# Glossary of concepts

- Lifting view in context →
Given the incidence matrix \(A\) of a protograph, each non-zero entry is replaced by a sum of \(\ell\)-dimensional permutation matrices while each zero entry is replaced by the \(\ell\)-dimensional zero matrix. The resulting matrix is called a lift of \(A\). The permutation matrices can be chosen randomly or deterministically, with a deterministic lift also called a permutation voltage assignment in the theory of theory of voltage graphs [1,2].

- Cyclic-to-polynomial correspondence view in context →
Cyclic linear \(q\)-ary codes and their properties can be naturally formulated using the theory of polynomials. Codewords \(c_1 c_2 \cdots c_n\) of a cyclic \(q\)-ary code can be thought of as coefficients in a polynomial \(c_1+c_2 x+\cdots+c_n x^{n-1}\) in the set of polynomials with \(q\)-ary coefficients, \(\mathbb{F}_q[x]\) with \(\mathbb{F}_q=GF(q)\). Polynomials corresponding to codewords of a linear cyclic code form an ideal (i.e., are closed under multiplication and addition) in the ring \(\mathbb{F}_q[x]/(x^n-1)\) (i.e., the set of equivalence classes of polynomials congruent modulo \(x^n-1\)). Multiplication of a codeword polynomial \(c(x)\) by \(x\) in such a ring corresponds to a cyclic shift of the corresponding codeword string.

- Knill-Laflamme conditions view in context →
In a finite-dimensional Hilbert space, there are necessary and sufficient conditions for a code to successfully correct a set of errors. These are called the Knill-Laflamme error-correction conditions [3–5][6; Thm. 10.1]. A code defined by a partial isometry \(U\) with code space projector \(\Pi = U U^\dagger\) can correct a set of errors \(\{ E_j \}\) if and only if \begin{align} \Pi E_i^\dagger E_j \Pi = c_{ij}\, \Pi\qquad\text{for all \(i,j\),} \tag*{(1)}\end{align} where \(c_{ij}\) can be arbitrary numbers.

- Pauli-to-polynomial mapping view in context →
A single-qudit Pauli operator can be specified by the lattice coordinate of the site and the symplectic vector representation of the Pauli operator within the site. In an extension of the sympletic representation, each lattice coordinate can be represented by a Laurent monomial of \(D\) formal variables. For example, when \(D=2\) and \(m=1\), the product of an \(X\) acting on the qubit at lattice coordinate \((-1,2)\) and a \(Z\) acting on the qubit at \((1,0)\) can be represented by the vector \( (x^{-1} y^2 | x) \). The multiplicative group of finitely supported Pauli operators modulo phase factors on the lattice of dimension \(D\) with \(m\) prime-dimensional qubits per site is isomorphic to the additive group of Laurent polynomial column vectors of length \(2m\) in \(D\) formal variables (see Ref. [7] and Sec. IV of Ref. [8]).

- Qubit CSS-to-homology correspondence view in context →
CSS codes and their properties can be formulated in terms of homology theory, yielding a powerful correspondence between codes and chain complexes, the primary homological structures. There exists a many-to-one mapping from size three chain complexes to CSS codes [9–12] that allows one to extract code properties from topological features of the complexes. Codes constructed in this manner are sometimes called homological CSS codes, but they are equivalent to CSS codes. This mapping of codes to manifolds allows the application of structures from topology to error correction, yielding various QLDPC codes with favorable properties.

- Binary symplectic representation view in context →
Each stabilizer code can be represented by a \((n-k) \times 2n\) check matrix (a.k.a. stabilizer generator matrix) \(H=(A|B)\), where each row \((a|b)\) is the binary symplectic representation of an element from a set of generating elements of the stabilizer group. In the symplectic representation, the single-qubit identity, \(X\), \(Y\), or \(Z\) Pauli matrices represented using two bits as \((0|0)\), \((1|0)\), \((1|1)\), and \((0|1)\), respectively. The check matrix can be brought into standard form via Gaussian elimination [6].

- Code switching view in context →
Code switching is a map between stabilizer codes that is done using a stabilizer group \(\mathsf{F}\) of the \(n\)-qudit Pauli group, \begin{align} \mathsf{S}\to\mathsf{N}_{\left\langle \mathsf{S},\mathsf{F}\right\rangle }\left(\mathsf{F}\right)~, \tag*{(2)}\end{align} where \(\mathsf{Z}\) denotes taking the center of a group. Code switching may not preserve the logical information and instead implement logical measurements; conditions on \(\mathsf{S}\) and \(\mathsf{F}\) such that qubit stabilizer code switching preserves logical information are derived in [13; Prop. II.1]. In the context of abelian topological stabilizer codes, code switching implements anyon condensation of any anyons represented by operators in the group \(\mathsf{F}\).

- Gauge fixing view in context →
Gauge fixing is a map between subsystem codes that is done using an abelian subgroup \(\mathsf{F}\subseteq\mathsf{G}\), \begin{align} \begin{split} \mathsf{S}&\to\left\langle \mathsf{S},\mathsf{F}\right\rangle \\ \mathsf{G}&\to\mathsf{N}_{\mathsf{G}}\left(\mathsf{F}\right)~, \end{split} \tag*{(3)}\end{align} where \(\mathsf{N}_{\mathsf{G}}\left(\mathsf{F}\right)\) is the normalizer of the stabilizer group within \(\mathsf{G}\).

- Gauging out view in context →
Gauging out is a map between subsystem codes that is done using a subgroup \(\mathsf{F}\subseteq\mathsf{P}_n\), \begin{align} \begin{split} \mathsf{S}&\to\mathsf{Z}\left(\left\langle \mathsf{G},\mathsf{F}\right\rangle \right)\\ \mathsf{G}&\to\left\langle \mathsf{G},\mathsf{F}\right\rangle ~. \end{split} \tag*{(4)}\end{align} When \(\mathsf{F}\) is a subgroup of the logical Pauli group, this is also called gauging. If \(\mathsf{F}\) is itself a Pauli group of \(m\) logical qubits of the original subsystem code, then gauging those qubits is equivalent to treating them as gauge qubits.

## References

- [1]
- C. A. Kelley and J. L. Walker, “LDPC codes from voltage graphs”, 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (2008) DOI
- [2]
- L. W. Beineke et al., editors , Topics in Topological Graph Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2009) DOI
- [3]
- E. Knill and R. Laflamme, “Theory of quantum error-correcting codes”, Physical Review A 55, 900 (1997) DOI
- [4]
- C. H. Bennett et al., “Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction”, Physical Review A 54, 3824 (1996) arXiv:quant-ph/9604024 DOI
- [5]
- J. Preskill. Lecture notes on Quantum Computation. (1997–2020) URL
- [6]
- M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2012) DOI
- [7]
- J. Haah, “Algebraic Methods for Quantum Codes on Lattices”, Revista Colombiana de Matemáticas 50, 299 (2017) arXiv:1607.01387 DOI
- [8]
- J. Haah, L. Fidkowski, and M. B. Hastings, “Nontrivial Quantum Cellular Automata in Higher Dimensions”, Communications in Mathematical Physics (2022) arXiv:1812.01625 DOI
- [9]
- A. Y. Kitaev, “Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction”, Russian Mathematical Surveys 52, 1191 (1997) DOI
- [10]
- H. Bombin and M. A. Martin-Delgado, “Homological error correction: Classical and quantum codes”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 48, 052105 (2007) arXiv:quant-ph/0605094 DOI
- [11]
- S. Bravyi and M. B. Hastings, “Homological Product Codes”, (2013) arXiv:1311.0885
- [12]
- N. P. Breuckmann, “PhD thesis: Homological Quantum Codes Beyond the Toric Code”, (2018) arXiv:1802.01520
- [13]
- D. Aasen et al., “Measurement Quantum Cellular Automata and Anomalies in Floquet Codes”, (2023) arXiv:2304.01277