, that no 11, 37, 39‐quantum caps exist. Moreover we give examples of quantum caps in not already known in the literature.
This work introduces a symplectic framework for quantum error correcting codes in which local structure is analyzed through an anticode perspective. In this setting, a code is treated as a symplectic space, and anticodes arise as maximal symplectic subspaces whose elements vanish on a prescribed set of components, providing a natural quantum analogue of their classical counterparts. This framework encompasses several families of quantum codes, including stabilizer and subsystem codes, provides a natural extension of generalized distances in quantum codes, and yields new invariants that capture local algebraic and combinatorial features. The notion of anticodes also naturally leads to operations such as puncturing and shortening for symplectic codes, which in turn provide algebraic interpretations of key phenomena in quantum error correction, such as the cleaning lemma and complementary recovery and yield new descriptions of weight enumerators.
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.