Here is a list of all codes that belong to the quantum domain.

[Jump to code graph excerpt]

[ShowHide short descriptions]
  1. 2D bosonization code[1,2]
    A mapping between a 2D lattice of qubits and a 2D lattice quadratic Hamiltonian of Majorana modes. This family also includes a super-compact fermionic encoding with a qubit-to-fermion ratio of \(1.25\) [2; Table I].
  2. 2D color code[3,4] a.k.a. Triangular color code.
    Color code defined on a two-dimensional planar graph. Each face hosts two stabilizer generators, a Pauli-\(X\) and a Pauli-\(Z\) string acting on all the qubits of the face.
  3. 2D hyperbolic surface code[5–7]
    Hyperbolic surface codes based on a tessellation of a closed 2D manifold with a hyperbolic geometry (i.e., non-Euclidean geometry, e.g., saddle surfaces when defined on a 2D plane).
  4. 2D lattice stabilizer code
    Lattice stabilizer code in two spatial dimensions.
  5. 2D subsystem color code[8] a.k.a. 2D gauge color code.
    A subsystem version of the 2D color code.
  6. 2T-qutrit code[9]
    Two-mode qutrit code constructed out of superpositions of coherent states whose amplitudes make up the binary tetrahedral group \(2T\), a.k.a. the 24-cell.
  7. 3D Bacon-Shor code[10]
    Generalization of the Bacon-Shor code to three dimensions that was conjectured to be a self-correcting memory. It is defined on a cubic lattice and admits sheet-like stabilizer generators.
  8. 3D bosonization code[11]
    A mapping that maps a 3D lattice quadratic Hamiltonian of Majorana modes into a lattice of qubits which realize a \(\mathbb{Z}_2\) gauge theory with a particular Gauss law.
  9. 3D color code[4]
    Color code defined on a four-valent four-colorable tiling of 3D space. Logical dimension is determined by the genus of the underlying surface (for closed surfaces) and types of boundaries (for open surfaces).
  10. 3D fermionic surface code[11–14] a.k.a. 3D toric code with emergent fermion, Levin-Wen fermion model, Fermionic-charge bosonic-loop (FcBl) surface code.
    A non-CSS 3D Kitaev surface code that realizes \(\mathbb{Z}_2\) gauge theory with an emergent fermion, i.e., the fermionic-charge bosonic-loop (FcBl) phase [15]. The model can be defined on a cubic lattice in several ways [16; Eq. (D45-46)]. Realizations on other lattices also exist [17,18].
  11. 3D lattice stabilizer code
    Lattice stabilizer code in three spatial dimensions. Qubit codes are conjectured to admit either fracton phases or abelian topological phases that are equivalent to multiple copies of the 3D surface code and/or the 3D fermionic surface code via a local constant-depth Clifford circuit [16].
  12. 3D subsystem color code[19] a.k.a. 3D gauge color code.
    A subsystem version of the 3D color code.
  13. 3D subsystem surface code[20] a.k.a. 3D subsystem toric code.
    Subsystem generalization of the surface code on a 3D cubic lattice with gauge-group generators of weight at most three.
  14. 3D surface code[21,22] a.k.a. 3D toric code, 3D cubic code, Bosonic-charge bosonic-loop (BcBl) surface code.
    A generalization of the Kitaev surface code defined on a 3D lattice.
  15. Abelian LP code[23,24]
    An LP code for Abelian group \(G\). The case of \(G\) being a cyclic group is a GB code (a.k.a. a quasi-cyclic LP code) [24; Sec. III.E]. A particular family with \(G=\mathbb{Z}_{\ell}\) yields codes with constant rate and nearly constant distance.
  16. Abelian TQD stabilizer code[25–27]
    Modular-qudit stabilizer code whose codewords realize 2D modular gapped Abelian topological order. The corresponding anyon theory is defined by an Abelian group and a Type-III group cocycle that can be decomposed as a product of Type-I and Type-II group cocycles; see [28; Sec. IV.A]. Abelian TQDs realize all modular gapped Abelian topological orders [28]. Many Abelian TQD code Hamiltonians were originally formulated as commuting-projector models [29].
  17. Abelian quantum-double stabilizer code[30]
    Modular-qudit stabilizer code whose codewords realize 2D modular gapped Abelian topological order with trivial cocycle. The corresponding anyon theory is defined by an Abelian group. All such codes can be realized by a stack of modular-qudit surface codes because all Abelian groups are Kronecker products of cyclic groups.
  18. Abelian topological code
    Code whose codewords realize topological order associated with an Abelian anyon theory. In 2D, this is equivalent to a unitary braided fusion category which is also an Abelian group under fusion [31]. Unless otherwise noted, the phases discussed are bosonic.
  19. Amplitude-damping (AD) code[32,33]
    Block quantum code on either qubits or bosonic modes that is designed to detect and correct qubit or bosonic AD errors, respectively.
  20. Amplitude-damping CWS code[34,35]
    Self-complementary CWS code that is designed to detect and correct AD errors.
  21. Analog repetition code[36] a.k.a. Gaussian repetition code, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) repetition code.
    An \([[n,1]]_{\marhbb{R}}\) analog stabilizer version of the quantum repetition code, encoding the position states of one mode into an odd number of \(n\) modes.
  22. Analog stabilizer code a.k.a. Gaussian stabilizer code, Linear stabilizer code, Symplectic stabilizer code.
    An oscillator-into-oscillator stabilizer code encoding \(k\) logical modes into \(n\) physical modes. An \(((n,k,d))_{\mathbb{R}}\) analog stabilizer code is denoted as \([[n,k,d]]_{\mathbb{R}}\), where \(d\) is the code's distance.
  23. Analog surface code[37] a.k.a. \(\mathbb{R}\) gauge theory code, Continuous-variable (CV) surface code.
    An analog CSS version of the Kitaev surface code realizing a phase of 2D \(\mathbb{R}\) gauge theory.
  24. Analog-cluster-state code[38–40] a.k.a. CV-cluster-state code, CV-graph-state code, Bosonic-cluster-state code.
    A code based on a continuous-variable (CV), or analog, cluster state. Such a state can be used to perform MBQC of logical modes, which substitutes the temporal dimension necessary for decoding a conventional code with a spatial dimension. The exact analog cluster state is non-normalizable, so approximate constructs have to be considered.
  25. Approximate operator-algebra QECC[41,42]
    Code encoding quantum and/or classical information that approximately corrects against noise affecting operators forming an algebra.
  26. Approximate quantum error-correcting code (AQECC)[32,41–46]
    Encodes quantum information so that it is possible to approximately recover that information from noise up to an error bound in recovery.
  27. Approximate secret-sharing code[45]
    A family of \( [[n,k,d]]_q \) CSS codes approximately correcting errors on up to \(\lfloor (n-1)/2 \rfloor\) qubits, i.e., with approximate distance approaching the no-cloning bound \(n/2\). Constructed using a non-degenerate CSS code, such as a polynomial quantum code, and a classical authentication scheme. The code can be viewed as an \(t\)-error tolerant secret sharing scheme. Since the code yields a small logical subspace using large registers that contain both classical and quantum information, it is not useful for practical error correction problems, but instead demonstrates the power of approximate quantum error correction.
  28. Asymmetric quantum code[47,48] a.k.a. Noise-biased quantum code.
    Quantum systems can be roughly characterized by two types of noise, a bit-flip noise that maps canonical basis states into each other, and a phase-flip noise that induces relative phases between superpositions of such basis states. A code cannot protect against both types of noise arbitrarily well, and there is a tradeoff between the two types of protection. An asymmetric quantum code is one that performs much better against one type of noise than the other type. Such codes typically have tunable distances against each noise type and include CSS codes, GKP codes, and QSCs.
  29. Auxiliary qubit mapping (AQM) code[49,50]
    A concatenation of the JW transformation code with a qubit stabilizer code.
  30. Bacon-Shor code[10,51]
    Subsystem CSS code defined on an \(m_1 \times m_2\) lattice of qubits that generalizes the \([[9,1,3]]\) (subspace) Shor code. It is said to be symmetric when \(m_1=m_2\), and asymmetric otherwise.
  31. Balanced product (BP) code[52]
    Family of CSS quantum codes based on products of two classical codes which share common symmetries. The balanced product can be understood as taking the usual tensor/hypergraph product and then factoring out the symmetries factored. This reduces the overall number of physical qubits \(n\), while, under certain circumstances, leaving the number of encoded qubits \(k\) and the code distance \(d\) invariant. This leads to a more favourable encoding rate \(k/n\) and normalized distance \(d/n\) compared to the tensor/hypergraph product.
  32. Ball color code[53]
    A color code defined on a \(D\)-dimensional colex. This family includes hypercube color codes (color codes defined on balls constructed from hyperoctahedra) and 3D ball color codes (color codes defined on duals of certain Archimedean solids).
  33. Ball-Verstraete-Cirac (BVC) code[54,55] a.k.a. Verstraete-Cirac code, Auxiliary fermion code.
    A 2D fermion-into-qubit encoding that builds upon the JW transformation encoding by eliminating the weight-\(O(n)\) \(X\)-type string at the expense introducing additional qubits. See [2; Sec. IV.B] for details.
  34. Bicycle code[56]
    A CSS code whose stabilizer generator matrix blocks are \(H_{X}=H_{Z}=(A|A^T)\), where \(A\) is a circulant matrix. The fact that \(A\) commutes with its transpose ensures that the CSS condition is satisfied. Bicycle codes are the first QLDPC codes.
  35. Binary dihedral PI code[57]
    Multi-qubit code designed to realize gates from the binary dihedral group transversally. Can also be interpreted as a single-spin code. The codespace projection is a projection onto an irrep of the binary dihedral group \( \mathsf{BD}_{2N} = \langle\omega I, X, P\rangle \) of order \(8N\), where \( \omega \) is a \( 2N \)th root of unity, and \( P = \text{diag} ( 1, \omega^2) \).
  36. Binomial code[58]
    Bosonic rotation codes designed to approximately protect against errors consisting of powers of raising and lowering operators up to some maximum power. Binomial codes can be thought of as spin-coherent states embedded into an oscillator [59].
  37. Bivariate bicycle (BB) code[60]
    One of several Abelian 2BGA codes which admit time-optimal syndrome measurement circuits that can be implemented in a two-layer architecture, a generalization of the square-lattice architecture optimal for the surface codes.
  38. Block quantum code
    A code constructed in a multi-partite quantum system, i.e., a physical space consisting of a tensor product of \(n > 1\) identical factors called subsystems, parties, or bodies. The subsystems include qubits, modular qudits, Galois qudits, oscillators, or more general groups. For finite dimensional codes, the dimension of the underlying subsystem is denoted by \(q\) and is sometimes called the local dimension.
  39. Bosonic \(q\)-ary expansion[61]
    A one-to-one mapping between basis states on \(n\) prime-dimensional qudits (of dimension \(q=p\)) and the subspace of the first \(p^n\) single-mode Fock states. While this mapping offers a way to map qudits into a single mode, noise models for the two code families induce different notions of locality and thus qualitatively different physical interpretations [62].
  40. Bosonic code a.k.a. Continuous-variable (CV) quantum code, Oscillator code, Quantum modulation scheme.
    Encodes logical Hilbert space, finite- or infinite-dimensional, into a physical Hilbert space that contains at least one oscillator (a.k.a. bosonic mode or qumode).
  41. Bosonic rotation code[63] a.k.a. Rotationally symmetric bosonic (RSB) code.
    A single-mode Fock-state bosonic code whose codespace is preserved by a phase-space rotation by a multiple of \(2\pi/N\) for some \(N\). The rotation symmetry ensures that encoded states have support only on every \(N^{\textrm{th}}\) Fock state. For example, single-mode Fock-state codes for \(N=2\) encoding a qubit admit basis states that are, respectively, supported on Fock state sets \(\{|0\rangle,|4\rangle,|8\rangle,\cdots\}\) and \(\{|2\rangle,|6\rangle,|10\rangle,\cdots\}\).
  42. Bosonic stabilizer code[64,65] a.k.a. CV stabilizer code, Oscillator stabilizer code.
    Bosonic code whose codespace is defined as the common \(+1\) eigenspace of a group of mutually commuting displacement operators. Displacements form the stabilizers of the code, and have continuous eigenvalues, in contrast with the discrete set of eigenvalues of qubit stabilizers. As a result, exact codewords are non-normalizable, so approximate constructions have to be considered. Stabilizer groups can contain discrete or continuous subgroups and can admit logical qudit and/or oscillator logical subspaces.
  43. Bosonization code[66–68]
    A mapping that maps a \(D\)-dimensional lattice quadratic Hamiltonian of Majorana modes into a lattice of qubits. The resulting qubit code can realize various topological phases, depending on the initial Majorana-mode Hamiltonian and its symmetries.
  44. Branching MERA code[69–71]
    Qubit stabilizer code whose encoding circuit corresponds to a branching MERA tensor network [72].
  45. Bravyi-Bacon-Shor (BBS) code[73] a.k.a. Generalized Bacon-Shor code.
    An \([[n,k,d]]\) CSS subsystem stabilizer code generalizing Bacon-Shor codes to a larger set of qubit geometries. Defined through a binary matrix \(A\) such that physical qubits live on sites \((i,j)\) whenever \(A_{i,j}=1\). The gauge group is generated by 2-qubit operators, including \(XX\) interations between any two qubits sharing a column in \(A\), and \(ZZ\) interations between two qubits sharing a row. The code parameters are: \(n=\sum_{i,j}A_{i,j}\), \(k=\text{rank}(A)\), and the distance is the minimum weight of any row or column.
  46. Bravyi-Kitaev superfast (BKSF) code[74] a.k.a. Loop-stabilized fermion simulation (LSFS) code.
    An single error-detecting fermion-into-qubit encoding defined on 2D qubit lattice whose stabilizers are associated with loops in the lattice. The code can be generalized to a single error-correcting code (i.e., with distance three) on graphs of degree \(\geq 6\) [75].
  47. Bravyi-Kitaev transformation (BKT) code[74]
    A fermion-into-qubit encoding that maps Majorana operators into Pauli strings of weight \(\lceil \log (n+1) \rceil\). The code can be reformulated in terms of Fenwick trees [76], and the Pauli-string weight can be further optimized to yield the segmented Bravyi-Kitaev (SBK) transformation code [77].
  48. Brown-Fawzi random Clifford-circuit code[78]
    An \([[n,k]]\) stabilizer code whose encoder is a random Clifford circuit of depth \(O(\log^3 n)\).
  49. CSS-Plaquette code[79]
    Generalization of the Bacon-Shor code to three dimensions, defined on a cubic lattice and admitting string-like stabilizer generators.
  50. CSS-T code[80]
    A CSS code for which a physical transversal \(T\) gate is either the identity (up to a global phase) or a logical gate. CSS-T codes are constructed from a pair of linear binary codes via the CSS construction, with the pair satisfying certain conditions [81].
  51. Calderbank-Shor-Steane (CSS) stabilizer code
    A stabilizer code admitting a set of stabilizer generators that are either \(Z\)-type or \(X\)-type operators. The two sets of stabilizer generators can often, but not always, be related to parts of a chain complex over the appropriate ring or field.
  52. Camara-Ollivier-Tillich code[82]
    A Hermitian qubit QLDPC code whose stabilizer generator matrix is constructed using two nested subgroups of \(GF(4)^n\).
  53. Capped color code (CCC)[83]
    A non-geometrically local subsystem color code consisting of two layers of 2D color code stacked together and topped (or capped) by a single qubit. Gauge fixing yields two types of codes, capped color codes in H or T form. Layers of 2D color codes can also be stacked together in a recursive construction, yielding recursive capped color codes (RCCCs).
  54. Cat code[84] a.k.a. Superposition of coherent states (SCS).
    Rotation-symmetric bosonic Fock-state code encoding a \(q\)-dimensional qudit into one oscillator which utilizes a constellation of \(q(S+1)\) coherent states distributed equidistantly around a circle in phase space of radius \(\alpha\).
  55. Cat-repetition code[85,86]
    A concatenated qubit-into-\(n\)-mode code whose outer code is a quantum repetition code and whose inner code is the cat code in its cat basis.
  56. Category-based quantum code
    Encodes a finite-dimensional logical Hilbert space into a physical Hilbert space associated with a finite category. Codes on modular fusion categories are often associated with a particular topological quantum field theory (TQFT), as the data of such theories is described by such categories.
  57. Chamon model code[87,88] a.k.a. Chamon-Bravyi-Leemhuis-Terhal (CBLT) code.
    A foliated type-I fracton non-CSS code defined on a cubic lattice using one weight-eight stabilizer generator acting on the eight vertices of each cube in the lattice [16; Eq. (D38)].
  58. Chebyshev code[89]
    Single-mode bosonic Fock-state code that can be used for error-corrected sensing of a signal Hamiltonian \({\hat n}^s\), where \({\hat n}\) is the occupation number operator.
  59. Checkerboard model code[90]
    A foliated type-I fracton code defined on a cubic lattice that admits weight-eight \(X\)- and \(Z\)-type stabilizer generators on the eight vertices of each cube in the lattice.
  60. Chen-Hsin invertible-order code[91]
    A geometrically local commuting-projector code that realizes beyond-group-cohomology invertible topological phases in arbitrary dimensions. Instances of the code in 4D realize the 3D \(\mathbb{Z}_2\) gauge theory with fermionic charge and either bosonic (FcBl) or fermionic (FcFl) loop excitations at their boundaries [15,92]; see Ref. [93] for a different lattice-model formulation of the FcBl boundary code.
  61. Chiral semion Walker-Wang model code[94]
    A 3D lattice modular-qudit stabilizer code with qudit dimension \(q=4\) whose low-energy excitations on boundaries realize the chiral semion topological order. The model admits 2D chiral semion topological order at one of its surfaces [94,95]. The corresponding phase can also be realized via a non-stabilizer Hamiltonian [96].
  62. Chiral semion subsystem code[97]
    Modular-qudit subsystem stabilizer code with qudit dimension \(q=4\) that is characterized by the chiral semion topological phase. Admits a set of geometrically local stabilizer generators on a torus.
  63. Chuang-Leung-Yamamoto (CLY) code[33]
    Bosonic Fock-state code that encodes \(k\) qubits into \(n\) oscillators, with each oscillator restricted to having at most \(N\) excitations. Codewords are superpositions of oscillator Fock states which have exactly \(N\) total excitations, and are either uniform (i.e., balanced) superpositions or unbalanced superpositions.
  64. Circuit-to-Hamiltonian approximate code[98]
    Approximate qubit block code that forms the ground-state space of a frustration-free Hamiltonian with non-commuting terms. Its distance and logical-qubit number are both of order \(\Omega(n/\log^5 n)\) [98; Thm. 3.1]. The code is an approximate non-stabilizer QLWC code since the Hamiltonian consists of non-commuting weight-ten non-Pauli projectors, with each qubit acted on by order \(O(\text{polylog}(n)\) projectors.
  65. Classical-product code[99–101]
    A CSS code constructed by separately constructing the \(X\) and \(Z\) check matrices using product constructions from classical codes. A particular \([[512,174,8]]\) code performed well [100] against erasure and depolarizing noise when compared to other notable CSS codes, such as the asymptotically good quantum Tanner codes. These codes have been generalized to the intersecting subset code family [101].
  66. Clifford group-representation QSC[102]
    Non-uniform QSC whose projection is onto a copy of an irreducible representation of the single-qubit Clifford group, taken as the binary octahedral subgroup of the group \(SU(2)\) of Gaussian rotations. Its codewords consist of non-uniform superpositions of 48 coherent states.
  67. Clifford spin code[103,104]
    A single-spin code designed to realize a discrete group of gates using \(SU(2)\) rotations. Codewords are subspaces of a spin's Hilbert space that house irreducible representations (irreps) of a discrete subgroup of \(SU(2)\).
  68. Clifford subgroup-orbit QSC[105]
    A \(((2^r,2,2-\sqrt{2},8))\) QSC for \(r \geq 2\) constructed using the real-Clifford subgroup-orbit code. Logical constellations are constructed by applying elements of an index-two subgroup of the real Clifford group, when taken as a subgroup of the orthogonal group [106] to \(2\) different vectors on the complex sphere. The code is known as the Witting code for \(r=2\) because its two logical constellations form vertices of Witting polytopes.
  69. Clifford-deformed surface code (CDSC)[107]
    A generally non-CSS derivative of the surface code defined by applying a constant-depth Clifford circuit to the original (CSS) surface code. Unlike the surface code, CDSCs include codes whose thresholds and subthreshold performance are enhanced under noise biased towards dephasing. Examples of CDSCs include the XY code, XZZX code, and random CDSCs.
  70. Cluster-state code[108] a.k.a. Graph-state code.
    A code based on a cluster state and often used in measurement-based quantum computation (MBQC) [109,110] (a.k.a. one-way quantum processing), which substitutes the temporal dimension necessary for decoding a conventional code with a spatial dimension. This is done by encoding the computation into the features of the cluster state''s graph.
  71. Codeword stabilized (CWS) code[111,112]
    A code defined using a cluster state and a set of \(Z\)-type Pauli strings defined by a binary classical code.
  72. Coherent-parity-check (CPC) code[113–115]
    A qubit stabilizer code for which two binary linear codes are used to directly construct encoding and decoding circuits against \(X\)- and \(Z\)-type errors, respectively, via ZX calculus [116,117]. CPC codes can be obtained from numerical search [114].
  73. Coherent-state constellation code
    Qudit-into-oscillator code whose codewords can succinctly be expressed as superpositions of a countable set of coherent states that is called a constellation. Some useful constellations form a group (see gkp, cat or \(2T\)-qutrit codes) while others make up a Gaussian quadrature rule [118,119].
  74. Coherent-state repetition code[120,121]
    A concatenated qubit-into-\(n\)-mode code (for odd \(n\)) whose outer code is a quantum repetition code and whose inner code is the two-component cat code in its coherent-state basis.
  75. Color code[3,4]
    Member of a family of qubit CSS codes defined on particular \(D\)-dimensional graphs.
  76. Combinatorial PI code[122]
    A member of a family of PI quantum codes whose correction properties are derived from solving a family of combinatorial identities. The code encodes one logical qubit in superpositions of Dicke states whose coefficients are square roots of ratios of binomial coefficients.
  77. Commuting-projector Hamiltonian code
    Hamiltonian-based code whose Hamiltonian terms can be expressed as orthogonal projectors (i.e., Hermitian operators with eigenvalues 0 or 1) that commute with each other.
  78. Compactified \(\mathbb{R}\) gauge theory code[123]
    An integer-homology bosonic CSS code realizing 2D \(U(1)\) gauge theory on bosonic modes. The code can be obtained from the analog surface code by condensing certain anyons [123]. This results in a pinning of each mode to the space of periodic functions, which make up a physical rotor, and can be thought of as compactification of the 2D \(\mathbb{R}\) gauge theory phase realized by the analog surface code.
  79. Compass code[124]
    Subspace or subsystem CSS code defined by gauge-fixing the Bacon-Shor code, i.e., the code whose gauge group consists of terms in the compass model Hamiltonian [125–127] on a square lattice. Families of random codes perform well against biased noise and spatially dependent (i.e., asymmetric) noise.
  80. Concatenated GKP code[128]
    A concatenated code whose outer code is a GKP code. In other words, a bosonic code that can be thought of as a concatenation of an arbitrary inner code and another bosonic outer code. Most examples encode physical qubits of an inner stabilizer code into the square-lattice GKP code.
  81. Concatenated Steane code[129,130]
    A member of the family of \([[7^m,1,3^m]]\) CSS codes, each of which is a recursive level-\(m\) concatenation of the Steane code. This family is one of the first to admit a concatenated threshold [129–133].
  82. Concatenated bosonic code
    A concatenated code whose outer code is a bosonic code. In other words, a bosonic code that can be thought of as a concatenation of a possibly non-bosonic inner code and another bosonic outer code.
  83. Concatenated cat code[134]
    A concatenated code whose outer code is a cat code. In other words, a qubit code that can be thought of as a concatenation of an arbitrary inner code and another cat outer code. Most examples encode physical qubits of an inner stabilizer code into the two-component cat code in its cat-state basis.
  84. Concatenated quantum code[135]
    A combination of two quantum codes, an inner code \(C\) and an outer code \(C^\prime\), where the physical subspace used for the inner code consists of the logical subspace of the outer code. In other words, first one encodes in the inner code \(C^\prime\), and then one encodes each of the physical registers of \(C^\prime\) in an outer code \(C\). An inner \(C = ((n_1,K,d_1))_{q_1}\) and outer \(C^\prime = ((n_2,q_1,d_2))_{q_2}\) block quantum code yield an \(((n_1 n_2, K, d \geq d_1d_2))_{q_2}\) concatenated block quantum code [136].
  85. Concatenated qubit code
    A concatenated code whose outer code is a qubit code. In other words, a qubit code that can be thought of as a concatenation of an arbitrary inner code and another qubit outer code. An inner \(C = ((n_1,K,d_1))\) and outer \(C^\prime = ((n_2,2,d_2))\) qubit code yield an \(((n_1 n_2, K, d \geq d_1d_2))\) concatenated qubit code.
  86. Conformal-field theory (CFT) code[137,138]
    Approximate code whose codewords lie in the low-energy subspace of a conformal field theory, e.g., the quantum Ising model at its critical point [137,138]. Its encoding is argued to perform source coding (i.e., compression) as well as channel coding (i.e., error correction) [137].
  87. Constant-excitation (CE) code[139–141]
    Code whose codewords lie in an excited-state eigenspace of a Hamiltonian governing the total energy or total number of excitations of the underlying quantum system. For qubit codes, such a Hamiltonian is often the total spin Hamiltonian, \(H=\sum_i Z_i\). For spin-\(S\) codes, this generalizes to \(H=\sum_i J_z^{(i)}\), where \(J_z\) is the spin-\(S\) \(Z\)-operator. For bosonic codes, such as Fock-state codes, codewords are often in an eigenspace with eigenvalue \(N>0\) of the total excitation or energy Hamiltonian, \(H=\sum_i \hat{n}_i\).
  88. Covariant block quantum code[142] a.k.a. Equivariant block quantum code.
    A block code on \(n\) subsystems that admits a group \(G\) of transversal gates. The group has to be finite for finite-dimensional codes due to the Eastin-Knill theorem. Continuous-\(G\) covariant codes, necessarily infinite-dimensional, are relevant to error correction of quantum reference frames [142] and error-corrected parameter estimation.
  89. Crystalline-circuit qubit code[143]
    Code dynamically generated by unitary Clifford circuits defined on a lattice with some crystalline symmetry. A notable example is the circuit defined on a rotated square lattice with vertices corresponding to iSWAP gates and edges decorated by \(R_X[\pi/2]\), a single-qubit rotation by \(\pi/2\) around the \(X\)-axis. This circuit is invariant under space-time translations by a unit cell \((T, a)\) and all transformations of the square lattice point group \(D_4\).
  90. Cubic honeycomb color code[4]
    3D color code defined on a four-colorable bitruncated cubic honeycomb uniform tiling.
  91. Cubic theory code[144] a.k.a. Magic stabilizer code.
    A geometrically local commuting-projector code defined on triangulations of lattices in arbitrary spatial dimensions. Its code Hamiltonian terms include Pauli-\(Z\) operators and products of Pauli-\(X\) operators and \(CZ\) gates. The Hamiltonian realizes higher-form \(\mathbb{Z}_2^3\) gauge theories whose excitations obey non-Abelian Ising-like fusion rules.
  92. Cyclic quantum code[145]
    A block quantum code such that cyclic permutations of the subsystems leave the codespace invariant. In other words, the automorphism group of the code contains the cyclic group \(\mathbb{Z}_n\).
  93. Derby-Klassen (DK) code[146,147] a.k.a. Compact encoding.
    A fermion-into-qubit code defined on regular tilings with maximum degree 4 whose stabilizers are associated with loops in the tiling. The code outperforms several other encodings in terms of encoding rate [146; Table I]. It has been extended for models with several modes per site [148].
  94. Diatomic molecular code[149; Sec. VI]
    Approximate quantum code that encodes a qudit in the finite-dimensional Hilbert space of a rigid body with \(SO(2)\) symmetry (e.g., a heteronuclear diatomic molecule). This state space is the space of normalized functions on the two-sphere, consisting of a direct sum of all non-negative integer angular momenta. Ideal codewords may not be normalizable because the space is infinite-dimensional, so approximate versions have to be constructed in practice.
  95. Dihedral \(G=D_m\) quantum-double code[30,150]
    Quantum-double code whose codewords realize \(G=D_m\) topological order associated with a \(2m\)-element dihedral group \(D_m\). Includes the simplest non-Abelian order \(D_3 = S_3\) associated with the permutation group of three objects. The code can be realized as the ground-state subspace of the quantum double model, defined for \(D_m\)-valued qudits [30]. An alternative qubit-based formulation realizes the gauged \(G=\mathbb{Z}_3^2\) twisted quantum double phase [150], which is the same topological order as the \(G=D_4\) quantum double [151,152].
  96. Dijkgraaf-Witten gauge theory code[153–155]
    A code whose codewords realize \(D\)-dimensional lattice Dijkgraaf-Witten gauge theory [153,154] for a finite group \(G\) and a \(D+1\)-cocycle \(\omega\) in the cohomology class \(H^{D+1}(G,U(1))\). When the cocycle is non-trivial, the gauge theory is called a twisted gauge theory. For trivial cocycles in 3D, the model can be called a quantum triple model, in allusion to being a 3D version of the quantum double model. There exist lattice-model formulations in arbitrary spatial dimension [155] as well as explicitly in 3D [156,157].
  97. Dinur-Hsieh-Lin-Vidick (DHLV) code[158]
    A family of asymptotically good QLDPC codes which are related to expander LP codes in that the roles of the check operators and physical qubits are exchanged.
  98. Dinur-Lin-Vidick (DLV) code[159]
    Member of a family of quantum locally testable codes constructed using cubical chain complexes, which are \(t\)-order extensions of the complexes underlying expander codes (\(t=1\)) and expander lifted-product codes (\(t=2\)).
  99. Distance-balanced code[160–162]
    Galois-qudit CSS code constructed from a CSS code and a classical code using a distance-balancing procedure based on a generalized homological product. The initial code is said to be unbalanced, i.e., tailored to noise biased toward either bit- or phase-flip errors, and the procedure can result in a code that is treats both types of errors on a more equal footing. The original distance-balancing procedure [160], later generalized [162; Thm. 4.2], can yield QLDPC codes [160; Thm. 1].
  100. Double-semion stabilizer code[28,163]
    A 2D lattice modular-qudit stabilizer code with qudit dimension \(q=4\) that is characterized by the 2D double semion topological phase. The code can be obtained from the \(\mathbb{Z}_4\) surface code by condensing the anyon \(e^2 m^2\) [97]. Originally formulated as the ground-state space of a Hamiltonian with non-commuting terms [163], which can be extended to other spatial dimensions [164], and later as a commuting-projector code [29,165].
  101. Doubled color code[166–168]
    Family of \([[2t^3+8t^2+6t-1,1,2t+1]]\) subsystem color codes (with \(t\geq 1\)), constructed using a generalization of the doubling transformation [169], that admit a Clifford + \(T\) transversal gate set using gauge fixing.
  102. Dual-rail quantum code[170,171]
    Two-mode bosonic code encoding a logical qubit in Fock states with one excitation. The logical-zero state is represented by \(|10\rangle\), while the logical-one state is represented by \(|01\rangle\). This encoding is often realized in temporal or spatial modes, corresponding to a time-bin or frequency-bin encoding. Two different types of photon polarization can also be used.
  103. Dynamical automorphism (DA) code[172,173] a.k.a. Dynamical code, Aperiodic Floquet code.
    Dynamically-generated stabilizer-based code whose (not necessarily periodic) sequence of few-body measurements implements state initialization, logical gates and error detection.
  104. Dynamically-generated QECC[174]
    Block quantum code whose natural definition is in terms of a many-body scaling limit of a local dynamical process. Such processes, which are often non-deterministic, update the code structure and can include random unitary evolution or non-commuting projective measurements.
  105. EA FG-QLDPC code[175]
    One of several EA QLDPC code families constructed from finite-geometry LDPC (FG-LDPC) codes. There exists a family that requires an amount of entanglement that vanishes linearly with the length of each code.
  106. EA Galois-qudit code
    Galois-qudit code designed to utilize pre-shared entanglement between sender and receiver.
  107. EA Galois-qudit stabilizer code[176]
    A Galois-qudit stabilizer code constructed using a variation of the stabilizer formalism designed to utilize pre-shared entanglement between sender and receiver. A code is typically denoted as \([[n,k;e]]_q\) or \([[n,k,d;e]]_q\), where \(d\) is the distance of the underlying non-EA \([[n,k,d]]_q\) code, and \(e\) is the number of required pre-shared maximally entangled Galois-qudit maximally entangled states.
  108. EA MDS code[177–179]
    EA Galois-qudit code whose parameters make the EAQECC Singleton bound (a.k.a. qubit-ebit Singleton bound) [179; Thm. 6] become an equality.
  109. EA QC-QLDPC code[175]
    One of several EA QLDPC code families constructed from QC-LDPC codes.
  110. EA QLDPC code
    EA qubit stabilizer code for which the number of sites participating in each stabilizer generator and the number of stabilizer generators that each site participates in are both bounded by a constant \(w\) as \(n\to\infty\)
  111. EA analog stabilizer code[180]
    Constructed using a variation of the analog stabilizer formalism designed to utilize pre-shared entanglement between sender and receiver.
  112. EA bosonic code
    Bosonic code designed to utilize pre-shared entanglement between sender and receiver.
  113. EA combinatorial-design QLDPC code[181]
    One of several EA QLDPC code families constructed from combinatorial designs.
  114. EA quantum LCD code[182]
    An EA Galois-qudit stabilizer code constructed from an LCD code. This family include the first asymptotically good EA Galois-qudit codes.
  115. EA quantum convolutional code[183–185]
    A quantum convolutional code designed to utilize pre-shared entanglement between sender and receiver, which can reduce memory requirements [186].'
  116. EA quantum turbo code[187,188]
    A quantum turbo code which uses pre-shared entanglement. This allows its encoder to be both recursive and non-catastrophic.
  117. EA qubit code
    Qubit code designed to utilize pre-shared entanglement between sender and receiver.
  118. EA qubit stabilizer code[177,189]
    Constructed using a variation of the stabilizer formalism designed to utilize pre-shared entanglement between sender and receiver. A code is typically denoted as \([[n,k;e]]\) or \([[n,k,d;e]]\), where \(d\) is the distance of the underlying non-EA \([[n,k,d]]\) code, and \(e\) is the number of required pre-shared maximally entangled Bell states (ebits). While other entangled states can be used, there is always a choice a generators such that the Bell state suffices while still using the fewest ebits.
  119. Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis (ETH) code[190] a.k.a. Thermodynamic code.
    An \(n\)-qubit approximate code whose codespace is formed by eigenstates of a translationally-invariant quantum many-body system which satisfies the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis (ETH). ETH ensures that codewords cannot be locally distinguished in the thermodynamic limit. Relevant many-body systems include 1D non-interacting spin chains or frustration-free systems such as Motzkin chains and Heisenberg models.
  120. Entanglement-assisted (EA) QECC[177,189,191] a.k.a. Catalytic QECC.
    QECC whose encoding and decoding utilizes pre-shared entanglement between sender and receiver.
  121. Entanglement-assisted (EA) hybrid QECC[192–194]
    Code that encodes quantum and classical information and requires pre-shared entanglement for transmission.
  122. Entanglement-assisted (EA) subsystem QECC[195,196] a.k.a. EA operator QECC.
    Subsystem QECC whose encoding and decoding utilizes pre-shared entanglement between sender and receiver.
  123. Entanglement-assisted operator-algebra QECC (EAOAQECC)[197]
    A code family that encompasses ordinary (i.e., subspace) codes, subsystem codes, classical-quantum codes, hybrid codes, and their entanglement-assisted counterparts using a unified operator-algebraic framework.
  124. Error-corrected sensing code[198,199]
    Code that can be obtained via an optimization procedure that ensures correction against a set \(\cal{E}\) of errors as well as guaranteeting optimal precision in locally estimating a parameter using a noiseless ancilla. For tensor-product spaces consisting of \(n\) subsystems (e.g., qubits, modular qudits, or Galois qudits), the procedure can yield a code whose parameter estimation precision satisfies Heisenberg scaling, i.e., scales quadratically with the number \(n\) of subsystems.
  125. Expander LP code[200]
    Family of \(G\)-lifted product codes constructed using two random classical Tanner codes defined on expander graphs [201]. For certain parameters, this construction yields the first asymptotically good QLDPC codes. Classical codes resulting from this construction are one of the first two families of \(c^3\)-LTCs.
  126. Fermion code
    Finite-dimensional quantum error-correcting code encoding a logical (qudit or fermionic) Hilbert space into a physical Fock space of fermionic modes. Codes are typically described using Majorana operators, which are linear combinations of fermionic creation and annihilation operators [74].
  127. Fermion-into-qubit code
    Qubit stabilizer code encoding a logical fermionic Hilbert space into a physical space of \(n\) qubits. Such codes are primarily intended for simulating fermionic systems on quantum computers, and some of them have error-detecting, correcting, and transmuting properties.
  128. Fiber-bundle code[202] a.k.a. Twisted product code.
    A CSS code constructed by combining one code as the base and another as the fiber of a fiber bundle. In particular, taking a random LDPC code as the base and a cyclic repetition code as the fiber yields, after distance balancing, a QLDPC code with distance of order \(\Omega(n^{3/5}\text{polylog}(n))\) and rate of order \(\Omega(n^{-2/5}\text{polylog}(n))\) is obtained.
  129. Fibonacci fractal spin-liquid code[203]
    A fractal type-I fracton CSS code defined on a cubic lattice [16; Eq. (D23)].
  130. Fibonacci string-net code[163,204]
    Quantum error correcting code associated with the Levin-Wen string-net model with the Fibonacci input category, admitting two types of encodings.
  131. Finite-dimensional quantum error-correcting code
    Encodes quantum information in a \(K\)-dimensional (logical) subspace of an \(N\)-dimensional (physical) Hilbert space such that it is possible to recover said information from errors. The logical subspace is spanned by a basis comprised of code basis states or codewords.
  132. Finite-geometry (FG) QLDPC code[205–207]
    CSS code constructed from linear binary codes whose parity-check or generator matrices are incidence matrices of points, hyperplanes, or other structures in finite geometries. These codes can be interpreted as quantum versions of FG-LDPC codes, but some of them [206,207] are not strictly QLDPC.
  133. Five-qubit perfect code[208,209] a.k.a. Laflamme code.
    Five-qubit cyclic stabilizer code that is the smallest qubit stabilizer code to correct a single-qubit error.
  134. Five-rotor code[210]
    Extension of the five-qubit stabilizer code to the integer alphabet, i.e., the angular momentum states of a planar rotor. The code is \(U(1)\)-covariant and ideal codewords are not normalizable.
  135. Floquet color code[211–213] a.k.a. CSS Floquet toric code, \(\mathbb{Z}_2\) Floquet code, CSS honeycomb code.
    Floquet code on a trivalent 2D lattice whose parent topological phase is the \(\mathbb{Z}_2\times\mathbb{Z}_2\) 2D color-code phase and whose measurements cycle logical quantum information between the nine \(\mathbb{Z}_2\) surface-code condensed phases of the parent phase. The code's ISG is the stabilizer group of one of the nine surface codes.
  136. Fock-state bosonic code
    Qudit-into-oscillator code whose protection against AD noise (i.e., photon loss) stems from the use of disjoint sets of Fock states for the construction of each code basis state. The simplest example is the dual-rail code, which has codewords consisting of single Fock states \(|10\rangle\) and \(|01\rangle\). This code can detect a single loss error since a loss operator in either mode maps one of the codewords to a different Fock state \(|00\rangle\). More involved codewords consist of several well-separated Fock states such that multiple loss events can be detected and corrected.
  137. Folded quantum RS (FQRS) code[214]
    CSS code on \(q^m\)-dimensional Galois-qudits that is constructed from folded RS (FRS) codes (i.e., an RS code whose coordinates have been grouped together) via the Galois-qudit CSS construction. This code is used to construct Singleton-bound approaching approximate quantum codes.
  138. Four-qubit single-deletion code[215,216]
    Four-qubit PI code that is the smallest qubit code to correct one deletion error.
  139. Four-rotor code[210; Sec. VIII]
    \([[4,2,2]]_{\mathbb Z}\) CSS rotor code that is an extension of the four-qubit code to the integer alphabet, i.e., the angular momentum states of a planar rotor.
  140. Fractal surface code[217–219]
    Kitaev surface code on a fractal geometry, which is obtained by removing qubits from the surface code on a cubic lattice. A related construction, the fractal product code, is a hypergraph product of two classical codes defined on a Sierpinski carpet graph [217]. The underlying classical codes form classical self-correcting memories [220–222].
  141. Fracton Floquet code[212]
    Floquet code whose qubits are placed on vertices of a truncated cubic honeycomb. Its weight-two check operators are placed on edges of each truncated cube, while weight-three check operators are placed on each triangle. Its ISG can be that of the X-cube model code or the checkerboard model code. On a three-torus of size \(L_x \times L_y \times L_z\), the code consists of \(n= 48L_xL_yL_z\) physical qubits and encodes \(k= 2(L_x+L_y+L_z)-6\) logical qubits.
  142. Fracton stabilizer code[223]
    A 3D translationally invariant modular-qudit stabilizer code whose codewords make up the ground-state space of a Hamiltonian in a fracton phase. Unlike topological phases, whose excitations can move in any direction, fracton phases are characterized by excitations whose movement is restricted.
  143. Freedman-Meyer-Luo code[224]
    Hyperbolic surface code constructed using cellulation of a Riemannian Manifold \(M\) exhibiting systolic freedom [225]. Codes derived from such manifolds can achieve distances scaling better than \(\sqrt{n}\), something that is impossible using closed 2D surfaces or 2D surfaces with boundaries [226]. Improved codes are obtained by studying a weak family of Riemann metrics on closed 4-dimensional manifolds \(S^2\otimes S^2\) with the \(Z_2\)-homology.
  144. Frobenius code[227]
    A cyclic prime-qudit stabilizer code whose length \(n\) divides \(p^t + 1\) for some positive integer \(t\).
  145. Frustration-free Hamiltonian code
    Hamiltonian-based code whose Hamiltonian is frustration free, i.e., whose ground states minimize the energy of each term.
  146. Fusion-based quantum computing (FBQC) code[228]
    Code whose codewords are resource states used in an FBQC scheme. Related to a cluster state via Hadamard transformations.
  147. GKP CV-cluster-state code[229] a.k.a. Hybrid cluster-state code.
    Cluster-state code can consists of a generalized analog cluster state that is initialized in GKP (resource) states for some of its physical modes. Alternatively, it can be thought of as an oscillator-into-oscillator GKP code whose encoding consists of initializing \(k\) modes in momentum states (or, in the normalizable case, squeezed vacua), \(n-k\) modes in (normalizable) GKP states, and applying a Gaussian circuit consisting of two-body \(e^{i V_{jk} \hat{x}_j \hat{x}_k }\) for some angles \(V_{jk}\). Provides a way to perform fault-tolerant MBQC, with the required number \(n-k\) of GKP-encoded physical modes determined by the particular protocol [229–232].
  148. GKP-surface code[231,233]
    A concatenated code whose outer code is a GKP code and whose inner code is a toric surface code [233], rotated surface code [231,234–237], or XZZX surface code [238].
  149. GNU PI code[239,240]
    PI code whose codewords can be expressed as superpositions of Dicke states with coefficients are square-roots of the binomial distribution.
  150. Galois-qudit BCH code[241–247]
    True Galois-qudit stabilizer code constructed from BCH codes via either the Hermitian construction or the Galois-qudit CSS construction. Parameters can be improved by applying Steane enlargement [248].
  151. Galois-qudit CSS code[249–255] a.k.a. Euclidean code.
    An \([[n,k,d]]_q \) Galois-qudit true stabilizer code admitting a set of stabilizer generators that are either \(Z\)-type or \(X\)-type Galois-qudit Pauli strings. Codes can be defined from chain complexes over \(GF(q)\) via an extension of qubit CSS-to-homology correspondence to Galois qudits.
  152. Galois-qudit CWS code
    A CWS code for Galois qudits, defined using a Galois-qudit cluster state and a set of Galois-qudit \(Z\)-type Pauli strings defined by a \(q\)-ary classical code.
  153. Galois-qudit GRS code[256,257]
    True \(q\)-Galois-qudit stabilizer code constructed from GRS codes via either the Hermitian construction [257–259] or the Galois-qudit CSS construction [256,260].
  154. Galois-qudit HGP code a.k.a. Galois-qudit quantum hypergraph (QHG) code, Galois-qudit Tillich-Zemor product code.
    A member of a family of Galois-qudit CSS codes whose stabilizer generator matrix is obtained from a hypergraph product of two classical linear \(q\)-ary codes.
  155. Galois-qudit RS code[256] a.k.a. Galois-qudit polynomial code (QPyC).
    An \([[n,k,n-k+1]]_q\) (with \(q>n\)) Galois-qudit CSS code constructed using two RS codes over \(GF(q)\).
  156. Galois-qudit USt code[261–265] a.k.a. Galois-qudit non-stabilizer code.
    A Galois-qubit code whose codespace consists of a direct sum of a Galois-qubit stabilizer codespace and one or more of that stabilizer code's error spaces.
  157. Galois-qudit code a.k.a. \(GF(q)\)-qudit code, \(\mathbb{F}_q\)-qudit code, Galois-qudit subspace code.
    Encodes \(K\)-dimensional Hilbert space into a \(q^n\)-dimensional (\(n\)-qudit) Hilbert space, with canonical qudit states \(|k\rangle\) labeled by elements \(k\) of the Galois field \(GF(q)\) and with \(q\) being a power of a prime \(p\).
  158. Galois-qudit color code[266] a.k.a. \(\mathbb{F}_q\)-qudit color code.
    Extension of the color code to 2D lattices of Galois qudits.
  159. Galois-qudit expander code[267] a.k.a. Galois-qudit Sipser-Spielman code.
    Galois-qudit CSS code constructed from a hypergraph product of expander codes.
  160. Galois-qudit quantum RM code[268]
    True \(q\)-Galois-qudit stabilizer code constructed from generalized Reed-Muller (GRM) codes via the Hermitian construction, the Galois-qudit CSS construction, or directly from their parity-check matrices [269; Sec. 4.2].
  161. Galois-qudit stabilizer code[270,271]
    An \(((n,K,d))_q\) Galois-qudit code whose logical subspace is the joint eigenspace of commuting Galois-qudit Pauli operators forming the code's stabilizer group \(\mathsf{S}\). Traditionally, the logical subspace is the joint \(+1\) eigenspace, and the stabilizer group does not contain \(e^{i \phi} I\) for any \(\phi \neq 0\). The distance \(d\) is the minimum weight of a Galois-qudit Pauli string that implements a nontrivial logical operation in the code.
  162. Galois-qudit surface code[272,273] a.k.a. \(\mathbb{F}_q\)-qudit surface code.
    Extension of the surface code to 2D lattices of Galois qudits.
  163. Generalized 2D color code[274]
    Member of a family of non-Abelian 2D topological codes, defined by a finite group \( G \), that serves as a generalization of the color code (for which \(G=\mathbb{Z}_2\times\mathbb{Z}_2\)).
  164. Generalized Shor code[10,275]
    Qubit CSS code constructed by concatenating two classical codes in a way the generalizes the Shor and quantum parity codes.
  165. Generalized bicycle (GB) code[276,277] a.k.a. Hyperbicycle code, Quasi-cyclic LP code.
    A quasi-cyclic Galois-qudit CSS code constructed using a generalized version of the bicycle ansatz [56] from a pair of equivalent index-two quasi-cyclic linear codes. Equivalently, the codes can constructed via the lifted-product construction for \(G\) being a cyclic group [24; Sec. III.E].
  166. Generalized five-squares code[278–280]
    Member of a family of subsystem codes that are generalizations [279,280] of a code defined on a three-valent hypergraph associated with the five-squares lattice [278].
  167. Generalized homological-product CSS code
    CSS code whose properties are determined from an underlying chain complex, which often consists of some type of product of other chain complexes.
  168. Generalized homological-product code
    Stabilizer code whose properties are determined from an underlying chain complex, which often consists of some type of product of other chain complexes. The Qubit CSS-to-homology correspondence yields an interpretation of codes in terms of manifolds, thus allowing for the use of various products from topology in constructing codes.
  169. Generalized homological-product qubit CSS code
    Qubit CSS code whose properties are determined from an underlying chain complex, which often consists of some type of product of other chain complexes.
  170. Generalized quantum Tanner code[281]
    An extension of quantum Tanner codes to codes constructed from two commuting regular graphs with the same vertex set. This allows for code construction using finite sets and Schreier graphs, yielding a broader family of square complexes.
  171. Generalized quantum divisible code[282]
    A level-\(\nu\) generalized quantum divisible code is a CSS code whose \(X\)-type stabilizers, in the symplectic representation, have zero norm and form a \((\nu,t)\)-null matrix (defined below) with respect to some odd-integer vector \(t\) [282; Def. V.1]. Such codes admit gates at the \(\nu\)th level of the Clifford hierarchy. Such codes can also be level-lifted [282; Theorem V.6], \(\nu\to\nu+1\), which recursively yields towers of generalized divisible codes from a particular ground code.
  172. Golden code[283]
    Variant of the Guth-Lubotzky hyperbolic surface code that uses regular tessellations for 4-dimensional hyperbolic space.
  173. Good QLDPC code
    Also called asymptotically good QLDPC codes. A family of QLDPC codes \([[n_i,k_i,d_i]]\) whose asymptotic rate \(\lim_{i\to\infty} k_i/n_i\) and asymptotic distance \(\lim_{i\to\infty} d_i/n_i\) are both positive.
  174. Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP) code[284,285]
    Quantum lattice code for a non-degenerate lattice, thereby admitting a finite-dimensional logical subspace. Codes on \(n\) modes can be constructed from lattices with \(2n\)-dimensional full-rank Gram matrices \(A\).
  175. Graph quantum code[286]
    A stabilizer code on tensor products of \(G\)-valued qudits for Abelian \(G\) whose encoding isometry is defined using a graph [286; Eqs. (4-5)]. An analytical form of the codewords exists in terms of the adjacency matrix of the graph and bicharacters of the Abelian group [286]; see [287; Eq. (1)]. A graph quantum code for \(G=\mathbb{Z}_2\) contains a cluster state as one of its codewords and reduces to a cluster state when its logical dimension is one [288].
  176. Group GKP code[149]
    Group-based quantum code whose construction is based on nested subgroups \(H\subset K \subset G\). Logical subspace is spanned by basis states that are equal superpositions of elements of cosets of \(H\) in \(K\), and can be finite- or infinite-dimensional.
  177. Group-based QPC[210]
    An \([[m r,1,\min(m,r)]]_G\) generalization of the QPC.
  178. Group-based cluster-state code[289]
    A code based on a group-based cluster state for a finite group \(G\) [289]. Such cluster states can be defined using a graph and conditional group multiplication operations. A group-based cluster state for \(G=GF(q)\) for prime-power \(q\) is called a Galois-qudit cluster state, while the state for \(G=\mathbb{Z}_q\) for positive \(q\) is called a modular-qudit cluster state.
  179. Group-based quantum code
    Encodes a logical Hilbert space, finite- or infinite-dimensional, into a physical Hilbert space of \(L^2\)-normalizable functions on a second-countable unimodular group \(G\), i.e., a \(G\)-valued qudit or \(G\)-qudit. In other words, a group-valued qudit is a vector space whose canonical basis states \(|g\rangle\) are labeled by elements \(g\) of a group \(G\). For \(K\)-dimensional logical subspace and for block codes defined on groups \(G^{n}\), can be denoted as \(((n,K))_G\). When the logical subspace is the Hilbert space of \(L^2\)-normalizable functions on \(G^{ k}\), can be denoted as \([[n,k]]_G\). Ideal codewords may not be normalizable, depending on whether \(G\) is continuous and/or noncompact, so approximate versions have to be constructed in practice.
  180. Group-based quantum repetition code[210]
    An \([[n,1]]_G\) generalization of the quantum repetition code.
  181. Group-representation code[102,103,290]
    Code whose projection is onto an irreducible representation of a subgroup \(G\) of a group of canonical or distinguished unitary operations, e.g., transversal gates in the case of block quantum codes, Gaussian operations in the case of bosonic codes, or \(SU(2)\) operations in the case of single-spin codes.
  182. Groupoid toric code[291]
    Extension of the Kitaev surface code from Abelian groups to groupoids, i.e., multi-fusion categories in which every morphism is an isomorphism [292]. Some models admit fracton-like features such as extensive ground-state degeneracy and excitations with restricted mobility. The robustness of these features has not yet been established.
  183. Guth-Lubotzky code[293]
    Hyperbolic surface code based on cellulations of certain four-dimensional manifolds. The manifolds are shown to have good homology and systolic properties for the purposes of code construction, with corresponding codes exhibiting linear rate.
  184. Haah cubic code (CC)[223]
    A 3D lattice stabilizer code on a length-\(L\) cubic lattice with one or two qubits per site. Admits two types of stabilizer generators with support on each cube of the lattice. In the non-CSS case, these two are related by spatial inversion. For CSS codes, we require that the product of all corner operators is the identity. We lastly require that there are no non-trival string operators, meaning that single-site operators are a phase, and any period one logical operator \(l \in \mathsf{S}^{\perp}\) is just a phase.
  185. Haar-random qubit code[294–297]
    Haar-random codewords are generated in a process involving averaging over unitary operations distributed accoding to the Haar measure. Haar-random codes are used to prove statements about the capacity of a quantum channel to transmit quantum information [298], but encoding and decoding in such \(n\)-qubit codes quickly becomes impractical as \(n\to\infty\).
  186. Hamiltonian-based code
    Code whose codespace corresponds to a set of energy eigenstates of a quantum-mechanical Hamiltonian i.e., a Hermitian operator whose expectation value measures the energy of its underlying physical system. The codespace is typically a set of low-energy eigenstates or ground states, but can include subspaces of arbitrarily high energy. Hamiltonians whose eigenstates are the canonical basis elements are called classical; otherwise, a Hamiltonian is called quantum.
  187. Hastings-Haah Floquet code[172]
    DA code whose sequence of check-operator measurements is periodic. The first instance of a dynamical code.
  188. Hayden-Nezami-Salton-Sanders bosonic code[299]
    An \([[n,1]]_{\mathbb{R}}\) analog CSS code defined using homological structres associated with an \(n-1\) simplex. Relevant to the study of spacetime replication of quantum information [300].
  189. Heavy-hexagon code[301]
    Subsystem stabilizer code on the heavy-hexagonal point set that combines Bacon-Shor and surface-code stabilizers. Encodes one logical qubit into \(n=(5d^2-2d-1)/2\) physical qubits with distance \(d\). The heavy-hexagonal point set allows for low degree (at most 3) connectivity between all the data and ancilla qubits, which is suitable for fixed-frequency transom qubits subject to frequency collision errors. The code can be split into a surface and a Bacon-Shor code, with the idling qubits of one code serving as the physical qubits of the other [302].
  190. Hemicubic code[303]
    Homological code constructed out of cubes in high dimensions. The hemicubic code family has asymptotically diminishing soundness that scales as order \(\Omega(1/\log n)\), locality of stabilizer generators scaling as order \(O(\log n)\), and distance of order \(\Theta(\sqrt{n})\).
  191. Heptagon holographic code[304] a.k.a. Holographic Steane code.
    Holographic tensor-network code constructed out of a network of encoding isometries of the Steane code. Depending on how the isometry tensors are contracted, there is a zero-rate and a finite-rate code family.
  192. Hermitian Galois-qudit code[270,271,305] a.k.a. \(GF(q^2)\)-linear code.
    An \([[n,k,d]]_q\) true Galois-qudit stabilizer code constructed from a Hermitian self-orthogonal linear code over \(GF(q^2)\) using the one-to-one correspondence between the Galois-qudit Pauli matrices and elements of the Galois field \(GF(q^2)\).
  193. Hermitian qubit code[306] a.k.a. Calderbank-Rains-Shor-Sloane (CRSS) code, \(GF(4)\)-linear code.
    An \([[n,k,d]]\) stabilizer code constructed from a Hermitian self-orthogonal linear quaternary code using the \(GF(4)\) representation.
  194. Hessian QSC[105]

    Quantum spherical code encoding a logical qubit, with each codeword an equal superposition of vertices of a Hessian complex polyhedron. For the unit sphere, the codewords are \begin{align} |\overline{0}\rangle &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{27}}\left( \sum_{\mu,\nu=0}^{2} |0,\omega^{\mu},-\omega^{\nu}\rangle + |-\omega^{\nu},0,\omega^{\mu}\rangle + |\omega^{\mu},-\omega^{\nu},0\rangle \right) \tag*{(1)}\\ |\overline{1}\rangle &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{27}}\left( \sum_{\mu,\nu=0}^{2} |0,-\omega^{\mu},\omega^{\nu}\rangle + |\omega^{\nu},0,-\omega^{\mu}\rangle + |-\omega^{\mu},\omega^{\nu},0\rangle \right)~, \tag*{(2)}\end{align} where \(\omega = e^{\frac{2\pi i}{3}}\).

    Figure I: Projection of the double Hessian code constellation with each copy of the Hessian logical constellation marked in a different colour.
  195. Hexagonal GKP code[284]
    Single-mode GKP qudit-into-oscillator code based on the triangular lattice. Offers the best error correction against displacement noise in a single mode due to the optimal packing of the underlying lattice.
  196. Hierarchical code[307]
    Member of a family of \([[n,k,d]]\) qubit stabilizer codes resulting from a concatenation of a constant-rate QLDPC code with a rotated surface code. Concatenation allows for syndrome extraction to be performed on a 2D geometry while maintining a threshold at the expense of a logarithmically vanishing rate. The growing syndrome extraction circuit depth allows known bounds in the literature to be weakened [308,309].
  197. High-dimensional expander (HDX) code[162,310]
    CSS code constructed from a Ramanujan quantum code and an asymptotically good classical LDPC code using distance balancing. Ramanujan quantum codes are defined using Ramanujan complexes which are simplicial complexes that generalise Ramanujan graphs [311,312]. Combining the quantum code obtained from a Ramanujan complex and a good classical LDPC code, which can be thought of as coming from a 1-dimensional chain complex, yields a new quantum code that is defined on a 2-dimensional chain complex. This 2-dimensional chain complex is obtained by the co-complex of the product of the 2 co-complexes. The length, dimension and distance of the new quantum code depend on the input codes.
  198. Holographic code[313]
    Block quantum code whose features serve to model aspects of the AdS/CFT holographic duality and, more generally, quantum gravity.
  199. Holographic hybrid code[314] a.k.a. Subsystem holographic code.
    Holographic tensor-network code constructed out of alternating isometries of the five-qubit and \([[4,1,1,2]]\) Bacon-Shor codes.
  200. Holographic tensor-network code[313,315–317]
    Quantum Lego code whose encoding isometry forms a holographic tensor network, i.e., a tensor network associated with a tiling of hyperbolic space. Physical qubits are associated with uncontracted tensor legs at the boundary of the tesselation, while logical qubits are associated with uncontracted legs in the bulk. The number of layers emanating form the central point of the tiling is the radius of the code.
  201. Homological code[21,224,318,319] a.k.a. Generalized surface code.
    CSS-type extenstion of the Kitaev surface code to arbitrary manifolds. The version on a Euclidean manifold of some fixed dimension is called the \(D\)-dimensional "surface" or \(D\)-dimensional toric code.
  202. Homological number-phase code[320]
    A homological \(n\)-rotor code mapped into the Fock-state space of \(n\) oscillators by identifying non-negative rotor angular-momentum states with oscillator Fock states. The resulting oscillator code can encode logical rotors or qudits due to the presence of torsion in the chain complex defining the original rotor code.
  203. Homological product code[321,322] a.k.a. Tensor product code.
    CSS code formulated using the tensor product of two chain complexes (see Qubit CSS-to-homology correspondence).
  204. Homological rotor code[323]
    A homological quantum rotor code is an extension of analog stabilizer codes to rotors. The code is stabilized by a continuous group of rotor \(X\)-type and \(Z\)-type generalized Pauli operators. Codes are formulated using an extension of the qubit CSS-to-homology correspondence to rotors. The homology group of the logical operators has a torsion component because the chain complexes are defined over the ring of integers, which yields codes with finite logical dimension, i.e., encoding logical qudits instead of only logical rotors. Such finite-dimensional encodings are not possible with analog stabilizer codes.
  205. Honeycomb (6.6.6) color code[3]
    Triangular color code defined on a patch of the 6.6.6 (honeycomb) tiling.
  206. Honeycomb Floquet code[172]
    Floquet code based on the Kitaev honeycomb model [324] whose logical qubits are generated through a particular sequence of measurements. A CSS version of the code has been proposed which loosens the restriction of which sequences to use [212]. The code has also been generalized to arbitrary non-chiral, Abelian topological order [325].
  207. Hopf-algebra cluster-state code[326,327]
    Code based on a cluster state defined on qudits valued in a Hopf algebra. This code has also been extended to weak Hopf algebras [327].
  208. Hopf-algebra quantum-double code[328,329]
    Code whose codewords realize 2D gapped topological order defined on qudits valued in a Hopf algebra \(H\). The code Hamiltonian is an generalization [328,329] of the quantum double model from group algebras to Hopf algebras, as anticipated by Kitaev [30]. Boundaries of these models have been examined [330,331].
  209. Hsieh-Halasz (HH) code[332]
    Member of one of two families of fracton codes, named HH-I and HH-II, defined on a cubic lattice with two qubits per site. HH-I (HH-II) is a CSS (non-CSS) stabilizer code family, with the former identified as a foliated type-I fracton code [16].
  210. Hsieh-Halasz-Balents (HHB) code[333]
    Member of one of two families of fracton codes, named HHB model A and B, defined on a cubic lattice with two qubits per site. Both are expected to be foliated type-I fracton codes [16; Eqs. (D42-D43)].
  211. Hybrid QECC[192,334–336]
    A quantum code which encodes both quantum and classical information.
  212. Hybrid cat code[337,338]
    A hybrid qubit-oscillator code admitting codewords that are tensor products of a single-qubit (e.g., photon polarization) state with either a cat state or a coherent state.
  213. Hybrid convolutional code[339]
    A quantum convolutional code which protects both quantum and classical information.
  214. Hybrid qubit code[192,340]
    A qubit code which stores both quantum and classical information. Usually denoted as \(((n,K:M))\) or \(((n,K:M,d))\), where \(K\) is the dimension of the underlying quantum code, where \(M\) is the size of the classical code, and where \(d\) is the distance.
  215. Hybrid qudit-oscillator code
    Encodes a \(K\)-dimensional logical Hilbert space into \(n_1\) modular qudits of dimension \(q\) and \(n_2 \neq 0\) oscillators, i.e., the Hilbert space of \(L^2\)-normalizable functions on \(\mathbb{Z}_q^{n_1} \times \mathbb{R}^{n_2}\). In photonic systems, photonic states of multiple degrees of freedom of a photon (e.g., frequency, amplitude, and polarization) are called hyper-entangled states [341].
  216. Hybrid stabilizer code[192,340]
    A qubit stabilizer code which stores both quantum and classical information. Usually denoted as \([[n,k:c]]\) or \([[n,k:c,d]]\), where \(k\) (\(c\)) is the number of encoded qubits (classical bits), and where \(d\) is the distance.
  217. Hyperbolic Floquet code[342–344]
    Floquet code whose check-operators correspond to edges of a hyperbolic lattice of degree 3.
  218. Hyperbolic color code[345–347]
    An extension of the color code construction to hyperbolic manifolds. As opposed to there being only three types of uniform three-valent and three-colorable lattice tilings in the 2D Euclidean plane, there is an infinite number of admissible hyperbolic tilings in the 2D hyperbolic plane [346]. Certain double covers of hyperbolic tilings also yield admissible tilings [345]. Other admissible hyperbolic tilings can be obtained via a fattening procedure [4]; see also a construction based on the more general quantum pin codes [347].
  219. Hyperbolic surface code
    An extension of the Kitaev surface code construction to hyperbolic manifolds. Given a cellulation of a manifold, qubits are put on \(i\)-dimensional faces, \(X\)-type stabilizers are associated with \((i-1)\)-faces, while \(Z\)-type stabilizers are associated with \(i+1\)-faces.
  220. Hypergraph product (HGP) code[348–350] a.k.a. Quantum hypergraph (QHG) code, Tillich-Zemor product code.
    A member of a family of CSS codes whose stabilizer generator matrix is obtained from a hypergraph product of two classical linear binary codes. Codes from hypergraph products in higher dimension are called higher-dimensional HGP codes [350].
  221. Hyperinvariant tensor-network (HTN) code[351] a.k.a. Evenbly code.
    Holographic tensor-network error-detecting code constructed out of a hyperinvariant tensor network [352], i.e., a MERA-like network admitting a hyperbolic geometry. The network is defined using two layers A and B, with constituent tensors satisfying isometry conditions (a.k.a. multitensor constraints).
  222. Hypersphere product code[353]
    Homological code based on products of hyperspheres. The hypersphere product code family has asymptotically diminishing soundness that scales as order \(O(1/\log (n)^2)\), locality of stabilizer generators scaling as order \(O(\log n/ \log\log n)\), and distance of order \(\Theta(\sqrt{n})\).
  223. Integer-homology bosonic CSS code[123]
    An oscillator stabilizer code whose physical modes have been restricted, via a single GKP stabilizer, from the space of functions on the real line to the space of periodic functions. This restriction effectively realizes a rotor on each physical mode, allowing one to construct homological rotor codes out of displacement stabilizer groups. The stabilizer group is continuous, but contains discrete components in the form of the single-mode GKP stabilizers. The homology group of the logical operators has a torsion component because the chain complexes are defined over the ring of integers, which yields codes with finite logical dimension.
  224. Jordan-Wigner transformation code[354–356]
    A mapping between qubit Pauli strings and Majorana operators that can be thought of as a trivial \([[n,n,1]]\) code. The mapping is best described as converting a chain of \(n\) qubits into a chain of \(2n\) Majorana modes (i.e., \(n\) fermionic modes). It maps Majorana operators into Pauli strings of weight \(O(n)\).
  225. Jump code[357–359]
    A CE code designed to detect and correct AD errors. An \(((n,K))\) jump code is denoted as \(((n,K,t))_w\) (which conflicts with modular-qudit notation), where \(t\) is the maximum number of qubits that can be corrected after each one has undergone a jump error \(|0\rangle\langle 1|\), and where each codeword is a uniform superposition of qubit basis states with Hamming weight \(w\).
  226. Kim-Preskill-Tang (KPT) code[360]
    A quantum error-correcting code that protects the encoded interior of a black hole from computationally bounded exterior observers. Under the assumption that the Hawking radiation emitted by an old black hole is pseudorandom, there exists a subspace of the radiation system that encodes the black hole interior, entangled with the late outgoing Hawking quanta. The logical operators of this code commute with efficient operations acting on the radiation, protecting the interior up to corrections exponentially small in the black hole's entropy.
  227. Kitaev chain code[355]
    An \([[n,1,1]]_{f}\) Majorana stabilizer code forming the ground-state of the Kitaev Majorana chain (a.k.a. Kitaev Majorana wire) in its fermionic topological phase, which is unitarily equivalent to the 1D quantum Ising model in the symmetry-breaking phase via the Jordan-Wigner transformation. The code is usually defined using the algebra of two anti-commuting Majorana operators called Majorana zero modes (MZMs) or Majorana edge modes (MEMs).
  228. Kitaev current-mirror qubit code[323,361,362]
    Member of the family of \([[2n,(0,2),(2,n)]]_{\mathbb{Z}}\) homological rotor codes storing a logical qubit on a thin Möbius strip. The ideal code can be obtained from a Josephson-junction [363] system [323].
  229. Kitaev honeycomb code[278,324,364]
    Code whose logical subspace is labeled by different fusion outcomes of Ising anyons present in the Ising-anyon topological phase of the Kitaev honeycomb model [324]. Each logical qubit is constructed out of four Majorana operators, which admit braiding-based gates due to their non-Abelian statistics and which can be used for topological quantum computation. Ising anyons also exist in other phases, such as the fractional quantum Hall phase [365].
  230. Kitaev surface code[30,43,366,367]
    A family of Abelian topological CSS stabilizer codes whose generators are few-body \(X\)-type and \(Z\)-type Pauli strings associated to the stars and plaquettes, respectively, of a cellulation of a two-dimensional surface (with a qubit located at each edge of the cellulation). Codewords correspond to ground states of the surface code Hamiltonian, and error operators create or annihilate pairs of anyonic charges or vortices.
  231. Knill code[252] a.k.a. Clifford code.
    A group representation code whose projection is onto an irrep of a normal subgroup of the group formed by a nice error basis. Knill codes yield stabilizer-like codes based on error bases that are non-Pauli but that nevertheless maintain many of the useful features of Pauli-type bases.
  232. La-cross code[368]
    Code constructed using the hypergraph product of two copies of a cyclic LDPC code. The construction uses cyclic LDPC codes with generating polynomials \(1+x+x^k\) for some \(k\). Using a length-\(n\) seed code yields an \([[2n^2,2k^2]]\) family for periodic boundary conditions and an \([[(n-k)^2+n^2,k^2]]\) family for open boundary conditions.
  233. Ladder Floquet code[172]
    Floquet code defined on a ladder qubit geometry, with one qubit per vertex. The check operators consist of \(ZZ\) checks on each rung and alternating \(XX\) and \(YY\) check on the legs.
  234. Landau-level spin code[369]
    Approximate quantum code that encodes a qudit in the finite-dimensional Hilbert space of a single spin, i.e., a spherical Landau level. Codewords are approximately orthogonal Landau-level spin coherent states whose orientations are spaced maximally far apart along a great circle (equator) of the sphere. The larger the spin, the better the performance.
  235. Lattice stabilizer code[14,123,223,370] a.k.a. Topological stabilizer code.
    A geometrically local stabilizer code with sites organized on a lattice modeled by the additive group \(\mathbb{Z}^D\) for spatial dimension \(D\). On an infinite lattice, its stabilizer group is generated by few-site Pauli-type operators and their translations, in which case the code is called translationally invariant stabilizer code. Boundary conditions have to be imposed on the lattice in order to obtain finite-dimensional versions. Lattice defects and boundaries between different codes can also be introduced.
  236. Lattice subsystem code[8] a.k.a. Topological subsystem code.
    A geometrically local qubit, modular-qudit, or Galois-qudit subsystem stabilizer code with qudits organized on a lattice modeled by the additive group \(\mathbb{Z}^D\) for spatial dimension \(D\). On an infinite lattice, its gauge and stabilizer groups are generated by few-site Pauli operators and their translations, in which case the code is called translationally invariant subsystem code. Boundary conditions have to be imposed on the lattice in order to obtain finite-dimensional versions, in which case the stabilizer group may no longer be generated by few-site Pauli operators. Lattice defects and boundaries between different codes can also be introduced. Lattice subsystem stabilizer code Hamiltonians described by an Abelian anyon theory do not always realize the corresponding anyonic topological order in their ground-state subspace and may exhibit a rich phase diagram.
  237. Layer code[371]
    Member of a family of 3D lattice CSS codes with stabilizer generator weights \(\leq 6\) that are obtained by coupling layers of 2D surface code according to the Tanner graph of a QLDPC code. Geometric locality is maintained because, instead of being concatenated, each pair of parallel surface-code squares are fused (or quasi-concatenated) with perpendicular surface-code squares via lattice surgery.
  238. Lift-connected surface (LCS) code[372]
    Member of one of several families of lifted-product codes that consist of sparsely interconnected stacks of surface codes.
  239. Lifted-product (LP) code[23,200] a.k.a. Panteleev-Kalachev (PK) code.
    Galois-qudit code that utilizes the notion of a lifted product in its construction. Lifted products of certain classical Tanner codes are the first (asymptotically) good QLDPC codes.
  240. Local Haar-random circuit qubit code[373]
    An \(n\)-qubit code whose codewords are a pair of approximately locally indistinguishable states produced by starting with any two orthogonal \(n\)-qubit states and acting with a random unitary circuit of depth polynomial in \(n\). Two states are locally indistinguishable if they cannot be distinguished by local measurements. A single layer of the encoding circuit is composed of about \(n/2\) two-qubit nearest-neighbor gates run in parallel, with each gate drawn randomly from the Haar distribution on two-qubit unitaries.
  241. Long-range enhanced surface code (LRESC)[374]
    Code constructed using the hypergraph product of two copies of a concatenated LDPC-repetition seed code. This family interpolates between surface codes and hypergraph codes since the hypergraph product of two repetition codes yields the planar surface code. The construction uses small \([3,2,2]\) and \([6,2,4]\) LDPC codes concatenated with \([4,1,4]\) and \([2,1,2]\) repetition codes, respectively. An example using a \([5,2,3]\) code is also presented.
  242. Loop toric code[21] a.k.a. Kitaev tesseract code, 4D surface code, All-loop toric code, \((2,2)\) 4D toric code.
    A generalization of the Kitaev surface code defined on a 4D lattice. The code is called a \((2,2)\) toric code because it admits 2D membrane \(Z\)-type and \(X\)-type logical operators. Both types of operators create 1D (i.e., loop) excitations at their edges. The code serves as a self-correcting quantum memory [21,375].
  243. Lossless expander balanced-product code[376,377]
    QLDPC code constructed by taking the balanced product of lossless expander graphs. Using one part of a quantum-code chain complex constructed with one-sided loss expanders [378] yields a \(c^3\)-LTC [376]. Using two-sided expanders, which are only conjectured to exist, yields an asymptotically good QLDPC code family [377].
  244. Magnon code[379]
    An \(n\)-spin approximate code whose codespace of \(k=\Omega(\log n)\) qubits is efficiently described in terms of particular matrix product states or Bethe ansatz tensor networks. Magnon codewords are low-energy excited states of the frustration-free Heisenberg-XXX model Hamiltonian [379].
  245. Majorana box qubit[355,380,381]
    An \([[n,1,2]]_{f}\) Majorana stabilizer code forming the even-fermion-parity ground-state subspace of two parallel Kitaev Majorana chains in their fermionic topological phase. The \([[2,1,2]]_{f}\) version is called the tetron Majorana code. An \([[3,2,2]]_{f}\) extension using three Kitaev chains and housing two logical qubits of the same parity is called the hexon Majorana code. Similarly, octon, decon, and dodecon are codes defined by the positive-parity subspace of \(4\), \(5\), and \(6\) fermionic modes, respectively [382].
  246. Majorana checkerboard code[90] a.k.a. Majorana cubic model code.
    A Majorana analogue of the X-cube model defined on a cubic lattice. The code admits weight-eight Majorana stabilizer generators on the eight vertices of each cube of a checkerboard sublattice.
  247. Majorana color code[382–384]
    Majorana analogue of the color code defined on a 2D tricolorable lattice and constructed out of Majorana box qubit codes placed on patches of the lattice.
  248. Majorana loop stabilizer code (MLSC)[385]
    An single error-correcting fermion-into-qubit encoding defined on a 2D qubit lattice whose stabilizers are associated with loops in the lattice.
  249. Majorana stabilizer code[383]
    A stabilizer code whose stabilizers are products of an even number of Majorana fermion operators, analogous to Pauli strings for a traditional stabilizer code and referred to as Majorana stabilizers. The codespace is the mutual \(+1\) eigenspace of all Majorana stabilizers. In such systems, Majorana fermions may either be considered individually or paired into creation and annihilation operators for fermionic modes. Codes can be denoted as \([[n,k,d]]_{f}\) [386], where \(n\) is the number of fermionic modes (equivalently, \(2n\) Majorana modes).
  250. Majorana subsystem stabilizer code[387]
    A Majorana stabilizer code with some of its logical qubits denoted as gauge qubits and not used for storage of logical information.
  251. Majorana surface code[388,389]
    Majorana analogue of the surface code defined on a 2D lattice and constructed out of Majorana box qubit codes placed on patches of the lattice.
  252. Matching code[390]
    Member of a class of qubit stabilizer codes based on the Abelian phase of the Kitaev honeycomb model.
  253. Matrix-model code[391,392]
    Multimode-mode Fock-state bosonic approximate code derived from a matrix model, i.e., a non-Abelian bosonic gauge theory with a large gauge group. The model's degrees of freedom are matrix-valued bosons \(a\), each consisting of \(N^2\) harmonic oscillator modes and subject to an \(SU(N)\) gauge symmetry.
  254. Maximal-entanglement EA Galois-qudit stabilizer code[393,394]
    An \([[n,k,d;e]]_q\) EA Galois-qudit stabilizer code for which \(e = n-k\).
  255. Metrological code[395]
    Two-dimensional subspace of a Hilbert space whose basis states satisfy only a part of the Knill-Laflamme conditions. The satisfied part of the conditions ensures that the code can be used for local parameter estimation.
  256. Modular-qudit CSS code[249–251]
    An \(((n,K,d))_q\) modular-qudit stabilizer code admitting a set of stabilizer generators that are either \(Z\)-type or \(X\)-type Pauli strings. Codes can be defined from two classical codes and/or chain complexes over the ring \(\mathbb{Z}_q\) via an extension of qubit CSS-to-homology correspondence to modular qudits. The homology group of the logical operators has a torsion component because the chain complexes are defined over a ring, which yields codes whose logical dimension is not a power of \(q\).
  257. Modular-qudit CWS code[396–398]
    A CWS code for modular qudits, defined using a modular-qudit cluster state and a set of modular-qudit \(Z\)-type Pauli strings defined by a \(q\)-ary classical code over \(\mathbb{Z}_q\).
  258. Modular-qudit DA code a.k.a. Modular-qudit dynamical code, Modular-qudit aperiodic Floquet code.
    Dynamically-generated stabilizer-based modular-qudit code whose (not necessarily periodic) sequence of few-body measurements implements state initialization, logical gates and error detection.
  259. Modular-qudit GKP code[284; Sec. II] a.k.a. Pre-GKP code.
    Modular-qudit analogue of the GKP code. Encodes a qudit into a larger qudit and protects against Pauli shifts up to some maximum value.
  260. Modular-qudit USt code[396,397]
    A modular-qubit code whose codespace consists of a direct sum of a modular-qubit stabilizer codespace and one or more of that stabilizer code's error spaces.
  261. Modular-qudit cluster-state code[399] a.k.a. Modular-qudit graph-state code.
    A code based on a modular-qudit cluster state.
  262. Modular-qudit code a.k.a. \(\mathbb{Z}_q\)-qudit code, Modular-qudit subspace code.
    Encodes \(K\)-dimensional Hilbert space into a \(q^n\)-dimensional (\(n\)-qudit) Hilbert space, with canonical qudit states \(|k\rangle\) labeled by elements \(k\) of the group \(\mathbb{Z}_q\) of integers modulo \(q\). Usually denoted as \(((n,K))_{\mathbb{Z}_q}\) or \(((n,K,d))_{\mathbb{Z}_q}\), whenever the code's distance \(d\) is defined, and with \(q=p\) when the dimension is prime.
  263. Modular-qudit color code[400]
    Extension of the color code to lattices of modular qudits. Codes are defined analogous to qubit color codes on suitable lattices of any spatial dimension, but a directionality is required in order to make the modular-qudit stabilizer commute. This can be done by puncturing a hyperspherical lattice [19] or constructing a star-bipartition; see [400; Sec. III]. Logical dimension is determined by the genus of the underlying surface (for closed surfaces), types of boundaries (for open surfaces), and/or any twist defects present.
  264. Modular-qudit honeycomb Floquet code[401]
    A modular-qudit extension of the honeycomb Floquet code.
  265. Modular-qudit stabilizer code[402]
    An \(((n,K,d))_q\) modular-qudit code whose logical subspace is the joint eigenspace of commuting qudit Pauli operators forming the code's stabilizer group \(\mathsf{S}\). Traditionally, the logical subspace is the joint \(+1\) eigenspace, and the stabilizer group does not contain \(e^{i \phi} I\) for any \(\phi \neq 0\). The distance \(d\) is the minimum weight of a qudit Pauli string that implements a nontrivial logical operation in the code.
  266. Modular-qudit subsystem color code[400]
    An extension of subsystem color codes to modular qudits. Codes are defined analogous to qubit subsystem color codes, but a directionality is required in order to make the modular-qudit stabilizer commute [400; Sec. VII].
  267. Modular-qudit surface code[30,272,403] a.k.a. \(\mathbb{Z}_q\) surface code.
    Extension of the surface code to prime-dimensional [30,272] and more general modular qudits [403]. Stabilizer generators are few-body \(X\)-type and \(Z\)-type Pauli strings associated to the stars and plaquettes, respectively, of a tessellation of a two-dimensional surface. Since qudits have more than one \(X\) and \(Z\)-type operator, various sets of stabilizer generators can be defined. Ground-state degeneracy and the associated phase depends on the qudit dimension and the stabilizer generators.
  268. Molecular code[149]
    Encodes finite-dimensional Hilbert space into the Hilbert space of \(L^2\)-normalizable functions on the group \(SO_3\). Construction is based on nested subgroups \(H\subset K \subset SO_3\), where \(H,K\) are finite. The \(|K|/|H|\)-dimensional logical subspace is spanned by basis states that are equal superpositions of elements of cosets of \(H\) in \(K\).
  269. Monitored random-circuit code[404–406]
    Error-correcting code arising from a monitored random circuit. Such a circuit is described by a series of intermittant random local projective Pauli measurements with random unitary time-evolution operators. An important sub-family consists of Clifford monitored random circuits, where unitaries are sampled from the Clifford group [407]. When the rate of projective measurements is independently controlled by a probability parameter \(p\), there can exist two stable phases, one described by volume-law entanglement entropy and the other by area-law entanglement entropy. The phases and their transition can be understood from the perspective of quantum error correction, information scrambling, and channel capacities [408,409].
  270. Monolithic quantum code
    A code constructed in a single quantum system, i.e., a physical space that is not treated as a tensor product of \(n\) identical subsystems. Examples include codes in a single qudit, spin, oscillator, or molecule.
  271. Movassagh-Ouyang Hamiltonian code[410]
    This is a family of codes derived via an algorithm that takes as input any binary classical code and outputs a quantum code (note that this framework can be extended to \(q\)-ary codes). The algorithm is probabalistic but succeeds almost surely if the classical code is random. An explicit code construction does exist for linear distance codes encoding one logical qubit. For finite rate codes, there is no rigorous proof that the construction algorithm succeeds, and approximate constructions are described instead.
  272. Multi-fusion string-net code[411]
    Family of codes resulting from the string-net construction but whose input is a unitary multi-fusion category (as opposed to a unitary fusion category).
  273. NTRU-GKP code[412]
    Multi-mode GKP code whose underlying lattice is utilized in variations of the NTRU cryptosystem [413]. Randomized constructions yield constant-rate GKP code families whose largest decodable displacement length scales as \(O(\sqrt{n})\) with high probability.
  274. Neural network quantum code[414–416]
    An approximate qubit code obtained from a numerical optimization involving a reinforcement learning agent.
  275. Number-phase code[63] a.k.a. Single-mode translationally invariant Fock-state code.
    Bosonic rotation code consisting of superpositions of Pegg-Barnett phase states [417].
  276. Numerically optimized bosonic code[58,59]
    Bosonic Fock-state code obtained from a numerical minimization procedure, e.g., from enforcing error-correction criteria against some number of losses while minimizing average occupation number. Useful single-mode codes can be determined using basic numerical optimization [58,59], semidefinite-program recovery/encoding optimization [418,419], or reinforcement learning [420,421].
  277. Numerically optimized four-qubit AD code[422]
    Four-qubit code that can (approximately) correct a single AD error with higher entanglement fidelity than the \([[4,1,2]]\) subcodes of the \([[4,2,2]]\) code. The code was obtained by a biconvex optimization of the entanglement fidelity.
  278. One-hot quantum code[423] a.k.a. Single-excitation subspace code, Direct mapping, Multi-rail code.
    Encoding of a \(q\)-dimensional qudit into the single-excitation subspace of \(q\) modes. The \(j\)th logical state is the multi-mode Fock state with one photon in mode \(j\) and zero photons in the other modes. This code is useful for encoding and performing operations on qudits in multiple qubits [424–428].
  279. Operator-algebra (OA) qubit code a.k.a. Hybrid subsystem qubit code.
    An OAQECC family that encompasses ordinary (i.e., subspace) qubit codes, subsystem qubit codes, and hybrid qubit codes using a unified operator-algebraic framework.
  280. Operator-algebra (OA) qubit stabilizer code[429] a.k.a. Hybrid subsystem qubit stabilizer code.
    An OAQECC in which the commutant \(\mathcal{A}'\) of the logical algebra \(\mathcal{A}\) arises as the group algebra of a subgroup \(\mathsf{G}\) of the \(n\)-qubit Pauli group \(\mathsf{P}_n\).
  281. Operator-algebra QECC (OAQECC)[336,430–434]
    A code family that encompasses ordinary (i.e., subspace) codes, subsystem codes, classical-quantum codes, and hybrid codes using a unified operator-algebraic framework.
  282. Oscillator-into-oscillator GKP code[435] a.k.a. GKP-stabilizer code.
    Multimode GKP code with an infinite-dimensional logical space. Can be obtained by considering an \(n\)-mode GKP code with a finite-dimensional logical space, removing stabilizers such that the logical space becomes infinite dimensional, and applying a Gaussian circuit.
  283. Oscillator-into-oscillator code[436,437] a.k.a. Analog quantum code.
    Encodes \(k\) bosonic modes into \(n\) bosonic modes.
  284. Ouyang-Chao constant-excitation PI code[438]
    A constant-excitation PI Fock-state code whose construction is based on integer partitions.
  285. PI qubit code
    Block quantum code defined on two-dimensional subsystems such that any permutation of the subsystems leaves any codeword invariant.
  286. Pair-cat code[439]
    Two- or higher-mode extension of cat codes whose codewords are right eigenstates of powers of products of the modes' lowering operators. Many gadgets for cat codes have two-mode pair-cat analogues, with the advantage being that such gates can be done in parallel with a dissipative error-correction process.
  287. Pastawski-Yoshida-Harlow-Preskill (HaPPY) code[313] a.k.a. Perfect holographic code.
    Holographic code constructed out of a network of hexagonal perfect tensors that tesselates hyperbolic space. The code serves as a minimal model for several aspects of the AdS/CFT holographic duality [440] and potentially a dF/CFT duality [441]. It has been generalized to higher dimensions [442] and to include gauge-like degrees of freedom on the links of the tensor network [443,444]. All boundary global symmetries must be dual to bulk gauge symmetries, and vice versa [445].
  288. Pauli group-representation QSC[446]
    Non-uniform QSC whose projection is onto a copy of an irreducible representation of the single-qubit Pauli group, the symmetry group of the \(\{2,2,4\}\) tesselation of the sphere. Each codeword is a quantum superposition of vertices of a tetrahedron with \(\pm 1\) coefficients.
  289. Penrose tiling code[447]
    Encodes quantum information into superpositions of rotated and translated versions of different Penrose tilings of \(\mathbb{R}^n\).
  290. Perfect quantum code
    A type of block quantum code whose parameters satisfy the quantum Hamming bound with equality.
  291. Perfect-tensor code a.k.a. AME code.
    Block quantum code encoding one subsystem into an odd number \(n\) subsystems whose encoding isometry is a perfect tensor. This code stems from an AME\((n,q)\) AME state, or equivalently, a \(((n+1,1,\lfloor (n+1)/2 \rfloor + 1))_{\mathbb{Z}_q}\) code.
  292. Permutation-invariant (PI) code[448]
    Block quantum code such that any permutation of the subsystems leaves any codeword invariant. In other words, the automorphism group of the code contains the symmetric group \(S_n\).
  293. Planar-perfect-tensor code[304,449] a.k.a. Block-perfect-tensor code, Perfect-tangle code.
    Block quantum code whose encoding isometry is a block perfect tensor, i.e., a tensor which remains an isometry under partitions into two contiguous components in a fixed plane. This code stems from a planar maximally entangled state [450].
  294. Post-selected PI code[451]
    PI qubit code whose recovery succeeds at protecting against AD errors with a success probability less than one.
  295. Prime-qudit RM code[268,452]
    Modular-qudit stabilizer code constructed from generalized Reed-Muller (GRM) codes or their duals via the modular-qudit CSS construction. An odd-prime-qudit CSS code family constructed from first-order punctured GRM codes transversally implements a diagonal gate at any level of the qudit Clifford hierarchy [452].
  296. Prime-qudit RS code[453] a.k.a. Prime-qudit polynomial code (QPyC).
    Prime-qudit CSS code constructed using two RS codes.
  297. Prime-qudit triorthogonal code[454]
    An \(m \times n\) matrix over \(GF(p)=\mathbb{Z}_p\) is triorthogonal if its rows \(r_1, \ldots, r_m\) satisfy \(|r_i \cdot r_j| = 0\) and \(|r_i \cdot r_j \cdot r_k| = 0\) modulo \(p\), where addition and multiplication are done on \(GF(p)\). The triorthogonal prime-qudit CSS code associated with the matrix is constructed by mapping non-zero entries in self-orhogonal rows to \(X\) operators, and \(Z\) operators for each row in the orthogonal complement [454,455].
  298. Projective-plane surface code[456]
    A family of Kitaev surface codes on the non-orientable 2-dimensional compact manifold \(\mathbb{R}P^2\) (in contrast to a genus-\(g\) surface). Whereas genus-\(g\) surface codes require \(2g\) logical qubits, qubit codes on \(\mathbb{R}P^2\) are made from a single logical qubit.
  299. Purity-testing stabilizer code[457]
    A qubit stabilizer code that is constructed from a normal rational curve and that is relevant to testing the purity of an entangled Bell state stabilized by two parties [457].
  300. Quantum AG code[458]
    A Galois-qudit CSS code constructed using two linear AG codes.
  301. Quantum Gabidulin code[459]
    A Galois-qudit stabilizer code over \(n\) Galois qudits of dimension \(q = 2^n \) that is useful in protecting against faults in qubit Clifford circuits acting on stacked quantum memories. This code can be treated as a code on an \(n\times n\) qubit stacked memory by decomposing each Galois qudit into a Kronecker product of \(n\) qubits; see [136,270][460; Sec. 5.3].
  302. Quantum Goppa code[460–462]
    A Galois-qudit CSS code constructed using two Goppa codes.
  303. Quantum LDPC (QLDPC) code a.k.a. Sparse quantum code.
    Member of a family of \([[n,k,d]]\) stabilizer codes for which the number of sites participating in each stabilizer generator and the number of stabilizer generators that each site participates in are both bounded by a constant \(w\) as \(n\to\infty\); can be denoted by \([[n,k,d,w]]\). Sometimes, the two parameters are explicitly stated: each site of an an \((l,w)\)-regular QLDPC code is acted on by \(\leq l\) generators of weight \(\leq w\). QLDPC codes can correct many stochastic errors far beyond the distance, which may not scale as favorably. Together with more accurate, faster, and easier-to-parallelize measurements than those of general stabilizer codes, this property makes QLDPC codes interesting in practice.
  304. Quantum Reed-Muller code[463,464]
    A CSS code formed from a classical Reed-Muller (RM) code or its punctured/shortened versions. Such codes often admit transversal logical gates in the Clifford hierarchy.
  305. Quantum Tamo-Barg (QTB) code[465]
    A member of a family of Galois-qudit CSS codes whose underlying classical codes consist of Tamo-Barg codes together with specific low-weight codewords. Folded versions of QTB codes, or FQTB codes, defined on qudits whose dimension depends on \(n\) yield explicit examples of QLRCs of arbitrary locality \(r\) [465; Thm. 2].
  306. Quantum Tanner code[466]
    Member of a family of QLDPC codes based on two compatible classical Tanner codes defined on a two-dimensional Cayley complex, a complex constructed from Cayley graphs of groups. For certain choices of codes and complex, the resulting codes have asymptotically good parameters. This construction has been generalized to Schreier graphs [281].
  307. Quantum check-product code[467]
    CSS code constructed from an extension of check product (between two classical codes) to a product between a classical and a quantum code.
  308. Quantum code
    Code designed for transmission of quantum and/or classical information through a quantum channel for the purposes of robust storage, communication, or sensing. Transmission can be performed with side information or entanglement.
  309. Quantum convolutional code[468,469]
    One-dimensional translationally invariant qubit stabilizer code whose whose stabilizer group can be partitioned into constant-size subsets of constant support and of constant overlap between neighboring sets. Initially formulated as a quantum analogue of convolutional codes, which were designed to protect a continuous and never-ending stream of information. Precise formulations sometimes begin with a finite-dimensional lattice, with the intent to take the thermodynamic limit; logical dimension can be infinite as well.
  310. Quantum data-syndrome (QDS) code[470–474]
    Stabilizer code designed to correct both data qubit errors and syndrome measurement errors simultaneously due to extra redundancy in its stabilizer generators.
  311. Quantum divisible code[475–477]
    A level-\(\nu\) quantum divisible code is a CSS code whose \(X\)-type stabilizers form a \(\nu\)-even linear binary code in the symplectic representation and which admits a transversal gate at the \(\nu\)th level of the Clifford hierarchy. A CSS code is doubly even (triply even) if all \(X\)-type stabilizers have weight divisible by four (eight), i.e., if they form a doubly even (triply even) linear binary code.
  312. Quantum duadic code[478–481]
    True Galois-qudit stabilizer code constructed from \(q\)-ary duadic codes via the Hermitian construction or the Galois-qudit CSS construction.
  313. Quantum error-correcting code (QECC)
    Encodes quantum information in a (logical) subspace of a (physical) Hilbert space such that it is possible to recover said information from errors that act as linear maps on the physical space.
  314. Quantum error-transmuting code (QETC)[482]
    Encodes quantum information in a (logical, \(k\)-qubit) subspace \(\mathsf{C}\) of a (physical, \(n\)-qubit) Hilbert space \(\mathsf{H}\) such that recovery is possible from a set of physical errors occurring up to a pre-specified (smaller, but non-empty) admissible set of logical errors. This is relevant to, e.g., simulation of noisy systems. Most QETCs are stabilizer codes: \(\mathsf{C}\) is the subspace stabilised by an abelian subgroup \(\mathsf{S} \subset \mathcal{G}_n\) of the Pauli group on \(n\) qubits.
  315. Quantum expander code[483] a.k.a. Quantum Sipser-Spielman code.
    CSS code constructed from a hypergraph product of bipartite expander graphs [201] with bounded left and right vertex degrees. For every bipartite graph there is an associated matrix (the parity check matrix) with columns indexed by the left vertices, rows indexed by the right vertices, and 1 entries whenever a left and right vertex are connected. This matrix can serve as the parity check matrix of a classical code. Two bipartite expander graphs can be used to construct a quantum CSS code (the quantum expander code) by using the parity check matrix of one as \(X\) checks, and the parity check matrix of the other as \(Z\) checks.
  316. Quantum lattice code
    Bosonic stabilizer code on \(n\) bosonic modes whose stabilizer group is an infinite countable group of oscillator displacement operators which implement lattice translations in phase space.
  317. Quantum locally recoverable code (QLRC)[465]
    A QLRC of locality \(r\) is a block quantum code whose code states can be recovered after a single erasure by performing a recovery map on at most \(r\) subsystems.
  318. Quantum locally testable code (QLTC)[484]
    A local commuting-projector Hamiltonian-based block quantum code which has a nonzero average-energy penalty for creating large errors. Informally, QLTC error states that are far away from the codespace have to be excited states by a number of the code's local projectors that scales linearly with \(n\).
  319. Quantum low-weight check (QLWC) code[485]
    Member of a family of \([[n,k,d]]\) stabilizer codes for which the number of sites participating in each stabilizer generator is bounded by a constant as \(n\to\infty\).
  320. Quantum maximum-distance-separable (MDS) code[486–488]
    A type of block quantum code whose parameters satisfy the quantum Singleton bound with equality.
  321. Quantum multi-dimensional parity-check (QMDPC) code[489]
    High-rate low-distance CSS code whose qubits lie on a \(D\)-dimensional rectangle, with \(X\)-type stabilizer generators defined on each \(D-1\)-dimensional rectangle. The \(Z\)-type stabilizer generators are defined via permutations in order to commute with the \(X\)-type generators.
  322. Quantum parity code (QPC)[51,490,491] a.k.a. Subspace Shor code.
    A \([[m_1 m_2,1,\min(m_1,m_2)]]\) CSS code family obtained from concatenating an \(m_1\)-qubit phase-flip repetition code with an \(m_2\)-qubit bit-flip repetition code.
  323. Quantum pin code[347]
    Member of a family of CSS codes that encompasses both quantum Reed-Muller and color codes and that is defined using intersections of pinned sets.
  324. Quantum polar code[492]
    Entanglement-assisted CSS code utilized in a quantum polar coding scheme producing entangled pairs of qubits between sender and receiver. In such a scheme, the amplitude and phase information of a quantum state is handled in complementary fashion [493] using an encoding based on classical polar codes. Variants of the initial scheme have been developed for degradable channels [494] and extended to arbitrary channels [495].
  325. Quantum quadratic-residue (QR) code[269,271,488]
    Galois-qudit \([[n,1]]_q\) pure self-dual CSS code constructed from a dual-containing QR code via the Galois-qudit CSS construction. For \(q\) not divisible by \(n\), its distance satisfies \(d^2-d+1 \geq n\) when \(n \equiv 3\) modulo 4 [271; Thm. 40] and \(d \geq \sqrt{n}\) when \(n\equiv 1\) modulo 4 [271; Thm. 41].
  326. Quantum rainbow code[496]
    A CSS code whose qubits are associated with vertices of a simplex graph with \(m+1\) colors.
  327. Quantum repetition code[497]
    Encodes \(1\) qubit into \(n\) qubits according to \(|0\rangle\to|\phi_0\rangle^{\otimes n}\) and \(|1\rangle\to|\phi_1\rangle^{\otimes n}\). The code is called a bit-flip code when \(|\phi_i\rangle = |i\rangle\), and a phase-flip code when \(|\phi_0\rangle = |+\rangle\) and \(|\phi_1\rangle = |-\rangle\).
  328. Quantum spatially coupled (SC-QLDPC) code[498,499]
    QLDPC code whose stabilizer generator matrix resembles the parity-check matrix of SC-LDPC codes. There exist CSS [498] and stabilizer constructions [499]. In either case, the stabilizer generator matrix is constructed by "spatially" coupling sub-matrix blocks in chain-like fashion (or, more generally, in grid-like fashion) to yield a band matrix. The sub-matrix blocks have to satisfy certain conditions amongst themselves so that the resulting band matrix is a stabilizer generator matrix. Matrices corresponding to translationally invariant chains are called time-variant, and otherwise are called time-invariant.
  329. Quantum spherical code (QSC)[105]
    Code whose codewords are superpositions of points on an \(n\)-dimensional real or complex sphere. Such codes can in principle be defined on any configuration space housing a sphere, but the focus of this entry is on QSCs constructed out of coherent-state constellations.
  330. Quantum synchronizable code[500]
    A qubit stabilizer code designed to protect against synchronization errors (a.k.a. misalignment), which are errors that misalign the code block in a larger block by one or more locations.
  331. Quantum tensor-product code[501,502]
    CSS code constructed from a tensor code. In some cases, only one of the classical codes forming the tensor code needs to be self-orthogonal.
  332. Quantum turbo code[503,504]
    A quantum version of the turbo code, obtained from an interleaved serial quantum concatenation [504; Def. 30] of quantum convolutional codes.
  333. Quantum twisted code[305]
    Hermitian code arising constructed from twisted BCH codes.
  334. Quantum-double code[30]
    Group-GKP stabilizer code whose codewords realize 2D modular gapped topological order defined by a finite group \(G\). The code's generators are few-body operators associated to the stars and plaquettes, respectively, of a tessellation of a two-dimensional surface (with a qudit of dimension \( |G| \) located at each edge of the tesselation).
  335. Quasi-cyclic QLDPC (QC-QLDPC) code[505,506]
    A QLDPC code such that cyclic shifts of the subsystems by \(\ell\geq 1\) leave the codespace invariant. Such codes have circulant stabilizer generator matrices [505,506].
  336. Quasi-cyclic quantum code[505]
    A block code on \(n\) subsystems such that cyclic shifts of the subsystems by \(\ell\geq 1\) leave the codespace invariant.
  337. Quasi-hyperbolic color code[507]
    An extension of the color code construction to quasi-hyperbolic manifolds, e.g., a product of a 2D hyperbolic surface and a circle.
  338. Qubit BCH code[47,306,508–510]
    Qubit stabilizer code constructed from a self-orthogonal binary BCH code via the CSS construction, from a Hermitian self-orthogonal quaternary BCH code via the Hermitian construction, or by taking a Euclidean self-orthogonal BCH code over \(GF(2^m)\), converting it to a binary code, and applying the CSS construction.
  339. Qubit CSS code[249–251] a.k.a. Qubit Euclidean code.
    An \([[n,k,d]]\) stabilizer code admitting a set of stabilizer generators that are either \(Z\)-type or \(X\)-type Pauli strings. Codes can be defined from two classical codes and/or chain complexes over \(\mathbb{Z}_2\) per the qubit CSS-to-homology correspondence below.
  340. Qubit code a.k.a. Qubit subspace code.
    Encodes \(K\)-dimensional Hilbert space into a \(2^n\)-dimensional (i.e., \(n\)-qubit) Hilbert space. Usually denoted as \(((n,K))\) or \(((n,K,d))\), where \(d\) is the code's distance.
  341. Qubit stabilizer code[402,511] a.k.a. Pauli stabilizer code, Additive quantum code, Additive CWS code, Clifford code.
    An \(((n,2^k,d))\) qubit stabilizer code is denoted as \([[n,k]]\) or \([[n,k,d]]\), where \(d\) is the code's distance. Logical subspace is the joint eigenspace of commuting Pauli operators forming the code's stabilizer group \(\mathsf{S}\). Traditionally, the logical subspace is the joint \(+1\) eigenspace of a set of \(2^{n-k}\) commuting Pauli operators which do not contain \(-I\). The distance is the minimum weight of a Pauli string that implements a nontrivial logical operation in the code.
  342. Qudit GNU PI code[512]
    Extension of the GNU PI codes to those encoding logical qudits into physical qubits. Codewords can be expressed as superpositions of Dicke states with coefficients are square-roots of polynomial coefficients, with the case of binomial coefficients reducing to the GNU PI codes.
  343. Qudit cubic code[513–515]
    Generalization of the Haah cubic code to modular qudits.
  344. Qudit-into-oscillator code
    Encodes \(K\)-dimensional Hilbert space into \(n\) bosonic modes.
  345. Random quantum code
    Quantum code whose construction is non-deterministic in some way, i.e., codes that utilize an elements of randomness somewhere in their construction. Members of this class range from fully non-deterministic codes (e.g., random-circuit codes), to codes whose multi-step construction is deterministic with the exception of a single step (e.g., expander lifter-product codes).
  346. Random stabilizer code[249,402,511] a.k.a. Random Clifford-circuit code.
    An \(n\)-qubit, modular-qudit, or Galois-qudit stabilizer code whose construction is non-deterministic. Since stabilizer encoders are Clifford circuits, such codes can be thought of as arising from random Clifford circuits.
  347. Random-circuit code[516]
    Code whose encoding is naturally constructed by randomly sampling from a large set of (not necessarily unitary) quantum circuits.
  348. Raussendorf-Bravyi-Harrington (RBH) cluster-state code[517–519] a.k.a. Raussendorf-Harrington-Goyal (RHG) cluster-state code.
    A three-dimensional cluster-state code defined on the bcc lattice (i.e., a cubic lattice with qubits on edges and faces).
  349. Renormalization group (RG) cat code[434,520,521]
    Code whose codespace is spanned by \(q\) field-theoretic coherent states which are flowing under the renormalization group (RG) flow of massive free fields. The code approximately protects against displacements that represent local (i.e., short-distance, ultraviolet, or UV) operators. Intuitively, this is because RG cat codewords represent non-local (i.e., long-distance) degrees of freedom, which should only be excitable by acting on a macroscopically large number of short-distance degrees of freedom.
  350. Rotated surface code[349,522–524] a.k.a. Checkerboard code, Medial surface code, Rectified surface code.
    Variant of the surface code defined on a square lattice that has been rotated 45 degrees such that qubits are on vertices, and both \(X\)- and \(Z\)-type check operators occupy plaquettes in an alternating checkerboard pattern.
  351. Rotor GKP code[149,284,525]
    GKP code protecting against small angular position and momentum shifts of a planar rotor.
  352. Rotor code
    Encodes a logical Hilbert space, finite- or infinite-dimensional, into a physical Hilbert space of \(L^2\)-normalizable functions on either the integers \(\mathbb Z\) or the circle group \(U(1)\). Ideal codewords may not be normalizable because the space is infinite-dimensional, so approximate versions have to be constructed in practice.
  353. Rotor stabilizer code
    Rotor code whose codespace is defined as the common \(+1\) eigenspace of a group of mutually commuting rotor generalized Pauli operators. The stabilizer group can be either discrete or continuous, corresponding to modular or linear constraints on angular positions and momenta. Both cases can yield finite or infinite logical dimension. Exact codewords are non-normalizable, so approximate constructions have to be considered.
  354. SYK code[526,527]
    Approximate \(n\)-fermionic code whose codewords are low-energy states of the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev (SYK) Hamiltonian [528,529] or other low-rank SYK models [530,531].
  355. Sarvepalli-Brown subsystem code[279]
    Member of a family of non-CSS subsystem codes constructed from hypergraphs that satisfy certain assumptions [279; Construction C].
  356. Self-complementary quantum code[532,533]
    A qubit code which admits a basis of codewords of the form \(|c\rangle+|\overline{c}\rangle\), where \(c\) is a bitstring and \(\overline{c}\) is its negation a.k.a. complement. Their codewords generalize the two-qubit Bell states and three-qubit GHZ states and are often called (qubit) cat states or poor-man's GHZ states. Such codes were originally pointed out to perform well against AD noise [533].
  357. Self-correcting quantum code[21,375] a.k.a. Self-correcting quantum memory, Thermally stable encoding.
    A block quantum code that forms the ground-state subspace of an \(n\)-body geometrically local Hamiltonian whose logical information is recoverable for arbitrary long times in the \(n\to\infty\) limit after interaction with a sufficiently cold thermal environment. Typically, one also requires a decoder whose decoding time scales polynomially with \(n\) and a finite energy density. The original criteria for a self-correcting quantum memory, informally known as the Caltech rules [217,534], also required finite-spin Hamiltonians.
  358. Sierpinsky fractal spin-liquid (SFSL) code[203,535]
    A fractal type-I fracton CSS code defined on a cubic lattice [16; Eq. (D22)]. The code admits an excitation-moving operator shaped like a Sierpinski triangle [16; Fig. 2].
  359. Single-mode bosonic code
    Encodes \(K\)-dimensional Hilbert space into a single bosonic mode. A trivial single-mode code encoding a qubit into the first two Fock states \(\{|0\rangle,|1\rangle\}\) is called the single-rail encoding [536,537].
  360. Single-shot code[21,538,539]
    Block quantum qudit code whose error-syndrome weights increase linearly with the distance of the error state to the code space.
  361. Single-spin code
    An encoding into a monolithic (i.e. non-tensor-product) Hilbert space that houses an irreducible representation of \(SU(2)\) or, more generally, another Lie group. In some cases, this space can be thought of as the permutation invariant subspace of a particular tensor-product space.
  362. Singleton-bound approaching AQECC[214]
    Approximate quantum code of rate \(R\) that can tolerate adversarial errors nearly saturating the quantum Singleton bound of \((1-R)/2\). The formulation of such codes relies on a notion of quantum list decoding [214,540]. Sampling a description of this code can be done with an efficient randomized algorithm with \(2^{-\Omega(n)}\) failure probability.
  363. Six-qubit-tensor holographic code[317]
    Holographic tensor-network code constructed out of a network of encoding isometries of the \([[6,1,3]]\) six-qubit stabilizer code. The structure of the isometry is similar to that of the heptagon holographic code since both isometries are rank-six tensors, but the isometry in this case is neither a perfect tensor nor a planar-perfect tensor.
  364. Skew-cyclic CSS code[541,542]
    A member of a family of Galois-qudit CSS codes constructed from skew-cyclic classical codes over rings [542; Thm. 5.8]. See related study [543] that uses cyclic codes over rings.
  365. Small-distance block quantum code
    A block quantum code on \(n\) subsystems that either detects or corrects errors on at most two subsystems, i.e., have distance \(\leq 5\).
  366. Smolin-Smith-Wehner (SSW) code[532,544]
    A family of \(((n=4k+2l+3,M_{k,l},2))\) self-complementary CWS codes, where \(M_{k,l} \approx 2^{n-2}(1-\sqrt{2/(\pi(n-1))})\). For \(n \geq 11\), these codes have a logical subspace whose dimension is larger than that of the largest stabilizer code for the same \(n\) and \(d\). A subset of these codes can be augmented to yield codes with one higher logical dimension [545].
  367. Spacetime circuit code[546–548]
    Qubit stabilizer code used to correct faults in Clifford circuits, i.e., circuits up made of Clifford gates and Pauli measurements. The code utilizes redundancy in the measurement outcomes of a circuit to correct circuit faults, which correspond to Pauli errors of the code.
  368. Sparse subsystem code[546]
    A geometrically local qubit, modular-qudit, or Galois-qudit subsystem stabilizer code for which the number of sites participating in each gauge-group generator and the number of gauge-group generators that each site participates in are both bounded by a constant as \(n\to\infty\).
  369. Spin GKP code[549]
    An analogue of the single-mode GKP code designed for atomic ensembles. Was designed by using the Holstein-Primakoff mapping [550] (see also [551]) to pull back the phase-space structure of a bosonic system to the compact phase space of a quantum spin. A different construction emerges depending on which particular expression for GKP codewords is pulled back.
  370. Spin cat code[552,553]
    An analogue of the two-component cat code designed for a large spin, which is often realized in the PI subspace of atomic ensembles.
  371. Spin code
    Encodes \(K\)-dimensional Hilbert space into a tensor-product or direct sum of factors, with each factor spanned by states of a quantum mechanical spin or, more generally, an irreducible representation of a Lie group.
  372. Square-lattice GKP code[284]
    Single-mode GKP qudit-into-oscillator code based on the rectangular lattice. Its stabilizer generators are oscillator displacement operators \(\hat{S}_q(2\alpha)=e^{-2i\alpha \hat{p}}\) and \(\hat{S}_p(2\beta)=e^{2i\beta \hat{x}}\). To ensure \(\hat{S}_q(2\alpha)\) and \(\hat{S}_p(2\beta)\) generate a stabilizer group that is Abelian, there is a constraint that \(\alpha\beta=2q\pi\) where \(q\) is an integer denoting the logical dimension.
  373. Square-lattice cluster-state code[108–110]
    A code based on the cluster state on a square lattice that was used in the the first proposal for MBQC [109,110].
  374. Square-octagon (4.8.8) color code[3]
    Triangular color code defined on a patch of the 4.8.8 (square-octagon) tiling, which itself is obtained by applying a fattening procedure to the square lattice [4].
  375. Squeezed cat code[554–556]
    Two-component cat code whose two coherent states have been squeezed in a direction perpendicular to the segment formed by the two coherent state values \(\pm\alpha\).
  376. Squeezed fock-state code[557]
    Approximate bosonic code that encodes a qubit into the same Fock state, but one which is squeezed in opposite directions.
  377. Stabilizer code
    A code whose logical subspace is the joint eigenspace (usually with eigenvalue \(+1\)) of a set of commuting unitary Pauli-type operators forming the code's stabilizer group. They can be block codes defined of tensor-product spaces of qubits or qudits, or non-block codes defined on single sufficiently large Hilbert spaces such as bosonic modes or group spaces.
  378. Stellated color code[558]
    A non-CSS color code on a lattice patch with a single twist defect at the center of the patch.
  379. String-net code[163,204,559,560] a.k.a. Levin-Wen model code, Turaev-Viro code.
    Code whose codewords realize a 2D topological order rendered by a Turaev-Viro topological field theory. The corresponding anyon theory is defined by a (multiplicity-free) unitary fusion category \( \mathcal{C} \). The code is defined on a cell decomposition dual to a triangulation of a two-dimensional surface, with a qudit of dimension \( |\mathcal{C}| \) located at each edge of the decomposition. These models realize local topological order (LTO) [561].
  380. Subsystem CSS code[562–564]
    Subsystem stabilizer code which admits a set of gauge-group generators which consist of either all-\(Z\) or all-\(X\) Pauli strings. This ensures that the code's stabilizer group is also CSS.
  381. Subsystem Galois-qudit CSS code[563,564] a.k.a. Euclidean construction subsystem code.
    Galois-qudit subsystem stabilizer code which admits a set of gauge-group generators which consist of either all-\(Z\) or all-\(X\) Galois-qudit Pauli strings.
  382. Subsystem Galois-qudit code a.k.a. Gauge Galois-qudit code.
    Subsystem QECC encoding into a \(q^n\)-dimensional Hilbert space consisting of \(n\) Galois qudits.
  383. Subsystem Galois-qudit stabilizer code[562] a.k.a. Gauge Galois-qudit stabilizer code.
    Galois-qudit generalization of a subsystem qubit stabilizer code. Can be obtained by taking a Galois-qudit stabilizer code and assigning some of its logical qubits to be gauge qubits.
  384. Subsystem QECC[565,566] a.k.a. Operator QECC (OQECC), Gauge QECC.
    A quantum code which encodes quantum information in a tensor factor of a subspace that is decomposed into a tensor product of subsystems.
  385. Subsystem color code[8,19] a.k.a. Gauge color code.
    A subsystem version of the color code. One way to obtain it is by expanding the vertices of a two-colex embedded in a surface of genus \(g\). Vertex expansion consists of spl every vertex into a triangle and splitting every edge into a pair of edges.
  386. Subsystem homological product code[567]
    A CSS subsystem code constructed from a product of two (subspace) CSS codes. The case for qubits is formulated below, but these codes have also been extended to Galois qudits [567].
  387. Subsystem hyperbolic surface code[568]
    Subsystem generalization of the surface code on a 2D hyperbolic tesselation with gauge-group generators of weight at most three. An \(\{r,s\}\) hyperbolic tesselation with \(E\) edges yields a \([[3E/2,(1/2-2/r)E+2,(1-2/r)E,d]]\) subsystem code.
  388. Subsystem hypergraph product (SHP) code[275,569] a.k.a. Subsystem generalized Shor code, Bacon-Casaccino subsystem code.
    A CSS subsystem version of the generalized Shor code that has the same parameters as the subspace version, but requires fewer stabilizer measurements, resulting in a simpler error recovery routine. The code can also be thought of as a subsystem version of an HGP code because two such codes reduce to an HGP code upon gauge fixing [569; Sec. III]. The code can be obtained from a generalized Shor code by removing certain stabilizers that do no affect the code distance.
  389. Subsystem lifted-product (SLP) code[570]
    Member of a family of subsystem CSS codes constructed from a subsystem hypergraph product of a lifted binary linear code.
  390. Subsystem modular-qudit CSS code
    Modular-qudit subsystem stabilizer code which admits a set of gauge-group generators which consist of either all-\(Z\) or all-\(X\) modular-qudit Pauli strings. This ensures that the code's stabilizer group is also CSS.
  391. Subsystem modular-qudit code a.k.a. Gauge modular-qudit code.
    Subsystem QECC encoding into a \(q^n\)-dimensional Hilbert space consisting of \(n\) modular qudits.
  392. Subsystem modular-qudit stabilizer code a.k.a. Gauge modular-qudit stabilizer code.
    Modular-qudit generalization of a subsystem qubit stabilizer code. Can be obtained by taking a modular qudit stabilizer code and assigning some of its logical qubits to be gauge qubits. For composite qudit dimensions, such codes need not encode an integer number of qudits.
  393. Subsystem qubit code a.k.a. Gauge qubit code.
    Subsystem QECC encoding into a \(2^n\)-dimensional (i.e., \(n\)-qubit) Hilbert space.
  394. Subsystem qubit stabilizer code[571] a.k.a. Gauge qubit stabilizer code.
    A stabilizer code with some of its logical qubits denoted as gauge qubits and not used for storage of logical information. Note that this doesn't lead to new codes but does lead to new error correction and fault tolerance procedures. Subsystem codes are denoted by \([[n,k,g,d]]\), similar to stabilizer codes, but with an extra parameter \(g\) denoting the number of gauge qubits.
  395. Subsystem rotated surface code[572]
    Subsystem version of the rotated surface code.
  396. Subsystem spacetime circuit code[546,547]
    Subsystem stabilizer code obtained from a spacetime circuit code by gauging out logical operators that correspond to circuit faults with trivial effect [548; Sec. 5.4].
  397. Subsystem surface code[573]
    Subsystem version of the surface code defined on a square lattice with qubits placed at every vertex and center of everry edge.
  398. Surface-17 code[524] a.k.a. \([[9,1,3]]\) rotated surface code.
    A \([[9,1,3]]\) rotated surface code named for the sum of its 9 data qubits and 8 syndrome qubits. It uses the smallest number of qubits to perform fault-tolerant error correction on a surface code with parallel syndrome extraction.
  399. Surface-code-fragment (SCF) holographic code[574]
    Holographic tensor-network code constructed out of a network of encoding isometries of the \([[5,1,2]]\) rotated surface code. The structure of the isometry is similar to that of the HaPPY code since both isometries are rank-six tensors. In the case of the SCF holographic code, the isometry is only a planar-perfect tensor (as opposed to a perfect tensor).
  400. Symmetry-protected self-correcting quantum code[575] a.k.a. Symmetry-protected self-correcting memory.
    A code which admits a restricted notion of thermal stability against symmetric perturbations, i.e., perturbations that commute with a set of operators forming a group \(G\) called the symmetry group.
  401. Symmetry-protected topological (SPT) code[576,577]
    A code whose codewords form the ground-state or low-energy subspace of a code Hamiltonian realizing symmetry-protected topological (SPT) order.
  402. Tensor-network code[70,317,578–580] a.k.a. Quantum Lego code.
    Block quantum code constructed using a tensor-network-based graphical framework from atomic tensors a.k.a. quantum Lego blocks [578], which can be encoding isometries for smaller quantum codes. The class of codes constructed using the framework depends on the choice of atomic Lego blocks.
  403. Tensor-product HDX code[581]
    Code constructed in a similar way as the HDX code, but utilizing tensor products of multiple Ramanujan complexes and then applying distance balancing. These improve the asymptotic code distance over the HDX codes from \(\sqrt{n}\log n\) to \(\sqrt{n}~\text{polylog}(n)\). The utility of such tensor products comes from the fact that one of the Ramanujan complexes is a collective cosystolic expander as opposed to just a cosystolic expander.
  404. Ternary-tree fermion-into-qubit code[582]
    A fermion-into-qubit encoding defined on ternary trees that maps Majorana operators into Pauli strings of weight \(\lceil \log_3 (2n+1) \rceil\).
  405. Tetrahedral color code[19,583]
    3D color code defined on select tetrahedra of a 3D tiling. Qubits are placed on the vertices, edges, triangles, and in the center of each tetrahedron. The code has both string-like and sheet-like logical operators [584].
  406. Three-fermion (3F) Walker-Wang model code[585,586]
    A 3D lattice stabilizer code whose low-energy excitations on boundaries realize a 3D time-reversal SPT order [585] and that can be used as a resource state for fault-tolerant MBQC [586]. The anyons at the boundary of the lattice are described by the 3F anyon theory.
  407. Three-fermion (3F) subsystem code[97,587]
    2D subsystem stabilizer code whose low-energy excitations realize the three-fermion anyon theory [587–589]. One version uses two qubits at each site [97], while other manifestations utilize a single qubit per site and only weight-two (two-body) interactions [8,587]. All are expected to be equivalent to each other via a local constant-depth Clifford circuit.
  408. Three-qutrit code[590]
    A \([[3,1,2]]_3\) prime-qudit CSS code that is the smallest qutrit stabilizer code to detect a single-qutrit error. with stabilizer generators \(ZZZ\) and \(XXX\). The code defines a quantum secret-sharing scheme and serves as a minimal model for the AdS/CFT holographic duality. It is also the smallest non-trivial instance of a quantum maximum distance separable code (QMDS), saturating the quantum Singleton bound.
  409. Three-rotor code[142]
    \([[3,1,2]]_{\mathbb Z}\) rotor code that is an extension of the \([[3,1,2]]_3\) qutrit CSS code to the integer alphabet, i.e., the angular momentum states of a planar rotor.
  410. Tiger code[591]
    A CSS-like multi-mode bosonic non-stabilizer code that generalizes the pair-cat code and whose syndromes are linear combinations of occupation-number operators.
  411. Tiger surface code[591]
    A tiger-code variant of the Kitaev surface code that is constructed from a hypergraph product of two repetition codes over the integers. The code is conjectured to realize phases of \(U(1)\) gauge theory.
  412. Topological code[30]
    A code whose codewords form the ground-state or low-energy subspace of a (typically geometrically local) code Hamiltonian realizing a topological phase. A topological phase may be bosonic or fermionic, i.e., constructed out of underlying subsystems whose operators commute or anti-commute with each other, respectively. Unless otherwise noted, the phases discussed are bosonic.
  413. Toric code[43,366]
    Version of the Kitaev surface code on the two-dimensional torus, encoding two logical qubits. Being the first manifestation of the surface code, "toric code" is often an alternative name for the general construction. Twisted toric code [52; Fig. 8] refers to the construction on a torus with twisted (a.k.a. shifted) boundary conditions.
  414. Transverse-field Ising model (TFIM) code[592]
    A 1D translationally invariant stabilizer code whose encoding is a constant-depth circuit of nearest-neighbor gates on alternating even and odd bonds that consist of transverse-field Ising Hamiltonian interactions. The code allows for perfect state transfer of arbitrary distance using local operations and classical communications (LOCC).
  415. Trapezoid subsystem code[593,594]
    A member of a family of BBS codes with weight-two (two-body) gauge generators designed to suppress errors in adiabatic quantum computation.
  416. Tree cluster-state code[595–597]
    Code obtained from a cluster state on a tree graph that has been proposed in the context of quantum repeater and MBQC architectures.
  417. Triangular surface code[598] a.k.a. Triangle surface code.
    A surface code with weight-four stabilizer generators defined on a honeycomb tiling that are examples of twist-defect surface code with a single twist defect at the center of the patch. The codes use about \(25\%\) fewer physical per logical qubit for a given distance compared to the surface code.
  418. Triorthogonal code[599]
    Qubit CSS code whose \(X\)-type logicals and stabilizer generators form a triorthogonal matrix (defined below) in the symplectic representation.
  419. True Galois-qudit stabilizer code[136,270,271] a.k.a. Linear stabilizer code.
    A \([[n,k,d]]_q\) stabilizer code whose stabilizer's Galois symplectic representation forms a linear subspace. In other words, the set of \(q\)-ary vectors representing the stabilizer group is closed under both addition and multiplication by elements of \(GF(q)\). In contrast, Galois-qudit stabilizer codes admit sets of vectors that are closed under addition only.
  420. Truncated trihexagonal (4.6.12) color code[600]
    Triangular color code defined on a patch of the 4.6.12 (truncated trihexagonal or square-hexagon-dodecagon) tiling.
  421. Twist-defect color code[601–603] a.k.a. Color code with a twist.
    A non-CSS extension of the 2D color code whose non-CSS stabilizer generators are associated with twist defects of the associated lattice.
  422. Twist-defect surface code[558,598,601,604–607] a.k.a. Surface code with a twist, Genon surface code.
    A non-CSS extension of the 2D surface-code construction whose non-CSS stabilizer generators are associated with twist defects of the associated lattice. A related construction [607] doubles the number of qubits in the lattice via symplectic doubling.
  423. Twisted XZZX toric code[608] a.k.a. XZZX cyclic code, Cyclic toric code, Generalized toric code (GTC).
    A cyclic code that can be thought of as the XZZX toric code with shifted (a.k.a twisted) boundary conditions. Admits a set of stabilizer generators that are cyclic shifts of a particular weight-four \(XZZX\) Pauli string. For example, a seven-qubit \([[7,1,3]]\) variant has stabilizers generated by cyclic shifts of \(XZIZXII\) [609]. Codes encode either one or two logical qubits, depending on qubit geometry, and perform well against biased noise [610].
  424. Twisted \(1\)-group code[611,612]
    Block group-representation code realizing particular irreps of particular groups such that a distance of two is automatically guaranteed. Groups which admit irreps with this property are called twisted (unitary) \(1\)-groups and include the binary icosahedral group \(2I\), the \(\Sigma(360\phi)\) subgroup of \(SU(3)\), the family \(\{PSp(2b, 3), b \geq 1\}\), and the alternating groups \(A_{5,6}\). Groups whose irreps are images of the appropriate irreps of twisted \(1\)-groups also yield such properties, e.g., the binary tetrahedral group \(2T\) or qutrit Pauli group \(\Sigma(72\phi)\).
  425. Twisted quantum double (TQD) code[26,27,613]
    Code whose codewords realize a 2D topological order rendered by a Chern-Simons topological field theory. The corresponding anyon theory is defined by a finite group \(G\) and a Type-III group cocycle \(\omega\), but can also be described in a category theoretic way [614].
  426. Two-block CSS code[276] a.k.a. Two-sublattice code, Two-square-block code.
    Galois-qudit CSS code whose stabilizer generator matrices \(H_X=(A,B)\) and \(H_Z=(B^T,-A^T)\), are constructed from a pair of square commuting matrices \(A\) and \(B\).
  427. Two-block group-algebra (2BGA) codes[615–617] a.k.a. Non-Abelian GB code, LR code.
    2BGA codes are the smallest LP codes LP\((a,b)\), constructed from a pair of group algebra elements \(a,b\in \mathbb{F}_q[G]\), where \(G\) is a finite group, and \(\mathbb{F}_q\) is a Galois field. For a group of order \(\ell\), we get a 2BGA code of length \(n=2\ell\). A 2BGA code for an Abelian group is called an Abelian 2BGA code. A construction of such codes in terms of Kronecker products of circulant matrices was introduced in [276].
  428. Two-component cat code[618]
    Code whose codespace is spanned by two coherent states \(\left|\pm\alpha\right\rangle\) for nonzero complex \(\alpha\).
  429. Two-gauge theory code[619] a.k.a. Higher gauge theory code.
    A code whose codewords realize lattice two-gauge theory [620–628] for a finite two-group (a.k.a. a crossed module) in arbitrary spatial dimension. There exist several lattice-model formulations in arbitrary spatial dimension [619,629] as well as explicitly in 3D [630–633] and 4D [633], with the 3D case realizing the Yetter model [634–637].
  430. Two-mode binomial code[33]
    Two-mode constant-energy CLY code whose coefficients are square-roots of binomial coefficients.
  431. Type-II fractal spin-liquid code[203]
    A type-II fracton prime-qudit CSS code defined on a cubic lattice [16; Eqs. (D9-D10)].
  432. Union stabilizer (USt) code[261–265] a.k.a. Non-stabilizer code, Quotient space quantum code (QSQC).
    A qubit code whose codespace consists of a direct sum of a qubit stabilizer codespace and one or more of that stabilizer code's error spaces.
  433. Union-Jack color code[638]
    Triangular color code defined on a patch of the Tetrakis square tiling (a.k.a. the Union Jack lattice).
  434. Valence-bond-solid (VBS) code[639,640]
    An \(n\)-qubit approximate \(q\)-dimensional spin code family whose codespace is described in terms of \(SU(q)\) valence-bond-solid (VBS) [641] matrix product states with various boundary conditions. The codes become exact when either \(n\) or \(q\) go to infinity.
  435. Very small logical qubit (VSLQ) code[642,643]
    The two logical codewords are \(|\pm\rangle \propto (|0\rangle\pm|2\rangle)(|0\rangle\pm|2\rangle)\), where the total Hilbert space is the tensor product of two transmon qudits (whose ground states \(|0\rangle\) and second excited states \(|2\rangle\) are used in the codewords). Since the code is intended to protect against losses, the qutrits can equivalently be thought of as oscillator Fock-state subspaces.
  436. W-state code[210]
    Approximate block quantum code whose encoding resembles the structure of the W state [644]. This code enables universal quantum computation with transversal gates.
  437. Walker-Wang model code[13]
    A 3D topological code defined by a unitary braided fusion category \( \mathcal{C} \) (also known as a unitary premodular category). The code is defined on a cubic lattice that is resolved to be trivalent, with a qudit of dimension \( |\mathcal{C}| \) located at each edge. The codespace is the ground-state subspace of the Walker-Wang model Hamiltonian [13] and realizes the Crane-Yetter model [645–647]. A single-state version of the code provides a resource state for MBQC [586].
  438. Wasilewski-Banaszek code[648]
    Three-oscillator constant-excitation Fock-state code encoding a single logical qubit.
  439. X-cube Floquet code[649]
    Floquet code whose qubits are placed on vertices of a truncated cubic lattice. Its weight-two check operators are placed on various edges. Its ISG can be that of the X-cube model code or that of several decoupled surface codes.
  440. X-cube model code[650]
    A foliated type-I fracton code supporting a subextensive number of logical qubits. Variants include the membrane-coupled [651], twice-foliated [652], and several generalized [653] X-cube models.
  441. XP stabilizer code[654] a.k.a. Weighed hypergraph code.
    The XP Stabilizer formalism is a generalization of the XS and Pauli stabilizer formalisms, with stabilizer generators taken from the group \( \mathsf{BD}_{2N}^{\otimes n} = \langle\omega I, X, P\rangle^{\otimes n} \), which is the tensor product of the binary dihedral group of order \(8N\). Here, \(N\) is called the precision, \( \omega \) is a \( 2N \)th root of unity, and \( P = \text{diag} ( 1, \omega^2) \). The codespace is a \(+1\) eigenspace of a set of XP stabilizer generators, which need not commute to define a valid codespace.
  442. XS stabilizer code[655]
    A type of stabilizer code where stabilizer generators are elements of the group \( \{\alpha I, X, \sqrt{Z}]\}^{\otimes n} \), with \( \sqrt{Z} = \text{diag} (1, i)\). The codespace is a joint \(+1\) eigenspace of a set of stabilizer generators, which need not commute to define a valid codespace.
  443. XY surface code[656] a.k.a. Tailored surface code (TSC).
    Non-CSS derivative of the surface code whose generators are \(XXXX\) and \(YYYY\), obtained by mapping \(Z \to Y\) in the surface code.
  444. XYZ color code[657]
    Non-CSS variant of the 6.6.6 color code whose generators are \(XZXZXZ\) and \(ZYZYZY\) Pauli strings associated to each hexagonal in the hexagonal (6.6.6) tiling. A further variation called the domain wall color code admits generators of the form \(XXXZZZ\) and \(ZZZXXX\) [658].
  445. XYZ product code[659,660]
    A non-CSS QLDPC code constructed from a particular hypergraph product of three classical codes. The idea is that rather than taking a product of only two classical codes to produce a CSS code, a third classical code is considered, acting with Pauli-\(Y\) operators. When the underlying classical codes are 1D (e.g., repetition codes), the XYZ product yields a 3D code. Higher dimensional versions have been constructed [661].
  446. XYZ ruby Floquet code[662]
    Floquet code whose qubits are placed on vertices of a ruby tiling. Its weight-two check operators are placed on various edges. One third of the time during its measurement schedule, its ISG is that of the 6.6.6 color code concatenated with a three-qubit repetition code. Together, all ISGs generate the gauge group of the 3F subsystem code. A Floquet code with the same underlying subsystem code but with a different measurement schedule was developed in Ref. [663].
  447. XYZ\(^2\) hexagonal stabilizer code[664,665]
    An instance of the matching code based on the Kitaev honeycomb model. It is described on a honeycomb tiling with \(XYZXYZ\) stabilizers on each hexagonal plaquette. Each vertical pair of qubits has an \(XX\), \(YY\), or \(ZZ\) link stabilizer depending on the orientation of the plaquette stabilizers.
  448. XZZX surface code[608,666–668] a.k.a. Wen plaquette model.
    Non-CSS variant of the rotated surface code whose generators are \(XZZX\) Pauli strings associated, clock-wise, to the vertices of each face of a two-dimensional lattice (with a qubit located at each vertex of the tessellation).
  449. Yoked surface code[489]
    Member of a family of \([[n,k,d]]\) qubit CSS codes resulting from a concatenation of a QMDPC code with a rotated surface code. Concatenation does not impose additional connectivity constraints and can as much as triple the number of logical qubits per physical qubit when compared to the original surface code. Concatenation with 1D (2D) QMDPC yields codes with twice (four times) the distance. The stabilizer generators of the outer QMDPC code are referred to as yokes in this context.
  450. Zero-pi qubit code[323,669,670]
    A \([[2,(0,2),(2,1)]]_{\mathbb{Z}}\) homological rotor code on the smallest tiling of the projective plane \(\mathbb{R}P^2\). The ideal code can be obtained from a four-rotor Josephson-junction [363] system after a choice of grounding [323].
  451. \(((10,24,3))\) qubit code[545]
    Ten-qubit CWS code that is unique and optimal for its parameters.
  452. \(((2^m,2^{2^m−5m+1},8))\) Goethals-Preparata code[265,671]
    Member of a family of \(((2^m,2^{2^m−5m+1},8))\) CSS-like union stabilizer codes constructed using the classical Goethals and Preparata codes.
  453. \(((3,6,2))_{\mathbb{Z}_6}\) Euler code[672]
    Three-qudit error-detecting code with logical dimension \(K=6\) that is obtained from a particular AME state that serves as a solution to the 36 officers of Euler problem. The code is obtained from a \(((4,1,3))_{\mathbb{Z}_6}\) code.
  454. \(((5+2r,3\times 2^{2r+1},2))\) Rains code[261]
    Member of a family of \(((5+2r,3\times 2^{2r+1},2))\) CWS codes; see also [544,673][111; Exam. 8].
  455. \(((5,3,2))_3\) qutrit code[611]
    Smallest qutrit block code realizing the \(\Sigma(360\phi)\) subgroup of \(SU(3)\) transversally. The next smallest code is \(((7,3,2))_3\).
  456. \(((5,6,2))\) qubit code[261]
    Six-qubit cyclic CWS code detecting a single-qubit error. This code has a logical subspace whose dimension is larger than that of the \([[5,2,2]]\) code, the best five-qubit stabilizer code with the same distance [545].
  457. \(((7,2))\) QETC[482]
    Seven-qubit QETC that transmutes all single-qubit Pauli errors to logical phase errors. See [482; Table 1] for its stabilizer generators.
  458. \(((7,2,3))\) Pollatsek-Ruskai code[103,290,448] a.k.a. \(((7,2,3))\) icosahedral code, Kubischta-Teixeira code.
    Seven-qubit PI code that realizes gates from the binary icosahedral group transversally. Can also be interpreted as a spin-\(7/2\) single-spin code. The codespace projection is a projection onto an irrep of the binary icosahedral group \(2I\).
  459. \(((9,12,3))\) qubit code[674]
    Nine-qubit cyclic CWS code correcting a single-qubit error. This code has a logical subspace whose dimension is larger than that of the \([[9,3,3]]\) code, the best nine-qubit stabilizer code with the same distance [306].
  460. \(((9,2,3))\) Ruskai code[675]
    Nine-qubit PI code that protects against single-qubit errors as well as two-qubit errors arising from exchange processes.
  461. \(((n,1+n(q-1),2))_q\) union stabilizer code[264]
    Member of a family of \(((n,1+n(q-1),2))_q\) Galois-qudit union stabilizer code for odd \(n\).
  462. \(((n,1,2))\) Bravyi-Lee-Li-Yoshida PI code[676]
    PI distance-two code on \(n\geq4\) qubits whose degree of entanglement vanishes asymptotically with \(n\) [676; Appx. D] (cf. [677]).
  463. \((1,3)\) 4D toric code[678]
    A generalization of the Kitaev surface code defined on a 4D lattice. The code is called a \((1,3)\) toric code because it admits 1D \(Z\)-type and 3D \(X\)-type logical operators.
  464. \((5,1,2)\)-convolutional code[468]
    Family of quantum convolutional codes that are 1D lattice generalizations of the five-qubit perfect code, with the former''s lattice-translation symmetry being the extension of the latter''s cyclic permutation symmetry.
  465. \(D\)-dimensional twisted toric code[353]
    Extenstion of the Kitaev toric code to higher-dimensional lattices with shifted (a.k.a twisted) boundary conditions. Such boundary conditions yields quibit geometries that are tori \(\mathbb{R}^D/\Lambda\), where \(\Lambda\) is an arbitrary \(D\)-dimensional lattice. Picking a hypercubic lattice yields the ordinary \(D\)-dimensional toric code. It is conjectured that appropriate twisted boundary conditions yield multi-dimensional toric code families with linear distance and logarithmic-weight stabilizer generators [353].
  466. \(D_4\) hyper-diamond GKP code[679]
    Two-mode GKP qudit-into-oscillator code based on the \(D_4\) hyper-diamond lattice.
  467. \(G\)-covariant erasure code[142]
    A \(G\)-covariant block code that serves as a proof-of-principle construction to demonstrate the existence of \(G\)-covariant codes where \(G\) is a finite group, and the physical space is finite-dimensional. This construction can be done for any erasure-correcting code.
  468. \(G\)-enriched Walker-Wang model code[680] a.k.a. Williamson-Wang model code.
    A 3D topological code defined by a unitary \(G\)-crossed braided fusion category \( \mathcal{C} \) [681,682], where \(G\) is a finite group. The model realizes TQFTs that include two-gauge theories, those behind Walker-Wang models, as well as the Kashaev TQFT [683,684]. It has been generalized to include domain walls [685].
  469. \(SU(3)\) spin code[686]
    An extension of Clifford single-spin codes to the group \(SU(3)\), whose codespace is a projection onto a particular irrep of a subgroup of \(SU(3)\) of an underlying spin that houses some particular irrep of \(SU(3)\).
  470. \(U(1)_{2n} \times U(1)_{-2m}\) Chern-Simons GKP code[123]
    A non-CSS multimode GKP code defined on a 2D mode lattice that encodes a qudit logical space and whose excitations are characterized by the \(U(1)_{2n} \times U(1)_{-2m}\) Chern-Simons theory. The code can be obtained from the analog surface code by condensing certain anyons [123].
  471. \(U(d)\)-covariant approximate erasure code[687,688]
    Covariant code whose construction takes in an arbitrary erasure-correcting code to yield an approximate QECC that is also covariant with respect to the unitary group.
  472. \([[10,1,2]]\) CSS code[53]
    Smallest stabilizer code to implement a logical \(T\) gate via application of physical \(T\), \(T^{\dagger}\), and \(CCZ\) gates.
  473. \([[10,1,4]]_{G}\) tenfold code[286; Prop. V.1]
    A \([[10,1,4]]_{G}\) group code for finite Abelian \(G\). The code is defined using a graph that is closely related to the \([[5,1,3]]\) code.
  474. \([[11,1,5]]\) quantum dodecacode[306]
    Eleven-qubit pure stabilizer code that is the smallest qubit stabilizer code to correct two-qubit errors.
  475. \([[11,1,5]]_3\) qutrit Golay code[689]
    An \([[11,1,5]]_3\) constructed from the ternary Golay code via the CSS construction. The code's stabilizer generator matrix blocks \(H_{X}\) and \(H_{Z}\) are both the generator matrix of the ternary Golay code.
  476. \([[12,2,4]]\) carbon code[690]
    Twelve-qubit CSS code for which \(H_X\) and \(H_Z\) are equal up to qubit permutations.
  477. \([[13,1,5]]\) cyclic code[608]
    Thirteen-qubit twisted surface code for which there is a set of stabilizer generators consisting of cyclic permutations of the \(XZZX\)-type Pauli string \(XIZZIXIIIIIII\). The code can be thought of as a small twisted XZZX code [608; Exam. 11 and Fig. 3].
  478. \([[14,3,3]]\) Rhombic dodecahedron surface code[691] a.k.a. Landahl jaunty code.
    A \([[14,3,3]]\) twist-defect surface code whose qubits lie on the vertices of a rhombic dodecahedron. Its non-CSS nature is due to twist defects [601] stemming from the geometry of the polytope.
  479. \([[144,12,12]]\) gross code[60] a.k.a. \((3,3)\) BB code.
    A BB code which requires less physical and ancilla qubits (for syndrome extraction) than the surface code with the same number of logical qubits and distance. The gross code is equivalent to 8 copies of the surface code via a constant-depth Clifford circuit, and is an element of a larger family of 2D stabilizer codes [692]. The name stems from the fact that a gross is a dozen dozen.
  480. \([[15, 7, 3]]\) quantum Hamming code[47,249,693]
    Self-dual quantum Hamming code that admits permutation-based CZ logical gates. The code is constructed using the CSS construction from the \([15,11,3]\) Hamming code and its \([15,4,8]\) dual code.
  481. \([[15,1,3]]\) quantum Reed-Muller code[463,694,695] a.k.a. Tetrahedral code.
    \([[15,1,3]]\) CSS code that is most easily thought of as a tetrahedral 3D color code.
  482. \([[16,4,3]]\) dodecahedral code[696]
    A \([[16,4,3]]\) qubit stabilizer code defined whose encoder-respecting form is the graph of vertices of a dodecahedron [696].
  483. \([[16,6,4]]\) Tesseract color code[697,698]
    A (self-dual CSS) 4D color code defined on a tesseract, with stabilizer generators of both types supported on each cube. A \([[16,4,2,4]]\) tesseract subsystem code can be obtained from this code by using two logical qubits as gauge qubits [699].
  484. \([[23, 1, 7]]\) Quantum Golay code[47] a.k.a. Qubit Golay code.
    A \([[23, 1, 7]]\) self-dual CSS code with eleven stabilizer generators of each type, and with each generator being weight eight.
  485. \([[2^D,D,2]]\) hypercube quantum code[700,701][53; Exam. 3] a.k.a. Hyperoctahedron code, Hyperoctahedron color code.
    Member of a family of codes defined by placing qubits on a \(D\)-dimensional hypercube, \(Z\)-stabilizers on all two-dimensional faces, and an \(X\)-stabilizer on all vertices. These codes realize gates at the \((D-1)\)-st level of the Clifford hierarchy. It can be generalized to a \([[4^D,D,4]]\) error-correcting family [702]. Various other concatenations give families with increasing distance (see cousins).
  486. \([[2^r, 2^r-r-2, 3]]\) Gottesman code[703] a.k.a. \([[2^r, 2^r-r-2, 3]]\) quantum Hamming code.
    A family of non-CSS stabilizer codes of distance \(3\) that saturate the asymptotic quantum Hamming bound.
  487. \([[2^r-1, 2^r-2r-1, 3]]\) quantum Hamming code[47]
    Member of a family of self-dual CCS codes constructed from \([2^r-1,2^r-r-1,3]=C_X=C_Z\) Hamming codes and their duals the simplex codes. The code's stabilizer generator matrix blocks \(H_{X}\) and \(H_{Z}\) are both the generator matrix for a simplex code. The weight of each stabilizer generator is \(2^{r-1}\).
  488. \([[2^r-1, 2^r-2r-1, 3]]_p\) quantum Hamming code[704]
    A family of CSS codes extending quantum Hamming codes to prime qudits of dimension \(p\) by expressing the qubit code stabilizers in local-dimension-invariant (LDI) form [704].
  489. \([[2^r-1,1,3]]\) simplex code[695,705,706] a.k.a. \([[2^r-1,1,3]]\) quantum RM code.
    Member of color-code code family constructed with a punctured first-order RM\((1,m=r)\) \([2^r-1,r+1,2^{r-1}-1]\) code and its even subcode for \(r \geq 3\). Each code transversally implements a diagonal gate at the \((r-1)\)st level of the Clifford hierarchy [706,707]. Each code is a color code defined on a simplex in \(r-1\) dimensions [19,708], where qubits are placed on the vertices, edges, and faces as well as on the simplex itself.
  490. \([[2^{2r-1}-1,1,2^r-1]]\) quantum punctured Reed-Muller code[709; Ch. 7]
    Member of CSS code family constructed with a punctured self-dual RM \([2^r-1,2^{r-1},\sqrt{2}^{r-1}-1]\) code and its even subcode for \(r \geq 2\).
  491. \([[2m,2m-2,2]]\) error-detecting code[47,710,711] a.k.a. Iceberg code, \([[2m,2m-2,2]]\) quantum parity code.
    Self-complementary CSS code for \(m\geq 2\) with generators \(\{XX\cdots X, ZZ\cdots Z\} \) acting on all \(2m\) physical qubits. The code is constructed via the CSS construction from an SPC code and a repetition code [712; Sec. III]. This is the highest-rate distance-two code when an even number of qubits is used [306].
  492. \([[3, 1, 3;2]]\) EA code[191]
    Distance-three EA stabilizer code encoding one logical qubit and using two ebits.
  493. \([[30,8,3]]\) Bring code[713] a.k.a. Small stellated dodecahedron code.
    A \([[30,8,3]]\) hyperbolic surface code on a quotient of the \(\{5,5\}\) hyperbolic tiling called Bring's curve. Its qubits and stabilizer generators lie on the vertices of the small stellated dodecahedron. Admits a set of weight-five stabilizer generators.
  494. \([[3k + 8, k, 2]]\) triorthogonal code[599; Appx. B]
    Member of the \([[3k + 8, k, 2]]\) family (for even \(k\)) of triorthogonal and quantum divisible codes that admit a transversal \(T\) gate and are relevant for magic-state distillation.
  495. \([[4,1,1,2]]\) Four-qubit subsystem code[10,51]
    Error-detecting four-qubit subsystem stabilizer code encoding one logical qubit and one gauge qubit.
  496. \([[4,2,2]]\) Four-qubit code[508,714] a.k.a. \(C_4\) code.
    Four-qubit CSS stabilizer code is the smallest qubit stabilizer code to detect a single-qubit error.
  497. \([[4,2,2]]_{G}\) four group-qudit code[30][210; Sec. VIII]
    \([[4,2,2]]_{G}\) group quantum code that is an extension of the four-qubit code to group-valued qudits.
  498. \([[49,1,5]]\) triorthogonal code[599; Appx. B]
    Triorthogonal and quantum divisible code which is the smallest distance-five stabilizer code to admit a transversal \(T\) gate [169,599,715]. Its \(X\)-type stabilizers form a triply even linear binary code in the symplectic representation.
  499. \([[5,1,2]]\) rotated surface code[349; Exam. 5]
    Rotated surface code on one rung of a ladder, with one qubit on the rung, and four qubits surrounding it.
  500. \([[5,1,3]]_q\) Galois-qudit code[136]
    True stabilizer code that generalizes the five-qubit perfect code to Galois qudits of prime-power dimension \(q=p^m\). It has \(4(m-1)\) stabilizer generators expressed as \(X_{\gamma} Z_{\gamma} Z_{-\gamma} X_{-\gamma} I\) and its cyclic permutations, with \(\gamma\) iterating over basis elements of \(GF(q)\) over \(GF(p)\).
  501. \([[5,1,3]]_{\mathbb{R}}\) Braunstein five-mode code[437]
    An analog stabilizer version of the five-qubit perfect code, encoding one mode into five and correcting arbitrary errors on any one mode.
  502. \([[5,1,3]]_{\mathbb{Z}_q}\) modular-qudit code[488,716]
    Modular-qudit stabilizer code that generalizes the five-qubit perfect code using properties of the multiplicative group \(\mathbb{Z}_q\) [716]; see also [488; Thm. 13]. It has four stabilizer generators consisting of \(X Z Z^\dagger X^\dagger I\) and its cyclic permutations.
  503. \([[54,6,5]]\) five-covered icosahedral code[696]
    A \([[54,6,5]]\) qubit stabilizer code defined whose encoder-respecting form is the graph of a five-cover of the icosahedron [696].
  504. \([[6,1,3]]\) Six-qubit stabilizer code[717]
    One of two six-qubit distance-three codes that are unique up to equivalence [306], with the other code a trivial extension of the five-qubit code [717]. Stabilizer generators and logical Pauli operators are presented in Ref. [717].
  505. \([[6,2,2]]\) \(C_6\) code[718]
    Error-detecting self-dual CSS code used in concatenation schemes for fault-tolerant quantum computation. A set of stabilizer generators is \(IIXXXX\) and \(XXIIXX\), together with the same two \(Z\)-type generators.
  506. \([[6,2,3,2]]\) BBS code[73]
    Error-detecting six-qubit BBS code that can suppress errors in adiabatic quantum computation [719]. See Ref. [719] for its gauge generators.
  507. \([[6,2,3]]_{q}\) code[271,720]
    Six-qudit MDS error-detecting code defined for Galois-qudit dimension \(q=3\) [720], \(q=2^2\) [721], and \(q \geq 5\) [271,720]. This code cannot exist for qubits (\(q=2\)).
  508. \([[6,4,2]]\) error-detecting code[47,710,722,723]
    Error-detecting six-qubit code with rate \(2/3\) whose codewords are cat/GHZ states. A set of stabilizer generators is \(XXXXXX\) and \(ZZZZZZ\). It is the unique code for its parameters, up to equivalence [306; Tab. III]. Concatenations of this code with itself yield the \([[6^r,4^r,2^r]]\) level-\(r\) many-hypercube code [724].
  509. \([[6k+2,3k,2]]\) Campbell-Howard code[476]
    Family of \([[6k+2,3k,2]]\) qubit stabilizer codes with quasi-transversal \(CZZ^{\otimes k}\) gates that are relevant to magic-state distillation.
  510. \([[6r,2r,2]]\) Ganti-Onunkwo-Young code[725]
    A member of the family of \([[6r,2r,2]]\) CSS codes designed to suppress errors in adiabatic quantum computation. All but two of its stabilizer generators are weight-two (two-body), and the remaining two are weight-\(4k\).
  511. \([[7, 1:1, 3]]\) hybrid stabilizer code[340]
    A distance-three seven-qubit hybrid stabilizer code storing one qubit and one classical bit. Admits a stabilizer generator set with a weight-two generator, which delineates the underlying classical code [194; Eq. (3)].
  512. \([[7,1,3]]\) Steane code[726]
    A \([[7,1,3]]\) self-dual CSS code that is the smallest qubit CSS code to correct a single-qubit error [717]. The code is constructed using the classical binary \([7,4,3]\) Hamming code for protecting against both \(X\) and \(Z\) errors.
  513. \([[7,1,3]]\) bare code[727]
    A \([[7,1,3]]\) code that admits fault-tolerant syndrome extraction using only one ancilla per stabilizer generator measurement.
  514. \([[7,1,3]]\) twist-defect surface code[598] a.k.a. \([[7,1,3]]\) triangle code.
    A \([[7,1,3]]\) code (different from the Steane code) that is a small example of a twist-defect surface code.
  515. \([[7,3,3]]_{q}\) code[271,720]
    Seven-qudit MDS error-detecting code defined for Galois-qudit dimension \(q=3\) [720] and \(q \geq 7\) [271,720]. This code cannot exist for qubits (\(q=2\)).
  516. \([[8, 2:1, 3]]\) hybrid stabilizer code[340]
    A code obtained from the \([[8,3,3]]\) Gottesman code by using one of its logical qubits as a classical bit. One can also use two logical qubits as classical bits, obtaining an \([[8,1:2,3]]\) hybrid stabilizer code.
  517. \([[8, 3, 3]]\) Eight-qubit Gottesman code[47,511,703]
    Eight-qubit non-degenerate code that can be obtained from a modified CSS construction using the \([8,4,4]\) extended Hamming code and a \([8,7,2]\) even-weight code [47]. The modification introduces signs between the codewords.
  518. \([[8,2,2]]\) hyperbolic color code[347]
    An \([[8,2,2]]\) hyperbolic color code defined on the projective plane.
  519. \([[8,3,2]]\) CSS code[700,701] a.k.a. Smallest interesting color code.
    Smallest 3D color code whose physical qubits lie on vertices of a cube and which admits a (weakly) transversal CCZ gate.
  520. \([[9,1,3,3]]\) Nine-qubit Bacon-Shor code[10,51]
    Error-correcting nine-qubit subsystem stabilizer code encoding one logical qubit and three gauge qubits.
  521. \([[9,1,3]]\) Shor code[51]
    Nine-qubit CSS code that is the first quantum error-correcting code.
  522. \([[9,1,3]]_{\mathbb{R}}\) Lloyd-Slotine code[436,437]
    An analog stabilizer version of Shor's nine-qubit code, encoding one mode into nine and correcting arbitrary errors on any one mode.
  523. \([[9,1,3]]_{\mathbb{Z}_q}\) modular-qudit code[728]
    Modular-qudit CSS code that generalizes the \([[9,1,3]]\) Shor code using properties of the multiplicative group \(\mathbb{Z}_q\).
  524. \([[9,1,5]]_3\) quantum Glynn code[729]
    Nine-qutrit pure Hermitian code that is the smallest qutrit stabilizer code to correct two-qutrit errors.
  525. \([[9m-k,k,2]]_3\) triorthogonal code[455]
    Member of the \([[9m-k,k,2]]_3\) family of triorthogonal qutrit codes (for \(k\leq 3m-2\)) that admit a transversal diagonal gate in the third level of the qudit Clifford hierarchy and that are relevant for magic-state distillation.
  526. \([[k+4,k,2]]\) H code[730]
    Family of \([[k+4,k,2]]\) self-dual CSS codes (for even \(k\)) with transversal Hadamard gates that are relevant to magic state distillation. The four stablizer generators are \(X_1X_2X_3X_4\), \(Z_1Z_2Z_3Z_4\), \(X_1X_2X_5X_6...X_{k+4}\), and \(Z_1Z_2Z_5Z_6...Z_{k+4}\).'
  527. \([[m 2^m / (m+1), 2^m / (m+1)]]\) Khesin-Lu-Shor code[696]
    A family of \([[m 2^m / (m+1), 2^m / (m+1)]]\) qubit CSS codes derived from the Hamming code. Their encoder-respecting form is the graph of a hypercube in \(m = 2^r - 1\) dimensions, and input nodes in the graph are codewords of the \([2^r-1,2^r-r-1,3]\) Hamming code [696].
  528. \(\chi^{(2)}\) code[731]
    A \(3n\)-mode bosonic Fock-state code that requires only linear optics and the \(\chi^{(2)}\) optical nonlinear interaction for encoding, decoding, and logical gates. Codewords lie in Fock-state subspaces that are invariant under Hermitian combinations of the \(\chi^{(2)}\) nonlinearities \(abc^\dagger\) and \(i abc^\dagger\), where \(a\), \(b\), and \(c\) are lowering operators acting on one of the \(n\) triples of modes on which the codes are defined. Codewords are also \(+1\) eigenstates of stabilizer-like symmetry operators, and photon parities are error syndromes.
  529. \(\mathbb{Z}_3\times\mathbb{Z}_9\)-fusion subsystem code[97]
    Modular-qudit 2D subsystem stabilizer code whose low-energy excitations realize a non-modular anyon theory with \(\mathbb{Z}_3\times\mathbb{Z}_9\) fusion rules. Encodes two qutrits when put on a torus.
  530. \(\mathbb{Z}_q^{(1)}\) subsystem code[97,732]
    Modular-qudit subsystem code, based on the Kitaev honeycomb model [324] and its generalization [732], that is characterized by the \(\mathbb{Z}_q^{(1)}\) anyon theory [733], which is modular for odd prime \(q\) and non-modular otherwise. Encodes a single \(q\)-dimensional qudit when put on a torus for odd \(q\), and a \(q/2\)-dimensional qudit for even \(q\). This code can be constructed using geometrically local gauge generators, but does not admit geometrically local stabilizer generators. For \(q=2\), the code reduces to the subsystem code underlying the Kitaev honeycomb model code as well as the honeycomb Floquet code.
  531. \(k\)-orthogonal code[347,400,734]
    Qubit stabilizer code whose \(X\)-type logicals and generators form a \(k\)-orthogonal matrix (defined below) in the symplectic representation. In other words, the overlap between any \(k\) \(X\)-type code-preserving Paulis (including the identity) is even. The original definition is for qubit CSS codes [400], but it can be extended to more general qubit stabilizer codes [734; Def. 1]. This entry is formulated for qubits, but an extension exists for modular qudits [400].
  532. Æ code[735]
    Code defined in a single angular-momentum subspace that is embedded in a larger direct-sum space of different angular momenta, which can arise from combinations of spin, electronic, or rotational, or nuclear angular momenta of an atom or molecule. A code is obtained by solving an over-constrained system of equations, and many solutions can be mapped into existing codes defined on other state spaces.

References

[1]
Y.-A. Chen, A. Kapustin, and Đ. Radičević, “Exact bosonization in two spatial dimensions and a new class of lattice gauge theories”, Annals of Physics 393, 234 (2018) arXiv:1711.00515 DOI
[2]
Y.-A. Chen and Y. Xu, “Equivalence between Fermion-to-Qubit Mappings in two Spatial Dimensions”, PRX Quantum 4, (2023) arXiv:2201.05153 DOI
[3]
H. Bombin and M. A. Martin-Delgado, “Topological Quantum Distillation”, Physical Review Letters 97, (2006) arXiv:quant-ph/0605138 DOI
[4]
H. Bombin and M. A. Martin-Delgado, “Exact topological quantum order inD=3and beyond: Branyons and brane-net condensates”, Physical Review B 75, (2007) arXiv:cond-mat/0607736 DOI
[5]
C. D. Albuquerque, R. Palazzo Jr., and E. B. Silva, “Topological quantum codes on compact surfaces with genus g≥2”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 50, (2009) DOI
[6]
C. D. Albuquerque, R. Palazzo Jr., and E. B. Silva, “New classes of TQC associated with self-dual, quasi self-dual and denser tessellations”, Quantum Information and Computation 10, 956 (2010) DOI
[7]
N. P. Breuckmann and B. M. Terhal, “Constructions and Noise Threshold of Hyperbolic Surface Codes”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 62, 3731 (2016) arXiv:1506.04029 DOI
[8]
H. Bombin, “Topological subsystem codes”, Physical Review A 81, (2010) arXiv:0908.4246 DOI
[9]
A. Denys and A. Leverrier, “The 2T-qutrit, a two-mode bosonic qutrit”, Quantum 7, 1032 (2023) arXiv:2210.16188 DOI
[10]
D. Bacon, “Operator quantum error-correcting subsystems for self-correcting quantum memories”, Physical Review A 73, (2006) arXiv:quant-ph/0506023 DOI
[11]
Y.-A. Chen and A. Kapustin, “Bosonization in three spatial dimensions and a 2-form gauge theory”, Physical Review B 100, (2019) arXiv:1807.07081 DOI
[12]
M. Levin and X.-G. Wen, “Fermions, strings, and gauge fields in lattice spin models”, Physical Review B 67, (2003) arXiv:cond-mat/0302460 DOI
[13]
K. Walker and Z. Wang, “(3+1)-TQFTs and Topological Insulators”, (2011) arXiv:1104.2632
[14]
J. Haah, “Commuting Pauli Hamiltonians as Maps between Free Modules”, Communications in Mathematical Physics 324, 351 (2013) arXiv:1204.1063 DOI
[15]
L. Fidkowski, J. Haah, and M. B. Hastings, “Gravitational anomaly of (3+1) -dimensional Z2 toric code with fermionic charges and fermionic loop self-statistics”, Physical Review B 106, (2022) arXiv:2110.14654 DOI
[16]
A. Dua, I. H. Kim, M. Cheng, and D. J. Williamson, “Sorting topological stabilizer models in three dimensions”, Physical Review B 100, (2019) arXiv:1908.08049 DOI
[17]
S. Mandal and N. Surendran, “Exactly solvable Kitaev model in three dimensions”, Physical Review B 79, (2009) arXiv:0801.0229 DOI
[18]
S. Ryu, “Three-dimensional topological phase on the diamond lattice”, Physical Review B 79, (2009) arXiv:0811.2036 DOI
[19]
H. Bombin, “Gauge Color Codes: Optimal Transversal Gates and Gauge Fixing in Topological Stabilizer Codes”, (2015) arXiv:1311.0879
[20]
A. Kubica and M. Vasmer, “Single-shot quantum error correction with the three-dimensional subsystem toric code”, Nature Communications 13, (2022) arXiv:2106.02621 DOI
[21]
E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, “Topological quantum memory”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 43, 4452 (2002) arXiv:quant-ph/0110143 DOI
[22]
A. Hamma, P. Zanardi, and X.-G. Wen, “String and membrane condensation on three-dimensional lattices”, Physical Review B 72, (2005) arXiv:cond-mat/0411752 DOI
[23]
P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, “Degenerate Quantum LDPC Codes With Good Finite Length Performance”, Quantum 5, 585 (2021) arXiv:1904.02703 DOI
[24]
P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, “Quantum LDPC Codes With Almost Linear Minimum Distance”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 68, 213 (2022) arXiv:2012.04068 DOI
[25]
A. Kapustin and N. Saulina, “Topological boundary conditions in abelian Chern–Simons theory”, Nuclear Physics B 845, 393 (2011) arXiv:1008.0654 DOI
[26]
Y. Hu, Y. Wan, and Y.-S. Wu, “Twisted quantum double model of topological phases in two dimensions”, Physical Review B 87, (2013) arXiv:1211.3695 DOI
[27]
J. Kaidi, Z. Komargodski, K. Ohmori, S. Seifnashri, and S.-H. Shao, “Higher central charges and topological boundaries in 2+1-dimensional TQFTs”, SciPost Physics 13, (2022) arXiv:2107.13091 DOI
[28]
T. D. Ellison, Y.-A. Chen, A. Dua, W. Shirley, N. Tantivasadakarn, and D. J. Williamson, “Pauli Stabilizer Models of Twisted Quantum Doubles”, PRX Quantum 3, (2022) arXiv:2112.11394 DOI
[29]
J. C. Magdalena de la Fuente, N. Tarantino, and J. Eisert, “Non-Pauli topological stabilizer codes from twisted quantum doubles”, Quantum 5, 398 (2021) arXiv:2001.11516 DOI
[30]
A. Yu. Kitaev, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons”, Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003) arXiv:quant-ph/9707021 DOI
[31]
L. Wang and Z. Wang, “In and around abelian anyon models \({}^{\text{*}}\)”, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 53, 505203 (2020) arXiv:2004.12048 DOI
[32]
D. W. Leung, M. A. Nielsen, I. L. Chuang, and Y. Yamamoto, “Approximate quantum error correction can lead to better codes”, Physical Review A 56, 2567 (1997) arXiv:quant-ph/9704002 DOI
[33]
I. L. Chuang, D. W. Leung, and Y. Yamamoto, “Bosonic quantum codes for amplitude damping”, Physical Review A 56, 1114 (1997) DOI
[34]
A. S. Fletcher, P. W. Shor, and M. Z. Win, “Channel-Adapted Quantum Error Correction for the Amplitude Damping Channel”, (2007) arXiv:0710.1052
[35]
P. W. Shor, G. Smith, J. A. Smolin, and B. Zeng, “High performance single-error-correcting quantum codes for amplitude damping”, (2009) arXiv:0907.5149
[36]
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”, Physical Review 47, 777 (1935) DOI
[37]
J. Zhang, C. Xie, K. Peng, and P. van Loock, “Anyon statistics with continuous variables”, Physical Review A 78, (2008) arXiv:0711.0820 DOI
[38]
J. Zhang and S. L. Braunstein, “Continuous-variable Gaussian analog of cluster states”, Physical Review A 73, (2006) DOI
[39]
N. C. Menicucci, P. van Loock, M. Gu, C. Weedbrook, T. C. Ralph, and M. A. Nielsen, “Universal Quantum Computation with Continuous-Variable Cluster States”, Physical Review Letters 97, (2006) arXiv:quant-ph/0605198 DOI
[40]
M. Gu, C. Weedbrook, N. C. Menicucci, T. C. Ralph, and P. van Loock, “Quantum computing with continuous-variable clusters”, Physical Review A 79, (2009) arXiv:0903.3233 DOI
[41]
C. Bény, “Conditions for the approximate correction of algebras”, (2009) arXiv:0907.4207
[42]
C. Bény and O. Oreshkov, “General Conditions for Approximate Quantum Error Correction and Near-Optimal Recovery Channels”, Physical Review Letters 104, (2010) arXiv:0907.5391 DOI
[43]
A. Y. Kitaev, “Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction”, Russian Mathematical Surveys 52, 1191 (1997) DOI
[44]
M. Reimpell and R. F. Werner, “Iterative Optimization of Quantum Error Correcting Codes”, Physical Review Letters 94, (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0307138 DOI
[45]
C. Crepeau, D. Gottesman, and A. Smith, “Approximate Quantum Error-Correcting Codes and Secret Sharing Schemes”, (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0503139
[46]
P. Hayden and G. Penington, “Approximate Quantum Error Correction Revisited: Introducing the Alpha-Bit”, Communications in Mathematical Physics 374, 369 (2020) arXiv:1706.09434 DOI
[47]
A. M. Steane, “Simple quantum error-correcting codes”, Physical Review A 54, 4741 (1996) arXiv:quant-ph/9605021 DOI
[48]
L. Ioffe and M. Mézard, “Asymmetric quantum error-correcting codes”, Physical Review A 75, (2007) arXiv:quant-ph/0606107 DOI
[49]
M. Steudtner and S. Wehner, “Fermion-to-qubit mappings with varying resource requirements for quantum simulation”, New Journal of Physics 20, 063010 (2018) arXiv:1712.07067 DOI
[50]
M. Steudtner and S. Wehner, “Quantum codes for quantum simulation of fermions on a square lattice of qubits”, Physical Review A 99, (2019) arXiv:1810.02681 DOI
[51]
P. W. Shor, “Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory”, Physical Review A 52, R2493 (1995) DOI
[52]
N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, “Balanced Product Quantum Codes”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 67, 6653 (2021) arXiv:2012.09271 DOI
[53]
M. Vasmer and A. Kubica, “Morphing Quantum Codes”, PRX Quantum 3, (2022) arXiv:2112.01446 DOI
[54]
R. C. Ball, “Fermions without Fermion Fields”, Physical Review Letters 95, (2005) arXiv:cond-mat/0409485 DOI
[55]
F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, “Mapping local Hamiltonians of fermions to local Hamiltonians of spins”, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2005, P09012 (2005) arXiv:cond-mat/0508353 DOI
[56]
D. J. C. MacKay, G. Mitchison, and P. L. McFadden, “Sparse-Graph Codes for Quantum Error Correction”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 50, 2315 (2004) arXiv:quant-ph/0304161 DOI
[57]
E. Kubischta and I. Teixeira, “Permutation-Invariant Quantum Codes with Transversal Generalized Phase Gates”, (2024) arXiv:2310.17652
[58]
M. H. Michael, M. Silveri, R. T. Brierley, V. V. Albert, J. Salmilehto, L. Jiang, and S. M. Girvin, “New Class of Quantum Error-Correcting Codes for a Bosonic Mode”, Physical Review X 6, (2016) arXiv:1602.00008 DOI
[59]
V. V. Albert et al., “Performance and structure of single-mode bosonic codes”, Physical Review A 97, (2018) arXiv:1708.05010 DOI
[60]
S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, “High-threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory”, Nature 627, 778 (2024) arXiv:2308.07915 DOI
[61]
Victor V. Albert and Michel H. Devoret, private communication, 2016
[62]
S. M. Girvin, “Introduction to quantum error correction and fault tolerance”, SciPost Physics Lecture Notes (2023) arXiv:2111.08894 DOI
[63]
A. L. Grimsmo, J. Combes, and B. Q. Baragiola, “Quantum Computing with Rotation-Symmetric Bosonic Codes”, Physical Review X 10, (2020) arXiv:1901.08071 DOI
[64]
R. L. Barnes, “Stabilizer Codes for Continuous-variable Quantum Error Correction”, (2004) arXiv:quant-ph/0405064
[65]
J. Bermejo-Vega and M. V. den Nest, “Classical simulations of Abelian-group normalizer circuits with intermediate measurements”, (2013) arXiv:1210.3637
[66]
Y.-A. Chen, “Exact bosonization in arbitrary dimensions”, Physical Review Research 2, (2020) arXiv:1911.00017 DOI
[67]
W. Shirley, “Fractonic order and emergent fermionic gauge theory”, (2020) arXiv:2002.12026
[68]
N. Tantivasadakarn, “Jordan-Wigner dualities for translation-invariant Hamiltonians in any dimension: Emergent fermions in fracton topological order”, Physical Review Research 2, (2020) arXiv:2002.11345 DOI
[69]
A. J. Ferris and D. Poulin, “Branching MERA codes: a natural extension of polar codes”, (2013) arXiv:1312.4575
[70]
A. J. Ferris and D. Poulin, “Tensor Networks and Quantum Error Correction”, Physical Review Letters 113, (2014) arXiv:1312.4578 DOI
[71]
A. J. Ferris and D. Poulin, “Branching MERA codes: A natural extension of classical and quantum polar codes”, 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (2014) DOI
[72]
G. Evenbly and G. Vidal, “Class of Highly Entangled Many-Body States that can be Efficiently Simulated”, Physical Review Letters 112, (2014) arXiv:1210.1895 DOI
[73]
S. Bravyi, “Subsystem codes with spatially local generators”, Physical Review A 83, (2011) arXiv:1008.1029 DOI
[74]
S. B. Bravyi and A. Yu. Kitaev, “Fermionic Quantum Computation”, Annals of Physics 298, 210 (2002) arXiv:quant-ph/0003137 DOI
[75]
K. Setia, S. Bravyi, A. Mezzacapo, and J. D. Whitfield, “Superfast encodings for fermionic quantum simulation”, Physical Review Research 1, (2019) arXiv:1810.05274 DOI
[76]
P. M. Fenwick, “A new data structure for cumulative frequency tables”, Software: Practice and Experience 24, 327 (1994) DOI
[77]
V. Havlíček, M. Troyer, and J. D. Whitfield, “Operator locality in the quantum simulation of fermionic models”, Physical Review A 95, (2017) arXiv:1701.07072 DOI
[78]
W. Brown and O. Fawzi, “Short random circuits define good quantum error correcting codes”, 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (2013) arXiv:1312.7646 DOI
[79]
B. Placke and S. A. Parameswaran, “Slow measurement-only dynamics of entanglement in Pauli subsystem codes”, (2024) arXiv:2405.14927
[80]
N. Rengaswamy, R. Calderbank, M. Newman, and H. D. Pfister, “Classical Coding Problem from Transversal T Gates”, 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) (2020) arXiv:2001.04887 DOI
[81]
E. Camps-Moreno, H. H. López, G. L. Matthews, D. Ruano, R. San-José, and I. Soprunov, “An algebraic characterization of binary CSS-T codes and cyclic CSS-T codes for quantum fault tolerance”, Quantum Information Processing 23, (2024) arXiv:2312.17518 DOI
[82]
T. Camara, H. Ollivier, and J.-P. Tillich, “Constructions and performance of classes of quantum LDPC codes”, (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0502086
[83]
T. Tansuwannont and D. Leung, “Achieving Fault Tolerance on Capped Color Codes with Few Ancillas”, PRX Quantum 3, (2022) arXiv:2106.02649 DOI
[84]
Z. Leghtas, G. Kirchmair, B. Vlastakis, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. H. Devoret, and M. Mirrahimi, “Hardware-Efficient Autonomous Quantum Memory Protection”, Physical Review Letters 111, (2013) arXiv:1207.0679 DOI
[85]
J. Guillaud and M. Mirrahimi, “Repetition Cat Qubits for Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation”, Physical Review X 9, (2019) arXiv:1904.09474 DOI
[86]
S. Puri et al., “Bias-preserving gates with stabilized cat qubits”, Science Advances 6, (2020) arXiv:1905.00450 DOI
[87]
C. Chamon, “Quantum Glassiness in Strongly Correlated Clean Systems: An Example of Topological Overprotection”, Physical Review Letters 94, (2005) arXiv:cond-mat/0404182 DOI
[88]
S. Bravyi, B. Leemhuis, and B. M. Terhal, “Topological order in an exactly solvable 3D spin model”, Annals of Physics 326, 839 (2011) arXiv:1006.4871 DOI
[89]
D. Layden, S. Zhou, P. Cappellaro, and L. Jiang, “Ancilla-Free Quantum Error Correction Codes for Quantum Metrology”, Physical Review Letters 122, (2019) arXiv:1811.01450 DOI
[90]
S. Vijay, J. Haah, and L. Fu, “A new kind of topological quantum order: A dimensional hierarchy of quasiparticles built from stationary excitations”, Physical Review B 92, (2015) arXiv:1505.02576 DOI
[91]
Y.-A. Chen and P.-S. Hsin, “Exactly solvable lattice Hamiltonians and gravitational anomalies”, SciPost Physics 14, (2023) arXiv:2110.14644 DOI
[92]
T. Johnson-Freyd, “(3+1)D topological orders with only a \(\mathbb{Z}_2\)-charged particle”, (2020) arXiv:2011.11165
[93]
L. Fidkowski, J. Haah, and M. B. Hastings, “Exactly solvable model for a 4+1D beyond-cohomology symmetry-protected topological phase”, Physical Review B 101, (2020) arXiv:1912.05565 DOI
[94]
W. Shirley, Y.-A. Chen, A. Dua, T. D. Ellison, N. Tantivasadakarn, and D. J. Williamson, “Three-Dimensional Quantum Cellular Automata from Chiral Semion Surface Topological Order and beyond”, PRX Quantum 3, (2022) arXiv:2202.05442 DOI
[95]
J. Haah, “Clifford quantum cellular automata: Trivial group in 2D and Witt group in 3D”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 62, (2021) arXiv:1907.02075 DOI
[96]
C. W. von Keyserlingk, F. J. Burnell, and S. H. Simon, “Three-dimensional topological lattice models with surface anyons”, Physical Review B 87, (2013) arXiv:1208.5128 DOI
[97]
T. D. Ellison, Y.-A. Chen, A. Dua, W. Shirley, N. Tantivasadakarn, and D. J. Williamson, “Pauli topological subsystem codes from Abelian anyon theories”, Quantum 7, 1137 (2023) arXiv:2211.03798 DOI
[98]
T. C. Bohdanowicz, E. Crosson, C. Nirkhe, and H. Yuen, “Good approximate quantum LDPC codes from spacetime circuit Hamiltonians”, Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (2019) arXiv:1811.00277 DOI
[99]
M. Hivadi, “On quantum SPC product codes”, Quantum Information Processing 17, (2018) DOI
[100]
D. Ostrev, D. Orsucci, F. Lázaro, and B. Matuz, “Classical product code constructions for quantum Calderbank-Shor-Steane codes”, Quantum 8, 1420 (2024) arXiv:2209.13474 DOI
[101]
D. Ostrev, “Quantum LDPC Codes From Intersecting Subsets”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 70, 5692 (2024) arXiv:2306.06056 DOI
[102]
A. Denys and A. Leverrier, “Quantum error-correcting codes with a covariant encoding”, (2024) arXiv:2306.11621
[103]
J. A. Gross, “Designing Codes around Interactions: The Case of a Spin”, Physical Review Letters 127, (2021) arXiv:2005.10910 DOI
[104]
S. Omanakuttan and J. A. Gross, “Multispin Clifford codes for angular momentum errors in spin systems”, Physical Review A 108, (2023) arXiv:2304.08611 DOI
[105]
S. P. Jain, J. T. Iosue, A. Barg, and V. V. Albert, “Quantum spherical codes”, Nature Physics (2024) arXiv:2302.11593 DOI
[106]
G. Nebe, E. M. Rains, and N. J. A. Sloane, “The invariants of the Clifford groups”, (2000) arXiv:math/0001038
[107]
A. Dua, A. Kubica, L. Jiang, S. T. Flammia, and M. J. Gullans, “Clifford-Deformed Surface Codes”, PRX Quantum 5, (2024) arXiv:2201.07802 DOI
[108]
H. J. Briegel and R. Raussendorf, “Persistent Entanglement in Arrays of Interacting Particles”, Physical Review Letters 86, 910 (2001) arXiv:quant-ph/0004051 DOI
[109]
R. Raussendorf, D. Browne, and H. Briegel, “The one-way quantum computer--a non-network model of quantum computation”, Journal of Modern Optics 49, 1299 (2002) arXiv:quant-ph/0108118 DOI
[110]
R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, “A One-Way Quantum Computer”, Physical Review Letters 86, 5188 (2001) DOI
[111]
V. Aggarwal and A. R. Calderbank, “Boolean Functions, Projection Operators, and Quantum Error Correcting Codes”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 54, 1700 (2008) arXiv:cs/0610159 DOI
[112]
A. Cross, G. Smith, J. A. Smolin, and B. Zeng, “Codeword Stabilized Quantum Codes”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 55, 433 (2009) arXiv:0708.1021 DOI
[113]
N. Chancellor, A. Kissinger, S. Zohren, J. Roffe, and D. Horsman, “Graphical structures for design and verification of quantum error correction”, Quantum Science and Technology 8, 045028 (2023) arXiv:1611.08012 DOI
[114]
J. Roffe, D. Headley, N. Chancellor, D. Horsman, and V. Kendon, “Protecting quantum memories using coherent parity check codes”, Quantum Science and Technology 3, 035010 (2018) arXiv:1709.01866 DOI
[115]
D. M. Debroy and K. R. Brown, “Extended flag gadgets for low-overhead circuit verification”, Physical Review A 102, (2020) arXiv:2009.07752 DOI
[116]
B. Coecke and R. Duncan, “Interacting Quantum Observables”, Automata, Languages and Programming 298 DOI
[117]
B. Coecke and R. Duncan, “Interacting quantum observables: categorical algebra and diagrammatics”, New Journal of Physics 13, 043016 (2011) arXiv:0906.4725 DOI
[118]
F. Lacerda, J. M. Renes, and V. B. Scholz, “Coherent-state constellations and polar codes for thermal Gaussian channels”, Physical Review A 95, (2017) arXiv:1603.05970 DOI
[119]
F. Lacerda, J. M. Renes, and V. B. Scholz, “Coherent state constellations for Bosonic Gaussian channels”, 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) 2499 (2016) DOI
[120]
H. Jeong and M. S. Kim, “Efficient quantum computation using coherent states”, Physical Review A 65, (2002) arXiv:quant-ph/0109077 DOI
[121]
T. C. Ralph, A. Gilchrist, G. J. Milburn, W. J. Munro, and S. Glancy, “Quantum computation with optical coherent states”, Physical Review A 68, (2003) arXiv:quant-ph/0306004 DOI
[122]
A. Aydin, M. A. Alekseyev, and A. Barg, “A family of permutationally invariant quantum codes”, Quantum 8, 1321 (2024) arXiv:2310.05358 DOI
[123]
J. C. M. de la Fuente, T. D. Ellison, M. Cheng, and D. J. Williamson, “Topological stabilizer models on continuous variables”, (2024) arXiv:2411.04993
[124]
M. Li, D. Miller, M. Newman, Y. Wu, and K. R. Brown, “2D Compass Codes”, Physical Review X 9, (2019) arXiv:1809.01193 DOI
[125]
K. I. Kugel’ and D. I. Khomskiĭ, “The Jahn-Teller effect and magnetism: transition metal compounds”, Soviet Physics Uspekhi 25, 231 (1982) DOI
[126]
J. Dorier, F. Becca, and F. Mila, “Quantum compass model on the square lattice”, Physical Review B 72, (2005) arXiv:cond-mat/0501708 DOI
[127]
Z. Nussinov and J. van den Brink, “Compass and Kitaev models -- Theory and Physical Motivations”, (2013) arXiv:1303.5922
[128]
K. Fukui, A. Tomita, and A. Okamoto, “Analog Quantum Error Correction with Encoding a Qubit into an Oscillator”, Physical Review Letters 119, (2017) arXiv:1706.03011 DOI
[129]
E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, “Resilient quantum computation: error models and thresholds”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 454, 365 (1998) arXiv:quant-ph/9702058 DOI
[130]
A. M. Steane, “Efficient fault-tolerant quantum computing”, Nature 399, 124 (1999) arXiv:quant-ph/9809054 DOI
[131]
A. M. Steane, “Overhead and noise threshold of fault-tolerant quantum error correction”, Physical Review A 68, (2003) arXiv:quant-ph/0207119 DOI
[132]
K. M. Svore, B. M. Terhal, and D. P. DiVincenzo, “Local fault-tolerant quantum computation”, Physical Review A 72, (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0410047 DOI
[133]
K. M. Svore, D. P. DiVincenzo, and B. M. Terhal, “Noise Threshold for a Fault-Tolerant Two-Dimensional Lattice Architecture”, (2006) arXiv:quant-ph/0604090
[134]
J. Cohen and M. Mirrahimi, “Dissipation-induced continuous quantum error correction for superconducting circuits”, Physical Review A 90, (2014) arXiv:1409.6759 DOI
[135]
E. Knill and R. Laflamme, “Concatenated Quantum Codes”, (1996) arXiv:quant-ph/9608012
[136]
D. Gottesman. Surviving as a quantum computer in a classical world (2024) URL
[137]
F. Pastawski, J. Eisert, and H. Wilming, “Towards Holography via Quantum Source-Channel Codes”, Physical Review Letters 119, (2017) arXiv:1611.07528 DOI
[138]
S. Sang, T. H. Hsieh, and Y. Zou, “Approximate quantum error correcting codes from conformal field theory”, (2024) arXiv:2406.09555
[139]
M. B. Plenio, V. Vedral, and P. L. Knight, “Quantum error correction in the presence of spontaneous emission”, Physical Review A 55, 67 (1997) arXiv:quant-ph/9603022 DOI
[140]
P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, “Noiseless Quantum Codes”, Physical Review Letters 79, 3306 (1997) arXiv:quant-ph/9705044 DOI
[141]
D. A. Lidar, D. Bacon, and K. B. Whaley, “Concatenating Decoherence-Free Subspaces with Quantum Error Correcting Codes”, Physical Review Letters 82, 4556 (1999) arXiv:quant-ph/9809081 DOI
[142]
P. Hayden, S. Nezami, S. Popescu, and G. Salton, “Error Correction of Quantum Reference Frame Information”, PRX Quantum 2, (2021) arXiv:1709.04471 DOI
[143]
G. M. Sommers, D. A. Huse, and M. J. Gullans, “Crystalline Quantum Circuits”, PRX Quantum 4, (2023) arXiv:2210.10808 DOI
[144]
P.-S. Hsin, R. Kobayashi, and G. Zhu, “Non-Abelian Self-Correcting Quantum Memory”, (2024) arXiv:2405.11719
[145]
S. Dutta and P. P. Kurur, “Quantum Cyclic Code”, (2010) arXiv:1007.1697
[146]
C. Derby, J. Klassen, J. Bausch, and T. Cubitt, “Compact fermion to qubit mappings”, Physical Review B 104, (2021) arXiv:2003.06939 DOI
[147]
C. Derby and J. Klassen, “A Compact Fermion to Qubit Mapping Part 2: Alternative Lattice Geometries”, (2021) arXiv:2101.10735
[148]
L. Clinton, T. Cubitt, B. Flynn, F. M. Gambetta, J. Klassen, A. Montanaro, S. Piddock, R. A. Santos, and E. Sheridan, “Towards near-term quantum simulation of materials”, Nature Communications 15, (2024) arXiv:2205.15256 DOI
[149]
V. V. Albert, J. P. Covey, and J. Preskill, “Robust Encoding of a Qubit in a Molecule”, Physical Review X 10, (2020) arXiv:1911.00099 DOI
[150]
B. Yoshida, “Topological phases with generalized global symmetries”, Physical Review B 93, (2016) arXiv:1508.03468 DOI
[151]
M. de W. Propitius, “Topological interactions in broken gauge theories”, (1995) arXiv:hep-th/9511195
[152]
L. Lootens, B. Vancraeynest-De Cuiper, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, “Mapping between Morita-equivalent string-net states with a constant depth quantum circuit”, Physical Review B 105, (2022) arXiv:2112.12757 DOI
[153]
R. Dijkgraaf and E. Witten, “Topological gauge theories and group cohomology”, Communications in Mathematical Physics 129, 393 (1990) DOI
[154]
D. S. Freed and F. Quinn, “Chern-Simons theory with finite gauge group”, Communications in Mathematical Physics 156, 435 (1993) arXiv:hep-th/9111004 DOI
[155]
A. Mesaros and Y. Ran, “Classification of symmetry enriched topological phases with exactly solvable models”, Physical Review B 87, (2013) arXiv:1212.0835 DOI
[156]
J. C. Wang and X.-G. Wen, “Non-Abelian string and particle braiding in topological order: ModularSL(3,Z)representation and(3+1)-dimensional twisted gauge theory”, Physical Review B 91, (2015) arXiv:1404.7854 DOI
[157]
Y. Wan, J. C. Wang, and H. He, “Twisted gauge theory model of topological phases in three dimensions”, Physical Review B 92, (2015) arXiv:1409.3216 DOI
[158]
I. Dinur, M.-H. Hsieh, T.-C. Lin, and T. Vidick, “Good Quantum LDPC Codes with Linear Time Decoders”, (2022) arXiv:2206.07750
[159]
I. Dinur, T.-C. Lin, and T. Vidick, “Expansion of higher-dimensional cubical complexes with application to quantum locally testable codes”, (2024) arXiv:2402.07476
[160]
M. B. Hastings, “Weight Reduction for Quantum Codes”, (2016) arXiv:1611.03790
[161]
M. B. Hastings, “On Quantum Weight Reduction”, (2023) arXiv:2102.10030
[162]
S. Evra, T. Kaufman, and G. Zémor, “Decodable quantum LDPC codes beyond the \(\sqrt{n}\) distance barrier using high dimensional expanders”, (2020) arXiv:2004.07935
[163]
M. A. Levin and X.-G. Wen, “String-net condensation: A physical mechanism for topological phases”, Physical Review B 71, (2005) arXiv:cond-mat/0404617 DOI
[164]
M. H. Freedman and M. B. Hastings, “Double Semions in Arbitrary Dimension”, Communications in Mathematical Physics 347, 389 (2016) arXiv:1507.05676 DOI
[165]
G. Dauphinais, L. Ortiz, S. Varona, and M. A. Martin-Delgado, “Quantum error correction with the semion code”, New Journal of Physics 21, 053035 (2019) arXiv:1810.08204 DOI
[166]
S. Bravyi and A. Cross, “Doubled Color Codes”, (2015) arXiv:1509.03239
[167]
T. Jochym-O’Connor and S. D. Bartlett, “Stacked codes: Universal fault-tolerant quantum computation in a two-dimensional layout”, Physical Review A 93, (2016) arXiv:1509.04255 DOI
[168]
C. Jones, P. Brooks, and J. Harrington, “Gauge color codes in two dimensions”, Physical Review A 93, (2016) arXiv:1512.04193 DOI
[169]
K. Betsumiya and A. Munemasa, “On triply even binary codes”, Journal of the London Mathematical Society 86, 1 (2012) arXiv:1012.4134 DOI
[170]
I. L. Chuang and Y. Yamamoto, “Simple quantum computer”, Physical Review A 52, 3489 (1995) arXiv:quant-ph/9505011 DOI
[171]
I. L. Chuang and Y. Yamamoto, “Quantum Bit Regeneration”, Physical Review Letters 76, 4281 (1996) arXiv:quant-ph/9604031 DOI
[172]
M. B. Hastings and J. Haah, “Dynamically Generated Logical Qubits”, Quantum 5, 564 (2021) arXiv:2107.02194 DOI
[173]
M. Davydova, N. Tantivasadakarn, S. Balasubramanian, and D. Aasen, “Quantum computation from dynamic automorphism codes”, Quantum 8, 1448 (2024) arXiv:2307.10353 DOI
[174]
P. Hayden and J. Preskill, “Black holes as mirrors: quantum information in random subsystems”, Journal of High Energy Physics 2007, 120 (2007) arXiv:0708.4025 DOI
[175]
M.-H. Hsieh, W.-T. Yen, and L.-Y. Hsu, “High Performance Entanglement-Assisted Quantum LDPC Codes Need Little Entanglement”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 57, 1761 (2011) arXiv:0906.5532 DOI
[176]
L. Riguang and M. Zhi, “Non-binary Entanglement-assisted Stabilizer Quantum Codes”, (2011) arXiv:1105.5872
[177]
T. Brun, I. Devetak, and M.-H. Hsieh, “Correcting Quantum Errors with Entanglement”, Science 314, 436 (2006) arXiv:quant-ph/0610092 DOI
[178]
C.-Y. Lai and T. A. Brun, “Entanglement increases the error-correcting ability of quantum error-correcting codes”, Physical Review A 88, (2013) arXiv:1008.2598 DOI
[179]
M. Grassl, F. Huber, and A. Winter, “Entropic Proofs of Singleton Bounds for Quantum Error-Correcting Codes”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 68, 3942 (2022) arXiv:2010.07902 DOI
[180]
M. M. Wilde, H. Krovi, and T. A. Brun, “Entanglement-assisted quantum error correction with linear optics”, Physical Review A 76, (2007) arXiv:0705.4314 DOI
[181]
Y. Fujiwara, D. Clark, P. Vandendriessche, M. De Boeck, and V. D. Tonchev, “Entanglement-assisted quantum low-density parity-check codes”, Physical Review A 82, (2010) arXiv:1008.4747 DOI
[182]
K. Guenda, S. Jitman, and T. A. Gulliver, “Constructions of Good Entanglement-Assisted Quantum Error Correcting Codes”, (2016) arXiv:1606.00134
[183]
M. M. Wilde and T. A. Brun, “Entanglement-assisted quantum convolutional coding”, Physical Review A 81, (2010) arXiv:0712.2223 DOI
[184]
M. M. Wilde, “Quantum Coding with Entanglement”, (2008) arXiv:0806.4214
[185]
M. M. Wilde and T. A. Brun, “Quantum convolutional coding with shared entanglement: general structure”, Quantum Information Processing 9, 509 (2010) arXiv:0807.3803 DOI
[186]
M. M. Wilde and T. A. Brun, “Extra shared entanglement reduces memory demand in quantum convolutional coding”, Physical Review A 79, (2009) arXiv:0812.4449 DOI
[187]
M. M. Wilde and M.-H. Hsieh, “Entanglement boosts quantum turbo codes”, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory Proceedings (2011) DOI
[188]
M. M. Wilde, M.-H. Hsieh, and Z. Babar, “Entanglement-Assisted Quantum Turbo Codes”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 60, 1203 (2014) arXiv:1010.1256 DOI
[189]
T. A. Brun, I. Devetak, and M.-H. Hsieh, “Catalytic Quantum Error Correction”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 60, 3073 (2014) arXiv:quant-ph/0608027 DOI
[190]
F. G. S. L. Brandão, E. Crosson, M. B. Şahinoğlu, and J. Bowen, “Quantum Error Correcting Codes in Eigenstates of Translation-Invariant Spin Chains”, Physical Review Letters 123, (2019) arXiv:1710.04631 DOI
[191]
G. Bowen, “Entanglement required in achieving entanglement-assisted channel capacities”, Physical Review A 66, (2002) arXiv:quant-ph/0205117 DOI
[192]
I. Kremsky, M.-H. Hsieh, and T. A. Brun, “Classical enhancement of quantum-error-correcting codes”, Physical Review A 78, (2008) arXiv:0802.2414 DOI
[193]
M.-H. Hsieh, “Entanglement-assisted Coding Theory”, (2008) arXiv:0807.2080
[194]
A. Nemec and A. Klappenecker, “Infinite Families of Quantum-Classical Hybrid Codes”, (2020) arXiv:1911.12260
[195]
M.-H. Hsieh, I. Devetak, and T. Brun, “General entanglement-assisted quantum error-correcting codes”, Physical Review A 76, (2007) arXiv:0708.2142 DOI
[196]
T. A. Brun, I. Devetak, and M.-H. Hsieh, “General entanglement-assisted quantum error-correcting codes”, 2007 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory 2101 (2007) DOI
[197]
P. J. Nadkarni, S. Adonsou, G. Dauphinais, D. W. Kribs, and M. Vasmer, “Unified and Generalized Approach to Entanglement-Assisted Quantum Error Correction”, (2024) arXiv:2411.14389
[198]
R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, J. Czajkowski, and P. Sekatski, “Adaptive Quantum Metrology under General Markovian Noise”, Physical Review X 7, (2017) arXiv:1704.06280 DOI
[199]
S. Zhou, M. Zhang, J. Preskill, and L. Jiang, “Achieving the Heisenberg limit in quantum metrology using quantum error correction”, Nature Communications 9, (2018) arXiv:1706.02445 DOI
[200]
P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, “Asymptotically Good Quantum and Locally Testable Classical LDPC Codes”, (2022) arXiv:2111.03654
[201]
S. Hoory, N. Linial, and A. Wigderson, “Expander graphs and their applications”, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 43, 439 (2006) DOI
[202]
M. B. Hastings, J. Haah, and R. O’Donnell, “Fiber bundle codes: breaking the n \({}^{\text{1/2}}\) polylog( n ) barrier for Quantum LDPC codes”, Proceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing 1276 (2021) arXiv:2009.03921 DOI
[203]
B. Yoshida, “Exotic topological order in fractal spin liquids”, Physical Review B 88, (2013) arXiv:1302.6248 DOI
[204]
R. Koenig, G. Kuperberg, and B. W. Reichardt, “Quantum computation with Turaev–Viro codes”, Annals of Physics 325, 2707 (2010) arXiv:1002.2816 DOI
[205]
S. A. Aly, “A Class of Quantum LDPC Codes Constructed From Finite Geometries”, IEEE GLOBECOM 2008 - 2008 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference 1 (2008) arXiv:0712.4115 DOI
[206]
J. Farinholt, “Quantum LDPC Codes Constructed from Point-Line Subsets of the Finite Projective Plane”, (2012) arXiv:1207.0732
[207]
B. Audoux and A. Couvreur, “On tensor products of CSS Codes”, (2018) arXiv:1512.07081
[208]
R. Laflamme, C. Miquel, J. P. Paz, and W. H. Zurek, “Perfect Quantum Error Correction Code”, (1996) arXiv:quant-ph/9602019
[209]
C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, “Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction”, Physical Review A 54, 3824 (1996) arXiv:quant-ph/9604024 DOI
[210]
P. Faist, S. Nezami, V. V. Albert, G. Salton, F. Pastawski, P. Hayden, and J. Preskill, “Continuous Symmetries and Approximate Quantum Error Correction”, Physical Review X 10, (2020) arXiv:1902.07714 DOI
[211]
B. Brown, “Anyon condensation and the color code”, (2022) DOI
[212]
M. Davydova, N. Tantivasadakarn, and S. Balasubramanian, “Floquet Codes without Parent Subsystem Codes”, PRX Quantum 4, (2023) arXiv:2210.02468 DOI
[213]
M. S. Kesselring, J. C. Magdalena de la Fuente, F. Thomsen, J. Eisert, S. D. Bartlett, and B. J. Brown, “Anyon Condensation and the Color Code”, PRX Quantum 5, (2024) arXiv:2212.00042 DOI
[214]
T. Bergamaschi, L. Golowich, and S. Gunn, “Approaching the Quantum Singleton Bound with Approximate Error Correction”, (2022) arXiv:2212.09935
[215]
M. Hagiwara and A. Nakayama, “A Four-Qubits Code that is a Quantum Deletion Error-Correcting Code with the Optimal Length”, (2020) arXiv:2001.08405
[216]
A. Nakayama and M. Hagiwara, “Single Quantum Deletion Error-Correcting Codes”, (2020) arXiv:2004.00814
[217]
C. G. Brell, “A proposal for self-correcting stabilizer quantum memories in 3 dimensions (or slightly less)”, New Journal of Physics 18, 013050 (2016) arXiv:1411.7046 DOI
[218]
G. Zhu, T. Jochym-O’Connor, and A. Dua, “Topological Order, Quantum Codes, and Quantum Computation on Fractal Geometries”, PRX Quantum 3, (2022) arXiv:2108.00018 DOI
[219]
A. Dua, T. Jochym-O'Connor, and G. Zhu, “Quantum error correction with fractal topological codes”, Quantum 7, 1122 (2023) arXiv:2201.03568 DOI
[220]
A. Vezzani, “Spontaneous magnetization of the Ising model on the Sierpinski carpet fractal, a rigorous result”, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 36, 1593 (2003) arXiv:cond-mat/0212497 DOI
[221]
R. Campari and D. Cassi, “Generalization of the Peierls-Griffiths theorem for the Ising model on graphs”, Physical Review E 81, (2010) arXiv:1002.1227 DOI
[222]
M. Shinoda, “Existence of phase transition of percolation on Sierpiński carpet lattices”, Journal of Applied Probability 39, 1 (2002) DOI
[223]
J. Haah, “Local stabilizer codes in three dimensions without string logical operators”, Physical Review A 83, (2011) arXiv:1101.1962 DOI
[224]
“Z2-systolic freedom and quantum codes”, Mathematics of Quantum Computation 303 (2002) DOI
[225]
M. H. Freedman, “Z\({}_{\text{2}}\)–Systolic-Freedom”, Geometry & Topology Monographs 113 (1999) DOI
[226]
E. Fetaya, “Bounding the distance of quantum surface codes”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 53, (2012) DOI
[227]
S. Dutta and P. P. Kurur, “Quantum Cyclic Code of length dividing \(p^{t}+1\)”, (2011) arXiv:1011.5814
[228]
S. Bartolucci et al., “Fusion-based quantum computation”, (2021) arXiv:2101.09310
[229]
N. C. Menicucci, “Fault-Tolerant Measurement-Based Quantum Computing with Continuous-Variable Cluster States”, Physical Review Letters 112, (2014) arXiv:1310.7596 DOI
[230]
J. E. Bourassa et al., “Blueprint for a Scalable Photonic Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computer”, Quantum 5, 392 (2021) arXiv:2010.02905 DOI
[231]
K. Fukui, A. Tomita, A. Okamoto, and K. Fujii, “High-Threshold Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation with Analog Quantum Error Correction”, Physical Review X 8, (2018) arXiv:1712.00294 DOI
[232]
I. Tzitrin, T. Matsuura, R. N. Alexander, G. Dauphinais, J. E. Bourassa, K. K. Sabapathy, N. C. Menicucci, and I. Dhand, “Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation with Static Linear Optics”, PRX Quantum 2, (2021) arXiv:2104.03241 DOI
[233]
C. Vuillot, H. Asasi, Y. Wang, L. P. Pryadko, and B. M. Terhal, “Quantum error correction with the toric Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill code”, Physical Review A 99, (2019) arXiv:1810.00047 DOI
[234]
K. Noh and C. Chamberland, “Fault-tolerant bosonic quantum error correction with the surface–Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill code”, Physical Review A 101, (2020) arXiv:1908.03579 DOI
[235]
M. V. Larsen, C. Chamberland, K. Noh, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, “Fault-Tolerant Continuous-Variable Measurement-based Quantum Computation Architecture”, PRX Quantum 2, (2021) arXiv:2101.03014 DOI
[236]
K. Noh, C. Chamberland, and F. G. S. L. Brandão, “Low-Overhead Fault-Tolerant Quantum Error Correction with the Surface-GKP Code”, PRX Quantum 3, (2022) arXiv:2103.06994 DOI
[237]
M. Lin, C. Chamberland, and K. Noh, “Closest Lattice Point Decoding for Multimode Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill Codes”, PRX Quantum 4, (2023) arXiv:2303.04702 DOI
[238]
J. Zhang, Y.-C. Wu, and G.-P. Guo, “Concatenation of the Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill code with the XZZX surface code”, Physical Review A 107, (2023) arXiv:2207.04383 DOI
[239]
Y. Ouyang, “Permutation-invariant quantum codes”, Physical Review A 90, (2014) arXiv:1302.3247 DOI
[240]
Y. Ouyang and J. Fitzsimons, “Permutation-invariant codes encoding more than one qubit”, Physical Review A 93, (2016) arXiv:1512.02469 DOI
[241]
S. Aly, A. Klappenecker, and P. K. Sarvepalli, “Primitive Quantum BCH Codes over Finite Fields”, (2006) arXiv:quant-ph/0501126
[242]
S. A. Aly, A. Klappenecker, and P. K. Sarvepalli, “On Quantum and Classical BCH Codes”, (2006) arXiv:quant-ph/0604102
[243]
Z. Ma, X. Lu, K. Feng, and D. Feng, “On Non-binary Quantum BCH Codes”, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 675 (2006) DOI
[244]
S. A. Aly, A. Klappenecker, and P. K. Sarvepalli, “On Quantum and Classical BCH Codes”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 53, 1183 (2007) DOI
[245]
R. Li, F. Zou, Y. Liu, and Z. Xu, “Hermitian dual containing BCH codes and Construction of new quantum codes”, Quantum Information and Computation 13, 21 (2013) DOI
[246]
G. G. La Guardia, “Constructions of new families of nonbinary quantum codes”, Physical Review A 80, (2009) DOI
[247]
X. Zhao, X. Li, Q. Wang, and T. Yan, “Hermitian dual-containing constacyclic BCH codes and related quantum codes of length \(\frac{q^{2m}-1}{q+1}\)”, (2020) arXiv:2007.13309
[248]
G. G. La Guardia and R. Palazzo Jr., “Constructions of new families of nonbinary CSS codes”, Discrete Mathematics 310, 2935 (2010) DOI
[249]
A. R. Calderbank and P. W. Shor, “Good quantum error-correcting codes exist”, Physical Review A 54, 1098 (1996) arXiv:quant-ph/9512032 DOI
[250]
A. M. Steane, “Error Correcting Codes in Quantum Theory”, Physical Review Letters 77, 793 (1996) DOI
[251]
“Multiple-particle interference and quantum error correction”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 452, 2551 (1996) arXiv:quant-ph/9601029 DOI
[252]
E. Knill, “Group Representations, Error Bases and Quantum Codes”, (1996) arXiv:quant-ph/9608049
[253]
R. Matsumoto and T. Uyematsu, “Constructing quantum error-correcting codes for p^m-state systems from classical error-correcting codes”, (2000) arXiv:quant-ph/9911011
[254]
M. GRASSL, T. BETH, and M. RÖTTELER, “ON OPTIMAL QUANTUM CODES”, International Journal of Quantum Information 02, 55 (2004) arXiv:quant-ph/0312164 DOI
[255]
J.-L. Kim and J. Walker, “Nonbinary quantum error-correcting codes from algebraic curves”, Discrete Mathematics 308, 3115 (2008) DOI
[256]
D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, “Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation With Constant Error Rate”, (1999) arXiv:quant-ph/9906129
[257]
L. Jin and C. Xing, “A Construction of New Quantum MDS Codes”, (2020) arXiv:1311.3009
[258]
X. Liu, L. Yu, and H. Liu, “New quantum codes from Hermitian dual-containing codes”, International Journal of Quantum Information 17, 1950006 (2019) DOI
[259]
L. Jin, S. Ling, J. Luo, and C. Xing, “Application of Classical Hermitian Self-Orthogonal MDS Codes to Quantum MDS Codes”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 56, 4735 (2010) DOI
[260]
Z. Li, L.-J. Xing, and X.-M. Wang, “Quantum generalized Reed-Solomon codes: Unified framework for quantum maximum-distance-separable codes”, Physical Review A 77, (2008) arXiv:0812.4514 DOI
[261]
E. M. Rains, R. H. Hardin, P. W. Shor, and N. J. A. Sloane, “A Nonadditive Quantum Code”, Physical Review Letters 79, 953 (1997) arXiv:quant-ph/9703002 DOI
[262]
M. Grassl and T. Beth, “A Note on Non-Additive Quantum Codes”, (1997) arXiv:quant-ph/9703016
[263]
V. P. Roychowdhury and F. Vatan, “On the Structure of Additive Quantum Codes and the Existence of Nonadditive Codes”, (1997) arXiv:quant-ph/9710031
[264]
V. Arvind, P. P. Kurur, and K. R. Parthasarathy, “Nonstabilizer Quantum Codes from Abelian Subgroups of the Error Group”, (2002) arXiv:quant-ph/0210097
[265]
M. Grassl and M. Rotteler, “Non-additive quantum codes from Goethals and Preparata codes”, 2008 IEEE Information Theory Workshop (2008) arXiv:0801.2144 DOI
[266]
P. Sarvepalli, “Topological color codes over higher alphabet”, 2010 IEEE Information Theory Workshop 1 (2010) DOI
[267]
L. Golowich and T.-C. Lin, “Quantum LDPC Codes with Transversal Non-Clifford Gates via Products of Algebraic Codes”, (2024) arXiv:2410.14662
[268]
P. K. Sarvepalli and A. Klappenecker, “Nonbinary Quantum Reed-Muller Codes”, (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0502001
[269]
C.-Y. Lai and C.-C. Lu, “A Construction of Quantum Stabilizer Codes Based on Syndrome Assignment by Classical Parity-Check Matrices”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 57, 7163 (2011) arXiv:0712.0103 DOI
[270]
A. Ashikhmin and E. Knill, “Nonbinary quantum stabilizer codes”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 47, 3065 (2001) DOI
[271]
A. Ketkar, A. Klappenecker, S. Kumar, and P. K. Sarvepalli, “Nonbinary stabilizer codes over finite fields”, (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0508070
[272]
S. S. Bullock and G. K. Brennen, “Qudit surface codes and gauge theory with finite cyclic groups”, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 40, 3481 (2007) arXiv:quant-ph/0609070 DOI
[273]
I. Andriyanova, D. Maurice, and J.-P. Tillich, “New constructions of CSS codes obtained by moving to higher alphabets”, (2012) arXiv:1202.3338
[274]
C. G. Brell, “Generalized color codes supporting non-Abelian anyons”, Physical Review A 91, (2015) arXiv:1408.6238 DOI
[275]
D. Bacon and A. Casaccino, “Quantum Error Correcting Subsystem Codes From Two Classical Linear Codes”, (2006) arXiv:quant-ph/0610088
[276]
A. A. Kovalev and L. P. Pryadko, “Quantum Kronecker sum-product low-density parity-check codes with finite rate”, Physical Review A 88, (2013) arXiv:1212.6703 DOI
[277]
R. Wang and L. P. Pryadko, “Distance bounds for generalized bicycle codes”, (2022) arXiv:2203.17216
[278]
M. Suchara, S. Bravyi, and B. Terhal, “Constructions and noise threshold of topological subsystem codes”, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 44, 155301 (2011) arXiv:1012.0425 DOI
[279]
P. Sarvepalli and K. R. Brown, “Topological subsystem codes from graphs and hypergraphs”, Physical Review A 86, (2012) arXiv:1207.0479 DOI
[280]
V. V. Gayatri and P. K. Sarvepalli, “Decoding Algorithms for Hypergraph Subsystem Codes and Generalized Subsystem Surface Codes”, (2018) arXiv:1805.12542
[281]
O. Å. Mostad, E. Rosnes, and H.-Y. Lin, “Generalizing Quantum Tanner Codes”, (2024) arXiv:2405.07980
[282]
J. Haah, “Towers of generalized divisible quantum codes”, Physical Review A 97, (2018) arXiv:1709.08658 DOI
[283]
Quantum Information and Computation 19, (2019) arXiv:1712.08578 DOI
[284]
D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, “Encoding a qubit in an oscillator”, Physical Review A 64, (2001) arXiv:quant-ph/0008040 DOI
[285]
J. Harrington and J. Preskill, “Achievable rates for the Gaussian quantum channel”, Physical Review A 64, (2001) arXiv:quant-ph/0105058 DOI
[286]
D. Schlingemann and R. F. Werner, “Quantum error-correcting codes associated with graphs”, Physical Review A 65, (2001) arXiv:quant-ph/0012111 DOI
[287]
M. Grassl, A. Klappenecker, and M. Rotteler, “Graphs, quadratic forms, and quantum codes”, Proceedings IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, 45 arXiv:quant-ph/0703112 DOI
[288]
Y. Hwang and J. Heo, “On the relation between a graph code and a graph state”, (2015) arXiv:1511.05647
[289]
C. G. Brell, “Generalized cluster states based on finite groups”, New Journal of Physics 17, 023029 (2015) arXiv:1408.6237 DOI
[290]
E. Kubischta and I. Teixeira, “Family of Quantum Codes with Exotic Transversal Gates”, Physical Review Letters 131, (2023) arXiv:2305.07023 DOI
[291]
P. Padmanabhan and I. Jana, “Groupoid Toric Codes”, (2022) arXiv:2212.01021
[292]
R. Brown, “From Groups to Groupoids: a Brief Survey”, Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society 19, 113 (1987) DOI
[293]
L. Guth and A. Lubotzky, “Quantum error correcting codes and 4-dimensional arithmetic hyperbolic manifolds”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 55, (2014) arXiv:1310.5555 DOI
[294]
Peter W. Shor, The quantum channel capacity and coherent information, 2002 (obtained from the MSRI Workshop on Quantum Computation website).
[295]
P. Hayden, M. Horodecki, A. Winter, and J. Yard, “A Decoupling Approach to the Quantum Capacity”, Open Systems & Information Dynamics 15, 7 (2008) arXiv:quant-ph/0702005 DOI
[296]
I. Devetak, “The private classical capacity and quantum capacity of a quantum channel”, (2004) arXiv:quant-ph/0304127
[297]
R. Klesse, “A random-coding based proof for the quantum coding theorem”, (2007) arXiv:0712.2558
[298]
“Preface to the Second Edition”, Quantum Information Theory xi (2016) arXiv:1106.1445 DOI
[299]
P. Hayden, S. Nezami, G. Salton, and B. C. Sanders, “Spacetime replication of continuous variable quantum information”, New Journal of Physics 18, 083043 (2016) arXiv:1601.02544 DOI
[300]
P. Hayden and A. May, “Summoning information in spacetime, or where and when can a qubit be?”, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 49, 175304 (2016) arXiv:1210.0913 DOI
[301]
C. Chamberland, G. Zhu, T. J. Yoder, J. B. Hertzberg, and A. W. Cross, “Topological and Subsystem Codes on Low-Degree Graphs with Flag Qubits”, Physical Review X 10, (2020) arXiv:1907.09528 DOI
[302]
B. Hetényi and J. R. Wootton, “Creating Entangled Logical Qubits in the Heavy-Hex Lattice with Topological Codes”, PRX Quantum 5, (2024) arXiv:2404.15989 DOI
[303]
A. Leverrier, V. Londe, and G. Zémor, “Towards local testability for quantum coding”, Quantum 6, 661 (2022) arXiv:1911.03069 DOI
[304]
R. J. Harris, N. A. McMahon, G. K. Brennen, and T. M. Stace, “Calderbank-Shor-Steane holographic quantum error-correcting codes”, Physical Review A 98, (2018) arXiv:1806.06472 DOI
[305]
J. Bierbrauer and Y. Edel, “Quantum twisted codes”, Journal of Combinatorial Designs 8, 174 (2000) DOI
[306]
A. R. Calderbank, E. M. Rains, P. W. Shor, and N. J. A. Sloane, “Quantum Error Correction via Codes over GF(4)”, (1997) arXiv:quant-ph/9608006
[307]
C. A. Pattison, A. Krishna, and J. Preskill, “Hierarchical memories: Simulating quantum LDPC codes with local gates”, (2023) arXiv:2303.04798
[308]
N. Delfosse, M. E. Beverland, and M. A. Tremblay, “Bounds on stabilizer measurement circuits and obstructions to local implementations of quantum LDPC codes”, (2021) arXiv:2109.14599
[309]
N. Baspin, O. Fawzi, and A. Shayeghi, “A lower bound on the overhead of quantum error correction in low dimensions”, (2023) arXiv:2302.04317
[310]
T. Kaufman, D. Kazhdan, and A. Lubotzky, “Isoperimetric Inequalities for Ramanujan Complexes and Topological Expanders”, (2014) arXiv:1409.1397
[311]
A. Lubotzky, R. Phillips, and P. Sarnak, “Ramanujan graphs”, Combinatorica 8, 261 (1988) DOI
[312]
G. Davidoff, P. Sarnak, and A. Valette, Elementary Number Theory, Group Theory and Ramanujan Graphs (Cambridge University Press, 2001) DOI
[313]
F. Pastawski, B. Yoshida, D. Harlow, and J. Preskill, “Holographic quantum error-correcting codes: toy models for the bulk/boundary correspondence”, Journal of High Energy Physics 2015, (2015) arXiv:1503.06237 DOI
[314]
C. Cao and B. Lackey, “Approximate Bacon-Shor code and holography”, Journal of High Energy Physics 2021, (2021) arXiv:2010.05960 DOI
[315]
P. Hayden, S. Nezami, X.-L. Qi, N. Thomas, M. Walter, and Z. Yang, “Holographic duality from random tensor networks”, Journal of High Energy Physics 2016, (2016) arXiv:1601.01694 DOI
[316]
X.-L. Qi and Z. Yang, “Space-time random tensor networks and holographic duality”, (2018) arXiv:1801.05289
[317]
T. Farrelly, R. J. Harris, N. A. McMahon, and T. M. Stace, “Tensor-Network Codes”, Physical Review Letters 127, (2021) arXiv:2009.10329 DOI
[318]
G. Zémor, “On Cayley Graphs, Surface Codes, and the Limits of Homological Coding for Quantum Error Correction”, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 259 (2009) DOI
[319]
N. Delfosse, P. Iyer, and D. Poulin, “Generalized surface codes and packing of logical qubits”, (2016) arXiv:1606.07116
[320]
Y. Xu, Y. Wang, and V. V. Albert, “Multimode rotation-symmetric bosonic codes from homological rotor codes”, Physical Review A 110, (2024) arXiv:2311.07679 DOI
[321]
M. H. Freedman and M. B. Hastings, “Quantum Systems on Non-\(k\)-Hyperfinite Complexes: A Generalization of Classical Statistical Mechanics on Expander Graphs”, (2013) arXiv:1301.1363
[322]
S. Bravyi and M. B. Hastings, “Homological Product Codes”, (2013) arXiv:1311.0885
[323]
C. Vuillot, A. Ciani, and B. M. Terhal, “Homological Quantum Rotor Codes: Logical Qubits from Torsion”, Communications in Mathematical Physics 405, (2024) arXiv:2303.13723 DOI
[324]
A. Kitaev, “Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond”, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006) arXiv:cond-mat/0506438 DOI
[325]
J. Sullivan, R. Wen, and A. C. Potter, “Floquet codes and phases in twist-defect networks”, (2023) arXiv:2303.17664
[326]
Z. Jia, “Generalized cluster states from Hopf algebras: non-invertible symmetry and Hopf tensor network representation”, Journal of High Energy Physics 2024, (2024) arXiv:2405.09277 DOI
[327]
Z. Jia, “Weak Hopf non-invertible symmetry-protected topological spin liquid and lattice realization of (1+1)D symmetry topological field theory”, (2024) arXiv:2412.15336
[328]
O. Buerschaper, J. M. Mombelli, M. Christandl, and M. Aguado, “A hierarchy of topological tensor network states”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 54, (2013) arXiv:1007.5283 DOI
[329]
B. Balsam and A. Kirillov Jr, “Kitaev’s Lattice Model and Turaev-Viro TQFTs”, (2012) arXiv:1206.2308
[330]
Z. Jia, D. Kaszlikowski, and S. Tan, “Boundary and domain wall theories of 2d generalized quantum double model”, Journal of High Energy Physics 2023, (2023) arXiv:2207.03970 DOI
[331]
A. Cowtan and S. Majid, “Algebraic Aspects of Boundaries in the Kitaev Quantum Double Model”, (2022) arXiv:2208.06317
[332]
T. H. Hsieh and G. B. Halász, “Fractons from partons”, Physical Review B 96, (2017) arXiv:1703.02973 DOI
[333]
G. B. Halász, T. H. Hsieh, and L. Balents, “Fracton Topological Phases from Strongly Coupled Spin Chains”, Physical Review Letters 119, (2017) arXiv:1707.02308 DOI
[334]
G. Kuperberg, “The capacity of hybrid quantum memory”, (2003) arXiv:quant-ph/0203105
[335]
I. Devetak and P. W. Shor, “The capacity of a quantum channel for simultaneous transmission of classical and quantum information”, (2004) arXiv:quant-ph/0311131
[336]
C. Bény, A. Kempf, and D. W. Kribs, “Generalization of Quantum Error Correction via the Heisenberg Picture”, Physical Review Letters 98, (2007) arXiv:quant-ph/0608071 DOI
[337]
S.-W. Lee and H. Jeong, “Near-deterministic quantum teleportation and resource-efficient quantum computation using linear optics and hybrid qubits”, Physical Review A 87, (2013) arXiv:1112.0825 DOI
[338]
J. Lee, N. Kang, S.-H. Lee, H. Jeong, L. Jiang, and S.-W. Lee, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation by hybrid qubits with bosonic cat-code and single photons”, (2023) arXiv:2401.00450
[339]
M. M. Wilde and T. A. Brun, “Unified quantum convolutional coding”, 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (2008) arXiv:0801.0821 DOI
[340]
M. Grassl, S. Lu, and B. Zeng, “Codes for simultaneous transmission of quantum and classical information”, 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) (2017) arXiv:1701.06963 DOI
[341]
P. G. Kwiat, “Hyper-entangled states”, Journal of Modern Optics 44, 2173 (1997) DOI
[342]
C. Vuillot, “Planar Floquet Codes”, (2021) arXiv:2110.05348
[343]
O. Higgott and N. P. Breuckmann, “Constructions and Performance of Hyperbolic and Semi-Hyperbolic Floquet Codes”, PRX Quantum 5, (2024) arXiv:2308.03750 DOI
[344]
A. Fahimniya, H. Dehghani, K. Bharti, S. Mathew, A. J. Kollár, A. V. Gorshkov, and M. J. Gullans, “Fault-tolerant hyperbolic Floquet quantum error correcting codes”, (2024) arXiv:2309.10033
[345]
N. Delfosse, “Tradeoffs for reliable quantum information storage in surface codes and color codes”, 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory 917 (2013) arXiv:1301.6588 DOI
[346]
E. B. da Silva and W. S. Soares Jr, “Hyperbolic quantum color codes”, (2018) arXiv:1804.06382
[347]
C. Vuillot and N. P. Breuckmann, “Quantum Pin Codes”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 68, 5955 (2022) arXiv:1906.11394 DOI
[348]
J.-P. Tillich and G. Zemor, “Quantum LDPC Codes With Positive Rate and Minimum Distance Proportional to the Square Root of the Blocklength”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 60, 1193 (2014) arXiv:0903.0566 DOI
[349]
A. A. Kovalev and L. P. Pryadko, “Improved quantum hypergraph-product LDPC codes”, 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory Proceedings 348 (2012) arXiv:1202.0928 DOI
[350]
W. Zeng and L. P. Pryadko, “Higher-Dimensional Quantum Hypergraph-Product Codes with Finite Rates”, Physical Review Letters 122, (2019) arXiv:1810.01519 DOI
[351]
M. Steinberg, S. Feld, and A. Jahn, “Holographic codes from hyperinvariant tensor networks”, Nature Communications 14, (2023) arXiv:2304.02732 DOI
[352]
G. Evenbly, “Hyperinvariant Tensor Networks and Holography”, Physical Review Letters 119, (2017) arXiv:1704.04229 DOI
[353]
M. B. Hastings, “Quantum Codes from High-Dimensional Manifolds”, (2016) arXiv:1608.05089
[354]
P. Jordan and E. P. Wigner, “Über das Paulische Äquivalenzverbot”, The Collected Works of Eugene Paul Wigner 109 (1993) DOI
[355]
A. Y. Kitaev, “Unpaired Majorana fermions in quantum wires”, Physics-Uspekhi 44, 131 (2001) arXiv:cond-mat/0010440 DOI
[356]
R. Somma, G. Ortiz, J. E. Gubernatis, E. Knill, and R. Laflamme, “Simulating physical phenomena by quantum networks”, Physical Review A 65, (2002) arXiv:quant-ph/0108146 DOI
[357]
G. Alber, Th. Beth, Ch. Charnes, A. Delgado, M. Grassl, and M. Mussinger, “Stabilizing Distinguishable Qubits against Spontaneous Decay by Detected-Jump Correcting Quantum Codes”, Physical Review Letters 86, 4402 (2001) arXiv:quant-ph/0103042 DOI
[358]
G. Alber, Th. Beth, Ch. Charnes, A. Delgado, M. Grassl, and M. Mussinger, “Detected-jump-error-correcting quantum codes, quantum error designs, and quantum computation”, Physical Review A 68, (2003) arXiv:quant-ph/0208140 DOI
[359]
T. Beth, C. Charnes, M. Grassl, G. Alber, A. Delgado, and M. Mussinger, Designs, Codes and Cryptography 29, 51 (2003) DOI
[360]
I. Kim, E. Tang, and J. Preskill, “The ghost in the radiation: robust encodings of the black hole interior”, Journal of High Energy Physics 2020, (2020) arXiv:2003.05451 DOI
[361]
A. Kitaev, “Protected qubit based on a superconducting current mirror”, (2006) arXiv:cond-mat/0609441
[362]
Kitaev, Alexei Yu. "Protected qubit based on superconducting current mirror." United States Patent Number 7858966B2 (2006).
[363]
S. M. Girvin, “Circuit QED: superconducting qubits coupled to microwave photons”, Quantum Machines: Measurement and Control of Engineered Quantum Systems 113 (2014) DOI
[364]
A. Roy and D. P. DiVincenzo, “Topological Quantum Computing”, (2017) arXiv:1701.05052
[365]
S. Bravyi, “Universal quantum computation with theν=5∕2fractional quantum Hall state”, Physical Review A 73, (2006) arXiv:quant-ph/0511178 DOI
[366]
A. Yu. Kitaev, “Quantum Error Correction with Imperfect Gates”, Quantum Communication, Computing, and Measurement 181 (1997) DOI
[367]
S. B. Bravyi and A. Yu. Kitaev, “Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary”, (1998) arXiv:quant-ph/9811052
[368]
L. Pecorari, S. Jandura, G. K. Brennen, and G. Pupillo, “High-rate quantum LDPC codes for long-range-connected neutral atom registers”, (2024) arXiv:2404.13010
[369]
Y. Fan, W. Fischler, and E. Kubischta, “Quantum error correction in the lowest Landau level”, Physical Review A 107, (2023) arXiv:2210.16957 DOI
[370]
J. Haah, Lattice Quantum Codes and Exotic Topological Phases of Matter, California Institute of Technology, 2013 DOI
[371]
D. J. Williamson and N. Baspin, “Layer Codes”, (2024) arXiv:2309.16503
[372]
J. Old, M. Rispler, and M. Müller, “Lift-connected surface codes”, Quantum Science and Technology 9, 045012 (2024) arXiv:2401.02911 DOI
[373]
F. G. S. L. Brandão, A. W. Harrow, and M. Horodecki, “Local Random Quantum Circuits are Approximate Polynomial-Designs”, Communications in Mathematical Physics 346, 397 (2016) DOI
[374]
Y. Hong, M. Marinelli, A. M. Kaufman, and A. Lucas, “Long-range-enhanced surface codes”, Physical Review A 110, (2024) arXiv:2309.11719 DOI
[375]
R. Alicki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, “On thermal stability of topological qubit in Kitaev’s 4D model”, (2008) arXiv:0811.0033
[376]
T.-C. Lin and M.-H. Hsieh, “\(c^3\)-Locally Testable Codes from Lossless Expanders”, (2022) arXiv:2201.11369
[377]
T.-C. Lin and M.-H. Hsieh, “Good quantum LDPC codes with linear time decoder from lossless expanders”, (2022) arXiv:2203.03581
[378]
M. Capalbo, O. Reingold, S. Vadhan, and A. Wigderson, “Randomness conductors and constant-degree lossless expanders”, Proceedings of the thiry-fourth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing 659 (2002) DOI
[379]
M. Gschwendtner, R. König, B. Şahinoğlu, and E. Tang, “Quantum error-detection at low energies”, Journal of High Energy Physics 2019, (2019) arXiv:1902.02115 DOI
[380]
S. Plugge, A. Rasmussen, R. Egger, and K. Flensberg, “Majorana box qubits”, New Journal of Physics 19, 012001 (2017) arXiv:1609.01697 DOI
[381]
T. Karzig et al., “Scalable designs for quasiparticle-poisoning-protected topological quantum computation with Majorana zero modes”, Physical Review B 95, (2017) arXiv:1610.05289 DOI
[382]
D. Litinski and F. von Oppen, “Quantum computing with Majorana fermion codes”, Physical Review B 97, (2018) arXiv:1801.08143 DOI
[383]
S. Bravyi, B. M. Terhal, and B. Leemhuis, “Majorana fermion codes”, New Journal of Physics 12, 083039 (2010) arXiv:1004.3791 DOI
[384]
M. B. Hastings, “Small Majorana Fermion Codes”, (2017) arXiv:1703.00612
[385]
Z. Jiang, J. McClean, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, “Majorana Loop Stabilizer Codes for Error Mitigation in Fermionic Quantum Simulations”, Physical Review Applied 12, (2019) arXiv:1812.08190 DOI
[386]
S. Vijay and L. Fu, “Quantum Error Correction for Complex and Majorana Fermion Qubits”, (2017) arXiv:1703.00459
[387]
A. Chapman, S. T. Flammia, and A. J. Kollár, “Free-Fermion Subsystem Codes”, (2022) arXiv:2201.07254
[388]
S. Vijay, T. H. Hsieh, and L. Fu, “Majorana Fermion Surface Code for Universal Quantum Computation”, Physical Review X 5, (2015) arXiv:1504.01724 DOI
[389]
L. A. Landau, S. Plugge, E. Sela, A. Altland, S. M. Albrecht, and R. Egger, “Towards Realistic Implementations of a Majorana Surface Code”, Physical Review Letters 116, (2016) arXiv:1509.05345 DOI
[390]
J. R. Wootton, “A family of stabilizer codes for \(D({{\mathbb{Z}}_{2}})\) anyons and Majorana modes”, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 48, 215302 (2015) arXiv:1501.07779 DOI
[391]
A. Milekhin, “Quantum error correction and large \(N\)”, SciPost Physics 11, (2021) arXiv:2008.12869 DOI
[392]
C. Cao, G. Cheng, and B. Swingle, “Large \(N\) Matrix Quantum Mechanics as a Quantum Memory”, (2022) arXiv:2211.08448
[393]
C.-Y. Lai, T. A. Brun, and M. M. Wilde, “Duality in Entanglement-Assisted Quantum Error Correction”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 59, 4020 (2013) arXiv:1302.4150 DOI
[394]
J. Qian and L. Zhang, “Entanglement-assisted quantum codes from arbitrary binary linear codes”, Designs, Codes and Cryptography 77, 193 (2014) DOI
[395]
P. Faist, M. P. Woods, V. V. Albert, J. M. Renes, J. Eisert, and J. Preskill, “Time-Energy Uncertainty Relation for Noisy Quantum Metrology”, PRX Quantum 4, (2023) arXiv:2207.13707 DOI
[396]
S. Y. Looi, L. Yu, V. Gheorghiu, and R. B. Griffiths, “Quantum-error-correcting codes using qudit graph states”, Physical Review A 78, (2008) arXiv:0712.1979 DOI
[397]
D. Hu, W. Tang, M. Zhao, Q. Chen, S. Yu, and C. H. Oh, “Graphical nonbinary quantum error-correcting codes”, Physical Review A 78, (2008) arXiv:0801.0831 DOI
[398]
X. Chen, B. Zeng, and I. L. Chuang, “Nonbinary codeword-stabilized quantum codes”, Physical Review A 78, (2008) arXiv:0808.3086 DOI
[399]
D. L. Zhou, B. Zeng, Z. Xu, and C. P. Sun, “Quantum computation based ond-level cluster state”, Physical Review A 68, (2003) arXiv:quant-ph/0304054 DOI
[400]
F. H. E. Watson, E. T. Campbell, H. Anwar, and D. E. Browne, “Qudit color codes and gauge color codes in all spatial dimensions”, Physical Review A 92, (2015) arXiv:1503.08800 DOI
[401]
A. Tanggara, M. Gu, and K. Bharti, “Simple Construction of Qudit Floquet Codes on a Family of Lattices”, (2024) arXiv:2410.02022
[402]
D. Gottesman, “Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction”, (1997) arXiv:quant-ph/9705052
[403]
H. Watanabe, M. Cheng, and Y. Fuji, “Ground state degeneracy on torus in a family of ZN toric code”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 64, (2023) arXiv:2211.00299 DOI
[404]
B. Skinner, J. Ruhman, and A. Nahum, “Measurement-Induced Phase Transitions in the Dynamics of Entanglement”, Physical Review X 9, (2019) DOI
[405]
Y. Li, X. Chen, and M. P. A. Fisher, “Quantum Zeno effect and the many-body entanglement transition”, Physical Review B 98, (2018) DOI
[406]
A. Chan, R. M. Nandkishore, M. Pretko, and G. Smith, “Unitary-projective entanglement dynamics”, Physical Review B 99, (2019) arXiv:1808.05949 DOI
[407]
Y. Li, X. Chen, and M. P. A. Fisher, “Measurement-driven entanglement transition in hybrid quantum circuits”, Physical Review B 100, (2019) arXiv:1901.08092 DOI
[408]
S. Choi, Y. Bao, X.-L. Qi, and E. Altman, “Quantum Error Correction in Scrambling Dynamics and Measurement-Induced Phase Transition”, Physical Review Letters 125, (2020) arXiv:1903.05124 DOI
[409]
M. J. Gullans and D. A. Huse, “Dynamical Purification Phase Transition Induced by Quantum Measurements”, Physical Review X 10, (2020) arXiv:1905.05195 DOI
[410]
R. Movassagh and Y. Ouyang, “Constructing quantum codes from any classical code and their embedding in ground space of local Hamiltonians”, Quantum 8, 1541 (2024) arXiv:2012.01453 DOI
[411]
L. Chang, M. Cheng, S. X. Cui, Y. Hu, W. Jin, R. Movassagh, P. Naaijkens, Z. Wang, and A. Young, “On enriching the Levin–Wen model with symmetry”, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 48, 12FT01 (2015) arXiv:1412.6589 DOI
[412]
J. Conrad, J. Eisert, and J.-P. Seifert, “Good Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill codes from the NTRU cryptosystem”, Quantum 8, 1398 (2024) arXiv:2303.02432 DOI
[413]
J. Hoffstein, J. Pipher, and J. H. Silverman, “NTRU: A ring-based public key cryptosystem”, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 267 (1998) DOI
[414]
T. Fösel, P. Tighineanu, T. Weiss, and F. Marquardt, “Reinforcement Learning with Neural Networks for Quantum Feedback”, Physical Review X 8, (2018) arXiv:1802.05267 DOI
[415]
J. Bausch and F. Leditzky, “Quantum codes from neural networks”, New Journal of Physics 22, 023005 (2020) arXiv:1806.08781 DOI
[416]
H. P. Nautrup, N. Delfosse, V. Dunjko, H. J. Briegel, and N. Friis, “Optimizing Quantum Error Correction Codes with Reinforcement Learning”, Quantum 3, 215 (2019) arXiv:1812.08451 DOI
[417]
S. M. Barnett and D. T. Pegg, “Phase in quantum optics”, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 19, 3849 (1986) DOI
[418]
K. Noh, V. V. Albert, and L. Jiang, “Quantum Capacity Bounds of Gaussian Thermal Loss Channels and Achievable Rates With Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill Codes”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 65, 2563 (2019) arXiv:1801.07271 DOI
[419]
P. Leviant, Q. Xu, L. Jiang, and S. Rosenblum, “Quantum capacity and codes for the bosonic loss-dephasing channel”, Quantum 6, 821 (2022) arXiv:2205.00341 DOI
[420]
Z. Wang, T. Rajabzadeh, N. Lee, and A. H. Safavi-Naeini, “Automated discovery of autonomous quantum error correction schemes”, (2021) arXiv:2108.02766
[421]
Y. Zeng, Z.-Y. Zhou, E. Rinaldi, C. Gneiting, and F. Nori, “Approximate Autonomous Quantum Error Correction with Reinforcement Learning”, Physical Review Letters 131, (2023) arXiv:2212.11651 DOI
[422]
X. Mao, Q. Xu, and L. Jiang, “Optimized four-qubit quantum error correcting code for amplitude damping channel”, (2024) arXiv:2411.12952
[423]
M. Karácsony, L. Oroszlány, and Z. Zimborás, “Efficient qudit based scheme for photonic quantum computing”, (2023) arXiv:2302.07357
[424]
R. D. Somma, “Quantum Computation, Complexity, and Many-Body Physics”, (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0512209
[425]
M. R. Geller, J. M. Martinis, A. T. Sornborger, P. C. Stancil, E. J. Pritchett, H. You, and A. Galiautdinov, “Universal quantum simulation with prethreshold superconducting qubits: Single-excitation subspace method”, (2015) arXiv:1505.04990
[426]
S. McArdle, A. Mayorov, X. Shan, S. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, “Digital quantum simulation of molecular vibrations”, Chemical Science 10, 5725 (2019) arXiv:1811.04069 DOI
[427]
N. P. D. Sawaya and J. Huh, “Quantum Algorithm for Calculating Molecular Vibronic Spectra”, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 10, 3586 (2019) arXiv:1812.10495 DOI
[428]
N. P. D. Sawaya, T. Menke, T. H. Kyaw, S. Johri, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and G. G. Guerreschi, “Resource-efficient digital quantum simulation of d-level systems for photonic, vibrational, and spin-s Hamiltonians”, npj Quantum Information 6, (2020) arXiv:1909.12847 DOI
[429]
G. Dauphinais, D. W. Kribs, and M. Vasmer, “Stabilizer Formalism for Operator Algebra Quantum Error Correction”, Quantum 8, 1261 (2024) arXiv:2304.11442 DOI
[430]
C. Bény, A. Kempf, and D. W. Kribs, “Quantum error correction of observables”, Physical Review A 76, (2007) arXiv:0705.1574 DOI
[431]
C. Bény, “Information flow at the quantum-classical boundary”, (2009) arXiv:0901.3629
[432]
G. Kuperberg and N. Weaver, “A von Neumann algebra approach to quantum metrics”, (2010) arXiv:1005.0353
[433]
C. BÉNY, D. W. KRIBS, and A. PASIEKA, “ALGEBRAIC FORMULATION OF QUANTUM ERROR CORRECTION”, International Journal of Quantum Information 06, 597 (2008) DOI
[434]
K. Furuya, N. Lashkari, and S. Ouseph, “Real-space RG, error correction and Petz map”, Journal of High Energy Physics 2022, (2022) arXiv:2012.14001 DOI
[435]
K. Noh, S. M. Girvin, and L. Jiang, “Encoding an Oscillator into Many Oscillators”, Physical Review Letters 125, (2020) arXiv:1903.12615 DOI
[436]
S. Lloyd and J.-J. E. Slotine, “Analog Quantum Error Correction”, Physical Review Letters 80, 4088 (1998) arXiv:quant-ph/9711021 DOI
[437]
S. L. Braunstein, “Error Correction for Continuous Quantum Variables”, Physical Review Letters 80, 4084 (1998) arXiv:quant-ph/9711049 DOI
[438]
Y. Ouyang and R. Chao, “Permutation-Invariant Constant-Excitation Quantum Codes for Amplitude Damping”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 66, 2921 (2020) arXiv:1809.09801 DOI
[439]
V. V. Albert, S. O. Mundhada, A. Grimm, S. Touzard, M. H. Devoret, and L. Jiang, “Pair-cat codes: autonomous error-correction with low-order nonlinearity”, Quantum Science and Technology 4, 035007 (2019) arXiv:1801.05897 DOI
[440]
T. J. Osborne and D. E. Stiegemann, “Dynamics for holographic codes”, Journal of High Energy Physics 2020, (2020) arXiv:1706.08823 DOI
[441]
J. Cotler and A. Strominger, “The Universe as a Quantum Encoder”, (2022) arXiv:2201.11658
[442]
M. Taylor and C. Woodward, “Holography, cellulations and error correcting codes”, (2023) arXiv:2112.12468
[443]
W. Donnelly, D. Marolf, B. Michel, and J. Wien, “Living on the edge: a toy model for holographic reconstruction of algebras with centers”, Journal of High Energy Physics 2017, (2017) arXiv:1611.05841 DOI
[444]
K. Dolev, V. Calvera, S. S. Cree, and D. J. Williamson, “Gauging the bulk: generalized gauging maps and holographic codes”, Journal of High Energy Physics 2022, (2022) arXiv:2108.11402 DOI
[445]
D. Harlow and H. Ooguri, “Symmetries in quantum field theory and quantum gravity”, (2019) arXiv:1810.05338
[446]
Y. Wang, Y. Xu, and Z.-W. Liu, “Encoded quantum gates by geometric rotation on tessellations”, (2024) arXiv:2410.18713
[447]
Z. Li and L. Boyle, “The Penrose Tiling is a Quantum Error-Correcting Code”, (2024) arXiv:2311.13040
[448]
H. Pollatsek and M. B. Ruskai, “Permutationally Invariant Codes for Quantum Error Correction”, (2004) arXiv:quant-ph/0304153
[449]
J. Berger and T. J. Osborne, “Perfect tangles”, (2018) arXiv:1804.03199
[450]
M. Doroudiani and V. Karimipour, “Planar maximally entangled states”, Physical Review A 102, (2020) arXiv:2004.00906 DOI
[451]
S. Dutta, A. Jain, and P. Mandayam, “Smallest quantum codes for amplitude damping noise”, (2024) arXiv:2410.00155
[452]
E. T. Campbell, H. Anwar, and D. E. Browne, “Magic-State Distillation in All Prime Dimensions Using Quantum Reed-Muller Codes”, Physical Review X 2, (2012) arXiv:1205.3104 DOI
[453]
M. Grassl, W. Geiselmann, and T. Beth, “Quantum Reed—Solomon Codes”, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 231 (1999) arXiv:quant-ph/9910059 DOI
[454]
A. Krishna and J.-P. Tillich, “Towards Low Overhead Magic State Distillation”, Physical Review Letters 123, (2019) arXiv:1811.08461 DOI
[455]
S. Prakash and T. Saha, “Low Overhead Qutrit Magic State Distillation”, (2024) arXiv:2403.06228
[456]
M. H. Freedman and D. A. Meyer, “Projective plane and planar quantum codes”, (1998) arXiv:quant-ph/9810055
[457]
H. Barnum, C. Crepeau, D. Gottesman, A. Smith, and A. Tapp, “Authentication of quantum messages”, The 43rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2002. Proceedings. arXiv:quant-ph/0205128 DOI
[458]
R. Matsumoto, “Improvement of Ashikhmin-Litsyn-Tsfasman bound for quantum codes”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 48, 2122 (2002) arXiv:quant-ph/0107129 DOI
[459]
N. Delfosse and G. Zémor, “Correction of circuit faults in a stacked quantum memory using rank-metric codes”, (2024) arXiv:2411.09173
[460]
A. Niehage, “Quantum Goppa Codes over Hyperelliptic Curves”, (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0501074
[461]
A. Ashikhmin, S. Litsyn, and M. Tsfasman, “Asymptotically good quantum codes”, Physical Review A 63, (2001) arXiv:quant-ph/0006061 DOI
[462]
A. Niehage, “Nonbinary Quantum Goppa Codes Exceeding the Quantum Gilbert-Varshamov Bound”, Quantum Information Processing 6, 143 (2006) DOI
[463]
A. Steane, “Quantum Reed-Muller Codes”, (1996) arXiv:quant-ph/9608026
[464]
L. Zhang and I. Fuss, “Quantum Reed-Muller Codes”, (1997) arXiv:quant-ph/9703045
[465]
L. Golowich and V. Guruswami, “Quantum Locally Recoverable Codes”, (2023) arXiv:2311.08653
[466]
A. Leverrier and G. Zémor, “Quantum Tanner codes”, (2022) arXiv:2202.13641
[467]
A. Cross, Z. He, A. Natarajan, M. Szegedy, and G. Zhu, “Quantum Locally Testable Code with Constant Soundness”, Quantum 8, 1501 (2024) arXiv:2209.11405 DOI
[468]
H. Ollivier and J.-P. Tillich, “Description of a Quantum Convolutional Code”, Physical Review Letters 91, (2003) arXiv:quant-ph/0304189 DOI
[469]
H. Ollivier and J.-P. Tillich, “Quantum convolutional codes: fundamentals”, (2004) arXiv:quant-ph/0401134
[470]
Y. Fujiwara, “Ability of stabilizer quantum error correction to protect itself from its own imperfection”, Physical Review A 90, (2014) arXiv:1409.2559 DOI
[471]
A. Ashikhmin, C.-Y. Lai, and T. A. Brun, “Robust quantum error syndrome extraction by classical coding”, 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (2014) DOI
[472]
Y. Fujiwara, “Global stabilizer quantum error correction with combinatorial arrays”, 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) (2015) DOI
[473]
A. Ashikhmin, C.-Y. Lai, and T. A. Brun, “Correction of data and syndrome errors by stabilizer codes”, 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) (2016) DOI
[474]
A. Ashikhmin, C.-Y. Lai, and T. A. Brun, “Quantum Data-Syndrome Codes”, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 38, 449 (2020) arXiv:1907.01393 DOI
[475]
A. J. Landahl and C. Cesare, “Complex instruction set computing architecture for performing accurate quantum \(Z\) rotations with less magic”, (2013) arXiv:1302.3240
[476]
E. T. Campbell and M. Howard, “Unified framework for magic state distillation and multiqubit gate synthesis with reduced resource cost”, Physical Review A 95, (2017) arXiv:1606.01904 DOI
[477]
J. Haah and M. B. Hastings, “Codes and Protocols for DistillingT, controlled-S, and Toffoli Gates”, Quantum 2, 71 (2018) arXiv:1709.02832 DOI
[478]
S. A. Aly, A. Klappenecker, and P. K. Sarvepalli, “Remarkable Degenerate Quantum Stabilizer Codes Derived from Duadic Codes”, (2006) arXiv:quant-ph/0601117
[479]
K. Guenda, “Two Families of Quantum Codes Derived from Cyclic Codes”, (2007) arXiv:0711.2050
[480]
K. GUENDA, “QUANTUM DUADIC AND AFFINE-INVARIANT CODES”, International Journal of Quantum Information 07, 373 (2009) DOI
[481]
R. Dastbasteh and P. Lisonek, “New quantum codes from self-dual codes over F_4”, (2022) arXiv:2211.00891
[482]
D. Zhang and T. Cubitt, “Quantum Error Transmutation”, (2023) arXiv:2310.10278
[483]
A. Leverrier, J.-P. Tillich, and G. Zemor, “Quantum Expander Codes”, 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science 810 (2015) arXiv:1504.00822 DOI
[484]
D. Aharonov and L. Eldar, “Quantum Locally Testable Codes”, (2013) arXiv:1310.5664
[485]
C. Nirkhe, U. Vazirani, and H. Yuen, “Approximate Low-Weight Check Codes and Circuit Lower Bounds for Noisy Ground States”, (2018) arXiv:1802.07419 DOI
[486]
E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and L. Viola, “Theory of Quantum Error Correction for General Noise”, Physical Review Letters 84, 2525 (2000) arXiv:quant-ph/9604034 DOI
[487]
N. J. Cerf and R. Cleve, “Information-theoretic interpretation of quantum error-correcting codes”, Physical Review A 56, 1721 (1997) arXiv:quant-ph/9702031 DOI
[488]
E. M. Rains, “Nonbinary quantum codes”, (1997) arXiv:quant-ph/9703048
[489]
C. Gidney, M. Newman, P. Brooks, and C. Jones, “Yoked surface codes”, (2023) arXiv:2312.04522
[490]
E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. Milburn, “Efficient Linear Optics Quantum Computation”, (2000) arXiv:quant-ph/0006088
[491]
T. C. Ralph, A. J. F. Hayes, and A. Gilchrist, “Loss-Tolerant Optical Qubits”, Physical Review Letters 95, (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0501184 DOI
[492]
J. M. Renes, F. Dupuis, and R. Renner, “Efficient Polar Coding of Quantum Information”, Physical Review Letters 109, (2012) arXiv:1109.3195 DOI
[493]
J. M. Renes and J.-C. Boileau, “Physical underpinnings of privacy”, Physical Review A 78, (2008) arXiv:0803.3096 DOI
[494]
M. M. Wilde and J. M. Renes, “Quantum polar codes for arbitrary channels”, 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory Proceedings (2012) arXiv:1201.2906 DOI
[495]
M. M. Wilde and S. Guha, “Polar Codes for Degradable Quantum Channels”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 59, 4718 (2013) arXiv:1109.5346 DOI
[496]
T. R. Scruby, A. Pesah, and M. Webster, “Quantum Rainbow Codes”, (2024) arXiv:2408.13130
[497]
A. Peres, “Reversible logic and quantum computers”, Physical Review A 32, 3266 (1985) DOI
[498]
M. Hagiwara, K. Kasai, H. Imai, and K. Sakaniwa, “Spatially Coupled Quasi-Cyclic Quantum LDPC Codes”, (2011) arXiv:1102.3181
[499]
S. Yang and R. Calderbank, “Spatially-Coupled QDLPC Codes”, (2023) arXiv:2305.00137
[500]
Y. Fujiwara, “Block synchronization for quantum information”, Physical Review A 87, (2013) arXiv:1206.0260 DOI
[501]
M. Grassl and M. Rotteler, “Quantum block and convolutional codes from self-orthogonal product codes”, Proceedings. International Symposium on Information Theory, 2005. ISIT 2005. (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0703181 DOI
[502]
J. Fan, Y. Li, M.-H. Hsieh, and H. Chen, “On Quantum Tensor Product Codes”, (2017) arXiv:1605.09598
[503]
H. Ollivier and J.-P. Tillich, “Trellises for stabilizer codes: Definition and uses”, Physical Review A 74, (2006) arXiv:quant-ph/0512041 DOI
[504]
D. Poulin, J.-P. Tillich, and H. Ollivier, “Quantum serial turbo-codes”, (2009) arXiv:0712.2888
[505]
M. Hagiwara and H. Imai, “Quantum Quasi-Cyclic LDPC Codes”, 2007 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory 806 (2007) arXiv:quant-ph/0701020 DOI
[506]
K. Kasai, M. Hagiwara, H. Imai, and K. Sakaniwa, “Quantum Error Correction Beyond the Bounded Distance Decoding Limit”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 58, 1223 (2012) arXiv:1007.1778 DOI
[507]
G. Zhu, S. Sikander, E. Portnoy, A. W. Cross, and B. J. Brown, “Non-Clifford and parallelizable fault-tolerant logical gates on constant and almost-constant rate homological quantum LDPC codes via higher symmetries”, (2024) arXiv:2310.16982
[508]
M. Grassl, Th. Beth, and T. Pellizzari, “Codes for the quantum erasure channel”, Physical Review A 56, 33 (1997) arXiv:quant-ph/9610042 DOI
[509]
A. M. Steane, “Enlargement of Calderbank Shor Steane quantum codes”, (1998) arXiv:quant-ph/9802061
[510]
M. Grassl and T. Beth, “Quantum BCH Codes”, (1999) arXiv:quant-ph/9910060
[511]
A. R. Calderbank, E. M. Rains, P. W. Shor, and N. J. A. Sloane, “Quantum Error Correction and Orthogonal Geometry”, Physical Review Letters 78, 405 (1997) arXiv:quant-ph/9605005 DOI
[512]
Y. Ouyang, “Permutation-invariant qudit codes from polynomials”, Linear Algebra and its Applications 532, 43 (2017) arXiv:1604.07925 DOI
[513]
I. H. Kim, “3D local qupit quantum code without string logical operator”, (2012) arXiv:1202.0052
[514]
J. Haah, Two generalizations of the cubic code model, KITP Conference: Frontiers of Quantum Information Physics, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA.
[515]
V. V. Albert, S. Pascazio, and M. H. Devoret, “General phase spaces: from discrete variables to rotor and continuum limits”, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 50, 504002 (2017) arXiv:1709.04460 DOI
[516]
D. Aharonov, “Quantum to classical phase transition in noisy quantum computers”, Physical Review A 62, (2000) arXiv:quant-ph/9910081 DOI
[517]
R. Raussendorf, S. Bravyi, and J. Harrington, “Long-range quantum entanglement in noisy cluster states”, Physical Review A 71, (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0407255 DOI
[518]
R. Raussendorf, J. Harrington, and K. Goyal, “A fault-tolerant one-way quantum computer”, Annals of Physics 321, 2242 (2006) arXiv:quant-ph/0510135 DOI
[519]
R. Raussendorf and J. Harrington, “Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation with High Threshold in Two Dimensions”, Physical Review Letters 98, (2007) arXiv:quant-ph/0610082 DOI
[520]
K. Furuya, N. Lashkari, and M. Moosa, “Renormalization group and approximate error correction”, Physical Review D 106, (2022) arXiv:2112.05099 DOI
[521]
T. Kuwahara, R. Nasu, G. Tanaka, and A. Tsuchiya, “Quantum Error Correction Realized by the Renormalization Group in Scalar Field Theories”, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2024, (2024) arXiv:2401.17795 DOI
[522]
H. Bombin and M. A. Martin-Delgado, “Optimal resources for topological two-dimensional stabilizer codes: Comparative study”, Physical Review A 76, (2007) arXiv:quant-ph/0703272 DOI
[523]
J. T. Anderson, “Homological Stabilizer Codes”, (2011) arXiv:1107.3502
[524]
Y. Tomita and K. M. Svore, “Low-distance surface codes under realistic quantum noise”, Physical Review A 90, (2014) arXiv:1404.3747 DOI
[525]
P. Raynal, A. Kalev, J. Suzuki, and B.-G. Englert, “Encoding many qubits in a rotor”, Physical Review A 81, (2010) arXiv:1003.1201 DOI
[526]
V. Chandrasekaran and A. Levine, “Quantum error correction in SYK and bulk emergence”, Journal of High Energy Physics 2022, (2022) arXiv:2203.05058 DOI
[527]
G. Bentsen, P. Nguyen, and B. Swingle, “Approximate Quantum Codes From Long Wormholes”, Quantum 8, 1439 (2024) arXiv:2310.07770 DOI
[528]
S. Sachdev and J. Ye, “Gapless spin-fluid ground state in a random quantum Heisenberg magnet”, Physical Review Letters 70, 3339 (1993) arXiv:cond-mat/9212030 DOI
[529]
Kitaev, Alexei. "A simple model of quantum holography (part 2)." Entanglement in Strongly-Correlated Quantum Matter (2015): 38.
[530]
J. Kim, X. Cao, and E. Altman, “Low-rank Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev models”, Physical Review B 101, (2020) arXiv:1910.10173 DOI
[531]
J. Kim, E. Altman, and X. Cao, “Dirac fast scramblers”, Physical Review B 103, (2021) arXiv:2010.10545 DOI
[532]
J. A. Smolin, G. Smith, and S. Wehner, “Simple Family of Nonadditive Quantum Codes”, Physical Review Letters 99, (2007) arXiv:quant-ph/0701065 DOI
[533]
R. Lang and P. W. Shor, “Nonadditive quantum error correcting codes adapted to the ampltitude damping channel”, (2007) arXiv:0712.2586
[534]
O. Landon-Cardinal, B. Yoshida, D. Poulin, and J. Preskill, “Perturbative instability of quantum memory based on effective long-range interactions”, Physical Review A 91, (2015) arXiv:1501.04112 DOI
[535]
C. Castelnovo and C. Chamon, “Topological quantum glassiness”, Philosophical Magazine 92, 304 (2012) arXiv:1108.2051 DOI
[536]
H.-W. Lee and J. Kim, “Quantum teleportation and Bell’s inequality using single-particle entanglement”, Physical Review A 63, (2000) arXiv:quant-ph/0007106 DOI
[537]
A. P. Lund and T. C. Ralph, “Nondeterministic gates for photonic single-rail quantum logic”, Physical Review A 66, (2002) arXiv:quant-ph/0205044 DOI
[538]
H. Bombín, “Single-Shot Fault-Tolerant Quantum Error Correction”, Physical Review X 5, (2015) arXiv:1404.5504 DOI
[539]
E. T. Campbell, “A theory of single-shot error correction for adversarial noise”, Quantum Science and Technology 4, 025006 (2019) arXiv:1805.09271 DOI
[540]
D. Leung and G. Smith, “Communicating over adversarial quantum channels using quantum list codes”, (2007) arXiv:quant-ph/0605086
[541]
M. Özen, N. Tuğba Özzaim, and H. İnce, “Skew quasi cyclic codes over 𝔽q + v𝔽q”, Journal of Algebra and Its Applications 18, 1950077 (2019) DOI
[542]
H. Q. Dinh, T. Bag, A. K. Upadhyay, R. Bandi, and R. Tansuchat, “A class of skew cyclic codes and application in quantum codes construction”, Discrete Mathematics 344, 112189 (2021) DOI
[543]
M. Ashraf and G. Mohammad, “Quantum codes over Fp from cyclic codes over Fp[u, v]/〈u2 − 1, v3 − v, uv − vu〉”, Cryptography and Communications 11, 325 (2018) DOI
[544]
K. Feng and C. Xing, “A new construction of quantum error-correcting codes”, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 360, 2007 (2007) DOI
[545]
S. Yu, Q. Chen, and C. H. Oh, “Graphical Quantum Error-Correcting Codes”, (2007) arXiv:0709.1780
[546]
D. Bacon, S. T. Flammia, A. W. Harrow, and J. Shi, “Sparse Quantum Codes From Quantum Circuits”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 63, 2464 (2017) arXiv:1411.3334 DOI
[547]
D. Gottesman, “Opportunities and Challenges in Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation”, (2022) arXiv:2210.15844
[548]
N. Delfosse and A. Paetznick, “Spacetime codes of Clifford circuits”, (2023) arXiv:2304.05943
[549]
S. Omanakuttan and T. J. Volkoff, “Spin-squeezed Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill codes for quantum error correction in atomic ensembles”, Physical Review A 108, (2023) arXiv:2211.05181 DOI
[550]
T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, “Field Dependence of the Intrinsic Domain Magnetization of a Ferromagnet”, Physical Review 58, 1098 (1940) DOI
[551]
C. D. Cushen and R. L. Hudson, “A quantum-mechanical central limit theorem”, Journal of Applied Probability 8, 454 (1971) DOI
[552]
W. Qin, A. Miranowicz, H. Jing, and F. Nori, “Generating Long-Lived Macroscopically Distinct Superposition States in Atomic Ensembles”, Physical Review Letters 127, (2021) arXiv:2101.03662 DOI
[553]
S. Omanakuttan, V. Buchemmavari, J. A. Gross, I. H. Deutsch, and M. Marvian, “Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation Using Large Spin-Cat Codes”, PRX Quantum 5, (2024) arXiv:2401.04271 DOI
[554]
D. S. Schlegel, F. Minganti, and V. Savona, “Quantum error correction using squeezed Schrödinger cat states”, Physical Review A 106, (2022) arXiv:2201.02570 DOI
[555]
Q. Xu, G. Zheng, Y.-X. Wang, P. Zoller, A. A. Clerk, and L. Jiang, “Autonomous quantum error correction and fault-tolerant quantum computation with squeezed cat qubits”, (2022) arXiv:2210.13406
[556]
T. Hillmann and F. Quijandría, “Quantum error correction with dissipatively stabilized squeezed-cat qubits”, Physical Review A 107, (2023) arXiv:2210.13359 DOI
[557]
S. B. Korolev, E. N. Bashmakova, and T. Yu. Golubeva, “Error Correction Using Squeezed Fock States”, (2023) arXiv:2312.16000
[558]
M. S. Kesselring, F. Pastawski, J. Eisert, and B. J. Brown, “The boundaries and twist defects of the color code and their applications to topological quantum computation”, Quantum 2, 101 (2018) arXiv:1806.02820 DOI
[559]
S.-M. Hong, “On symmetrization of 6j-symbols and Levin-Wen Hamiltonian”, (2009) arXiv:0907.2204
[560]
A. Hahn and R. Wolf, “Generalized string-net model for unitary fusion categories without tetrahedral symmetry”, Physical Review B 102, (2020) arXiv:2004.07045 DOI
[561]
C. Jones, P. Naaijkens, D. Penneys, and D. Wallick, “Local topological order and boundary algebras”, (2023) arXiv:2307.12552
[562]
A. Klappenecker and P. K. Sarvepalli, “Clifford Code Constructions of Operator Quantum Error Correcting Codes”, (2006) arXiv:quant-ph/0604161
[563]
S. A. Aly, A. Klappenecker, and P. K. Sarvepalli, “Subsystem Codes”, (2006) arXiv:quant-ph/0610153
[564]
S. A. Aly and A. Klappenecker, “Constructions of Subsystem Codes over Finite Fields”, (2008) arXiv:0811.1570
[565]
D. Kribs, R. Laflamme, and D. Poulin, “Unified and Generalized Approach to Quantum Error Correction”, Physical Review Letters 94, (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0412076 DOI
[566]
D. W. Kribs, R. Laflamme, D. Poulin, and M. Lesosky, “Operator quantum error correction”, (2006) arXiv:quant-ph/0504189
[567]
W. Zeng and L. P. Pryadko, “Minimal distances for certain quantum product codes and tensor products of chain complexes”, Physical Review A 102, (2020) arXiv:2007.12152 DOI
[568]
O. Higgott and N. P. Breuckmann, “Subsystem Codes with High Thresholds by Gauge Fixing and Reduced Qubit Overhead”, Physical Review X 11, (2021) arXiv:2010.09626 DOI
[569]
M. Li and T. J. Yoder, “A Numerical Study of Bravyi-Bacon-Shor and Subsystem Hypergraph Product Codes”, (2020) arXiv:2002.06257
[570]
O. Novak and N. Rengaswamy, “GNarsil: Splitting Stabilizers into Gauges”, (2024) arXiv:2404.18302
[571]
D. Poulin, “Stabilizer Formalism for Operator Quantum Error Correction”, Physical Review Letters 95, (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0508131 DOI
[572]
N. C. Brown, M. Newman, and K. R. Brown, “Handling leakage with subsystem codes”, New Journal of Physics 21, 073055 (2019) arXiv:1903.03937 DOI
[573]
S. Bravyi, G. Duclos-Cianci, D. Poulin, and M. Suchara, “Subsystem surface codes with three-qubit check operators”, (2013) arXiv:1207.1443
[574]
R. J. Harris, E. Coupe, N. A. McMahon, G. K. Brennen, and T. M. Stace, “Decoding holographic codes with an integer optimization decoder”, Physical Review A 102, (2020) arXiv:2008.10206 DOI
[575]
S. Roberts and S. D. Bartlett, “Symmetry-Protected Self-Correcting Quantum Memories”, Physical Review X 10, (2020) arXiv:1805.01474 DOI
[576]
Z.-C. Gu and X.-G. Wen, “Tensor-entanglement-filtering renormalization approach and symmetry-protected topological order”, Physical Review B 80, (2009) arXiv:0903.1069 DOI
[577]
F. Pollmann, E. Berg, A. M. Turner, and M. Oshikawa, “Symmetry protection of topological phases in one-dimensional quantum spin systems”, Physical Review B 85, (2012) arXiv:0909.4059 DOI
[578]
C. Cao and B. Lackey, “Quantum Lego: Building Quantum Error Correction Codes from Tensor Networks”, PRX Quantum 3, (2022) arXiv:2109.08158 DOI
[579]
T. Farrelly, D. K. Tuckett, and T. M. Stace, “Local tensor-network codes”, New Journal of Physics 24, 043015 (2022) arXiv:2109.11996 DOI
[580]
C. Cao, M. J. Gullans, B. Lackey, and Z. Wang, “Quantum Lego Expansion Pack: Enumerators from Tensor Networks”, (2024) arXiv:2308.05152
[581]
T. Kaufman and R. J. Tessler, “New Cosystolic Expanders from Tensors Imply Explicit Quantum LDPC Codes with \(Ω(\sqrt{n}\log^kn)\) Distance”, (2020) arXiv:2008.09495
[582]
Z. Jiang, A. Kalev, W. Mruczkiewicz, and H. Neven, “Optimal fermion-to-qubit mapping via ternary trees with applications to reduced quantum states learning”, Quantum 4, 276 (2020) arXiv:1910.10746 DOI
[583]
A. Kubica and M. E. Beverland, “Universal transversal gates with color codes: A simplified approach”, Physical Review A 91, (2015) arXiv:1410.0069 DOI
[584]
A. Kubica, M. E. Beverland, F. Brandão, J. Preskill, and K. M. Svore, “Three-Dimensional Color Code Thresholds via Statistical-Mechanical Mapping”, Physical Review Letters 120, (2018) arXiv:1708.07131 DOI
[585]
F. J. Burnell, X. Chen, L. Fidkowski, and A. Vishwanath, “Exactly soluble model of a three-dimensional symmetry-protected topological phase of bosons with surface topological order”, Physical Review B 90, (2014) arXiv:1302.7072 DOI
[586]
S. Roberts and D. J. Williamson, “3-Fermion Topological Quantum Computation”, PRX Quantum 5, (2024) arXiv:2011.04693 DOI
[587]
H. Bombin, M. Kargarian, and M. A. Martin-Delgado, “Interacting anyonic fermions in a two-body color code model”, Physical Review B 80, (2009) arXiv:0811.0911 DOI
[588]
E. Rowell, R. Stong, and Z. Wang, “On classification of modular tensor categories”, (2009) arXiv:0712.1377
[589]
H. Bombin, G. Duclos-Cianci, and D. Poulin, “Universal topological phase of two-dimensional stabilizer codes”, New Journal of Physics 14, 073048 (2012) arXiv:1103.4606 DOI
[590]
R. Cleve, D. Gottesman, and H.-K. Lo, “How to Share a Quantum Secret”, Physical Review Letters 83, 648 (1999) arXiv:quant-ph/9901025 DOI
[591]
Y. Xu, Y. Wang, C. Vuillot, and V. V. Albert, “Letting the tiger out of its cage: bosonic coding without concatenation”, (2024) arXiv:2411.09668
[592]
Y. Hong, J. T. Young, A. M. Kaufman, and A. Lucas, “Quantum error correction in a time-dependent transverse-field Ising model”, Physical Review A 106, (2022) arXiv:2205.12998 DOI
[593]
M. Marvian and S. Lloyd, “Robust universal Hamiltonian quantum computing using two-body interactions”, (2019) arXiv:1911.01354
[594]
P. Singkanipa, Z. Xia, and D. A. Lidar, “Families of \(d=2\) 2D subsystem stabilizer codes for universal Hamiltonian quantum computation with two-body interactions”, (2024) arXiv:2412.06744
[595]
M. Varnava, D. E. Browne, and T. Rudolph, “Loss Tolerance in One-Way Quantum Computation via Counterfactual Error Correction”, Physical Review Letters 97, (2006) arXiv:quant-ph/0507036 DOI
[596]
K. Azuma, K. Tamaki, and H.-K. Lo, “All-photonic quantum repeaters”, Nature Communications 6, (2015) arXiv:1309.7207 DOI
[597]
M. Pant, H. Krovi, D. Englund, and S. Guha, “Rate-distance tradeoff and resource costs for all-optical quantum repeaters”, Physical Review A 95, (2017) arXiv:1603.01353 DOI
[598]
T. J. Yoder and I. H. Kim, “The surface code with a twist”, Quantum 1, 2 (2017) arXiv:1612.04795 DOI
[599]
S. Bravyi and J. Haah, “Magic-state distillation with low overhead”, Physical Review A 86, (2012) arXiv:1209.2426 DOI
[600]
A. J. Landahl, J. T. Anderson, and P. R. Rice, “Fault-tolerant quantum computing with color codes”, (2011) arXiv:1108.5738
[601]
H. Bombin, “Topological Order with a Twist: Ising Anyons from an Abelian Model”, Physical Review Letters 105, (2010) arXiv:1004.1838 DOI
[602]
H. Bombin, “Clifford gates by code deformation”, New Journal of Physics 13, 043005 (2011) arXiv:1006.5260 DOI
[603]
J. C. Y. Teo, A. Roy, and X. Chen, “Unconventional fusion and braiding of topological defects in a lattice model”, Physical Review B 90, (2014) arXiv:1306.1538 DOI
[604]
M. B. Hastings and A. Geller, “Reduced Space-Time and Time Costs Using Dislocation Codes and Arbitrary Ancillas”, (2015) arXiv:1408.3379
[605]
R. Sarkar and T. J. Yoder, “A graph-based formalism for surface codes and twists”, Quantum 8, 1416 (2024) arXiv:2101.09349 DOI
[606]
H. Bombín, C. Dawson, R. V. Mishmash, N. Nickerson, F. Pastawski, and S. Roberts, “Logical Blocks for Fault-Tolerant Topological Quantum Computation”, PRX Quantum 4, (2023) arXiv:2112.12160 DOI
[607]
S. Burton, E. Durso-Sabina, and N. C. Brown, “Genons, Double Covers and Fault-tolerant Clifford Gates”, (2024) arXiv:2406.09951
[608]
A. A. Kovalev, I. Dumer, and L. P. Pryadko, “Design of additive quantum codes via the code-word-stabilized framework”, Physical Review A 84, (2011) arXiv:1108.5490 DOI
[609]
A. Robertson, C. Granade, S. D. Bartlett, and S. T. Flammia, “Tailored Codes for Small Quantum Memories”, Physical Review Applied 8, (2017) arXiv:1703.08179 DOI
[610]
Q. Xu, N. Mannucci, A. Seif, A. Kubica, S. T. Flammia, and L. Jiang, “Tailored XZZX codes for biased noise”, (2022) arXiv:2203.16486
[611]
E. Kubischta and I. Teixeira, “Quantum Codes from Twisted Unitary t -Groups”, Physical Review Letters 133, (2024) arXiv:2402.01638 DOI
[612]
E. Kubischta and I. Teixeira, “Quantum Codes and Irreducible Products of Characters”, (2024) arXiv:2403.08999
[613]
R. Dijkgraaf, V. Pasquier, and P. Roche, “Quasi hope algebras, group cohomology and orbifold models”, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 18, 60 (1991) DOI
[614]
D. Naidu and D. Nikshych, “Lagrangian Subcategories and Braided Tensor Equivalences of Twisted Quantum Doubles of Finite Groups”, Communications in Mathematical Physics 279, 845 (2008) arXiv:0705.0665 DOI
[615]
M. B. Hastings, LR codes, private communication, 2014.
[616]
R. Wang, H.-K. Lin, and L. P. Pryadko, “Abelian and non-abelian quantum two-block codes”, (2023) arXiv:2305.06890
[617]
H.-K. Lin and L. P. Pryadko, “Quantum two-block group algebra codes”, (2023) arXiv:2306.16400
[618]
P. T. Cochrane, G. J. Milburn, and W. J. Munro, “Macroscopically distinct quantum-superposition states as a bosonic code for amplitude damping”, Physical Review A 59, 2631 (1999) arXiv:quant-ph/9809037 DOI
[619]
A. Kapustin and R. Thorngren, “Higher symmetry and gapped phases of gauge theories”, (2015) arXiv:1309.4721
[620]
J. C. Baez and A. D. Lauda, “Higher-Dimensional Algebra V: 2-Groups”, (2004) arXiv:math/0307200
[621]
H. Pfeiffer, “Higher gauge theory and a non-Abelian generalization of 2-form electrodynamics”, Annals of Physics 308, 447 (2003) arXiv:hep-th/0304074 DOI
[622]
J. Baez and U. Schreiber, “Higher Gauge Theory: 2-Connections on 2-Bundles”, (2004) arXiv:hep-th/0412325
[623]
J. C. Baez and U. Schreiber, “Higher Gauge Theory”, (2006) arXiv:math/0511710
[624]
S.-J. Rey and F. Sugino, “A Nonperturbative Proposal for Nonabelian Tensor Gauge Theory and Dynamical Quantum Yang-Baxter Maps”, (2010) arXiv:1002.4636
[625]
J. C. Baez and J. Huerta, “An invitation to higher gauge theory”, General Relativity and Gravitation 43, 2335 (2010) arXiv:1003.4485 DOI
[626]
S. Gukov and A. Kapustin, “Topological Quantum Field Theory, Nonlocal Operators, and Gapped Phases of Gauge Theories”, (2013) arXiv:1307.4793
[627]
A. E. Lipstein and R. A. Reid-Edwards, “Lattice gerbe theory”, Journal of High Energy Physics 2014, (2014) arXiv:1404.2634 DOI
[628]
A. Kapustin and R. Thorngren, “Topological Field Theory on a Lattice, Discrete Theta-Angles and Confinement”, (2013) arXiv:1308.2926
[629]
A. Bullivant, M. Calçada, Z. Kádár, J. F. Martins, and P. Martin, “Higher lattices, discrete two-dimensional holonomy and topological phases in (3 + 1)D with higher gauge symmetry”, Reviews in Mathematical Physics 32, 2050011 (2019) arXiv:1702.00868 DOI
[630]
A. Bullivant, M. Calçada, Z. Kádár, P. Martin, and J. F. Martins, “Topological phases from higher gauge symmetry in3+1dimensions”, Physical Review B 95, (2017) arXiv:1606.06639 DOI
[631]
C. Delcamp and A. Tiwari, “From gauge to higher gauge models of topological phases”, Journal of High Energy Physics 2018, (2018) arXiv:1802.10104 DOI
[632]
C. Delcamp and A. Tiwari, “On 2-form gauge models of topological phases”, Journal of High Energy Physics 2019, (2019) arXiv:1901.02249 DOI
[633]
Z. Wan, J. Wang, and Y. Zheng, “Quantum 4d Yang-Mills theory and time-reversal symmetric 5d higher-gauge topological field theory”, Physical Review D 100, (2019) arXiv:1904.00994 DOI
[634]
D. N. YETTER, “TQFT’S FROM HOMOTOPY 2-TYPES”, Journal of Knot Theory and Its Ramifications 02, 113 (1993) DOI
[635]
T. Porter, “Topological Quantum Field Theories from Homotopy n -Types”, Journal of the London Mathematical Society 58, 723 (1998) DOI
[636]
T. PORTER, “INTERPRETATIONS OF YETTER’S NOTION OF G-COLORING: SIMPLICIAL FIBRE BUNDLES AND NON-ABELIAN COHOMOLOGY”, Journal of Knot Theory and Its Ramifications 05, 687 (1996) DOI
[637]
M. Mackaay, “Finite groups, spherical 2-categories, and 4-manifold invariants”, (1999) arXiv:math/9903003
[638]
H. G. Katzgraber, H. Bombin, R. S. Andrist, and M. A. Martin-Delgado, “Topological color codes on Union Jack lattices: a stable implementation of the whole Clifford group”, Physical Review A 81, (2010) arXiv:0910.0573 DOI
[639]
D.-S. Wang, G. Zhu, C. Okay, and R. Laflamme, “Quasi-exact quantum computation”, Physical Review Research 2, (2020) arXiv:1910.00038 DOI
[640]
D.-S. Wang, Y.-J. Wang, N. Cao, B. Zeng, and R. Laflamme, “Theory of quasi-exact fault-tolerant quantum computing and valence-bond-solid codes”, New Journal of Physics 24, 023019 (2022) arXiv:2105.14777 DOI
[641]
I. Affleck, T. Kennedy, E. H. Lieb, and H. Tasaki, “Rigorous Results on Valence-Bond Ground States in Antiferromagnets”, Condensed Matter Physics and Exactly Soluble Models 249 (2004) DOI
[642]
E. Kapit, “Hardware-Efficient and Fully Autonomous Quantum Error Correction in Superconducting Circuits”, Physical Review Letters 116, (2016) arXiv:1510.06117 DOI
[643]
Z. Li, T. Roy, D. R. Perez, K.-H. Lee, E. Kapit, and D. I. Schuster, “Autonomous error correction of a single logical qubit using two transmons”, (2023) arXiv:2302.06707
[644]
W. Dür, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, “Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways”, Physical Review A 62, (2000) arXiv:quant-ph/0005115 DOI
[645]
L. Crane and D. N. Yetter, “A categorical construction of 4D TQFTs”, (1993) arXiv:hep-th/9301062
[646]
L. Crane, L. H. Kauffman, and D. N. Yetter, “Evaluating the Crane-Yetter Invariant”, (1993) arXiv:hep-th/9309063
[647]
L. Crane, L. H. Kauffman, and D. N. Yetter, “State-Sum Invariants of 4-Manifolds I”, (1994) arXiv:hep-th/9409167
[648]
W. Wasilewski and K. Banaszek, “Protecting an optical qubit against photon loss”, Physical Review A 75, (2007) arXiv:quant-ph/0702075 DOI
[649]
Z. Zhang, D. Aasen, and S. Vijay, “The X-Cube Floquet Code”, (2022) arXiv:2211.05784
[650]
S. Vijay, J. Haah, and L. Fu, “Fracton topological order, generalized lattice gauge theory, and duality”, Physical Review B 94, (2016) arXiv:1603.04442 DOI
[651]
H. Ma, E. Lake, X. Chen, and M. Hermele, “Fracton topological order via coupled layers”, Physical Review B 95, (2017) arXiv:1701.00747 DOI
[652]
W. Shirley, K. Slagle, and X. Chen, “Fractional excitations in foliated fracton phases”, Annals of Physics 410, 167922 (2019) arXiv:1806.08625 DOI
[653]
T. Rakovszky and V. Khemani, “The Physics of (good) LDPC Codes II. Product constructions”, (2024) arXiv:2402.16831
[654]
M. A. Webster, B. J. Brown, and S. D. Bartlett, “The XP Stabiliser Formalism: a Generalisation of the Pauli Stabiliser Formalism with Arbitrary Phases”, Quantum 6, 815 (2022) arXiv:2203.00103 DOI
[655]
X. Ni, O. Buerschaper, and M. Van den Nest, “A non-commuting stabilizer formalism”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 56, (2015) arXiv:1404.5327 DOI
[656]
D. K. Tuckett, S. D. Bartlett, and S. T. Flammia, “Ultrahigh Error Threshold for Surface Codes with Biased Noise”, Physical Review Letters 120, (2018) arXiv:1708.08474 DOI
[657]
J. F. S. Miguel, D. J. Williamson, and B. J. Brown, “A cellular automaton decoder for a noise-bias tailored color code”, Quantum 7, 940 (2023) arXiv:2203.16534 DOI
[658]
K. Tiurev, A. Pesah, P.-J. H. S. Derks, J. Roffe, J. Eisert, M. S. Kesselring, and J.-M. Reiner, “Domain Wall Color Code”, Physical Review Letters 133, (2024) arXiv:2307.00054 DOI
[659]
Maurice, Denise. Codes correcteurs quantiques pouvant se décoder itérativement. Diss. Université Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris VI, 2014.
[660]
A. Leverrier, S. Apers, and C. Vuillot, “Quantum XYZ Product Codes”, Quantum 6, 766 (2022) arXiv:2011.09746 DOI
[661]
Z. Liang, Z. Yi, F. Yang, J. Chen, Z. Wang, and X. Wang, “High-dimensional quantum XYZ product codes for biased noise”, (2024) arXiv:2408.03123
[662]
J. C. M. de la Fuente, J. Old, A. Townsend-Teague, M. Rispler, J. Eisert, and M. Müller, “The XYZ ruby code: Making a case for a three-colored graphical calculus for quantum error correction in spacetime”, (2024) arXiv:2407.08566
[663]
A. Dua, N. Tantivasadakarn, J. Sullivan, and T. D. Ellison, “Engineering 3D Floquet Codes by Rewinding”, PRX Quantum 5, (2024) arXiv:2307.13668 DOI
[664]
J. R. Wootton, “Hexagonal matching codes with two-body measurements”, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 55, 295302 (2022) arXiv:2109.13308 DOI
[665]
B. Srivastava, A. Frisk Kockum, and M. Granath, “The XYZ2 hexagonal stabilizer code”, Quantum 6, 698 (2022) arXiv:2112.06036 DOI
[666]
X.-G. Wen, “Quantum Orders in an Exact Soluble Model”, Physical Review Letters 90, (2003) arXiv:quant-ph/0205004 DOI
[667]
B. M. Terhal, F. Hassler, and D. P. DiVincenzo, “From Majorana fermions to topological order”, Physical Review Letters 108, (2012) arXiv:1201.3757 DOI
[668]
J. P. Bonilla Ataides, D. K. Tuckett, S. D. Bartlett, S. T. Flammia, and B. J. Brown, “The XZZX surface code”, Nature Communications 12, (2021) arXiv:2009.07851 DOI
[669]
P. Brooks, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, “Protected gates for superconducting qubits”, Physical Review A 87, (2013) arXiv:1302.4122 DOI
[670]
J. M. Dempster, B. Fu, D. G. Ferguson, D. I. Schuster, and J. Koch, “Understanding degenerate ground states of a protected quantum circuit in the presence of disorder”, Physical Review B 90, (2014) arXiv:1402.7310 DOI
[671]
M. Grassl and M. Rotteler, “Quantum Goethals-Preparata codes”, 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (2008) arXiv:0801.2150 DOI
[672]
S. A. Rather, A. Burchardt, W. Bruzda, G. Rajchel-Mieldzioć, A. Lakshminarayan, and K. Życzkowski, “Thirty-six Entangled Officers of Euler: Quantum Solution to a Classically Impossible Problem”, Physical Review Letters 128, (2022) arXiv:2104.05122 DOI
[673]
A. Rigby, J. C. Olivier, and P. Jarvis, “Heuristic construction of codeword stabilized codes”, Physical Review A 100, (2019) arXiv:1907.04537 DOI
[674]
S. Yu, Q. Chen, C. H. Lai, and C. H. Oh, “Nonadditive Quantum Error-Correcting Code”, Physical Review Letters 101, (2008) arXiv:0704.2122 DOI
[675]
M. B. Ruskai, “Pauli Exchange Errors in Quantum Computation”, Physical Review Letters 85, 194 (2000) arXiv:quant-ph/9906114 DOI
[676]
S. Bravyi, D. Lee, Z. Li, and B. Yoshida, “How much entanglement is needed for quantum error correction?”, (2024) arXiv:2405.01332
[677]
G. Gour and N. R. Wallach, “Entanglement of subspaces and error-correcting codes”, Physical Review A 76, (2007) arXiv:0704.0251 DOI
[678]
T. Jochym-O’Connor and T. J. Yoder, “Four-dimensional toric code with non-Clifford transversal gates”, Physical Review Research 3, (2021) arXiv:2010.02238 DOI
[679]
B. Royer, S. Singh, and S. M. Girvin, “Encoding Qubits in Multimode Grid States”, PRX Quantum 3, (2022) arXiv:2201.12337 DOI
[680]
D. J. Williamson and Z. Wang, “Hamiltonian models for topological phases of matter in three spatial dimensions”, Annals of Physics 377, 311 (2017) arXiv:1606.07144 DOI
[681]
M. Barkeshli, P. Bonderson, M. Cheng, and Z. Wang, “Symmetry fractionalization, defects, and gauging of topological phases”, Physical Review B 100, (2019) arXiv:1410.4540 DOI
[682]
S. X. Cui, “Four dimensional topological quantum field theories from \(G\)-crossed braided categories”, Quantum Topology 10, 593 (2019) arXiv:1610.07628 DOI
[683]
R. Kashaev, “A simple model of 4d-TQFT”, (2014) arXiv:1405.5763
[684]
R. Kashaev, “On realizations of Pachner moves in 4D”, (2015) arXiv:1504.01979
[685]
D. Bulmash and M. Barkeshli, “Absolute anomalies in (2+1)D symmetry-enriched topological states and exact (3+1)D constructions”, Physical Review Research 2, (2020) arXiv:2003.11553 DOI
[686]
X. Herbert, J. Gross, and M. Newman, “Qutrit codes within representations of SU(3)”, (2023) arXiv:2312.00162
[687]
M. P. Woods and Á. M. Alhambra, “Continuous groups of transversal gates for quantum error correcting codes from finite clock reference frames”, Quantum 4, 245 (2020) arXiv:1902.07725 DOI
[688]
Y. Yang, Y. Mo, J. M. Renes, G. Chiribella, and M. P. Woods, “Optimal universal quantum error correction via bounded reference frames”, Physical Review Research 4, (2022) arXiv:2007.09154 DOI
[689]
S. Prakash, “Magic state distillation with the ternary Golay code”, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 476, (2020) arXiv:2003.02717 DOI
[690]
A. Paetznick et al., “Demonstration of logical qubits and repeated error correction with better-than-physical error rates”, (2024) arXiv:2404.02280
[691]
A. J. Landahl, “The surface code on the rhombic dodecahedron”, (2020) arXiv:2010.06628
[692]
Z. Liang, B. Yang, J. T. Iosue, and Y.-A. Chen, “Operator algebra and algorithmic construction of boundaries and defects in (2+1)D topological Pauli stabilizer codes”, (2024) arXiv:2410.11942
[693]
Jim Harrington and Ben W. Reichardt, “Addressable multi-qubit logic via permutations,” Talk at Southwest Quantum Information and Technology (SQuInT) (2011).
[694]
E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. Zurek, “Threshold Accuracy for Quantum Computation”, (1996) arXiv:quant-ph/9610011
[695]
S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, “Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas”, Physical Review A 71, (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0403025 DOI
[696]
J. Z. Lu, A. B. Khesin, and P. W. Shor, “Universal graph representation of stabilizer codes”, (2024) arXiv:2411.14448
[697]
N. Delfosse and B. W. Reichardt, “Short Shor-style syndrome sequences”, (2020) arXiv:2008.05051
[698]
P. Prabhu and B. W. Reichardt, “Distance-four quantum codes with combined postselection and error correction”, Physical Review A 110, (2024) arXiv:2112.03785 DOI
[699]
B. W. Reichardt et al., “Demonstration of quantum computation and error correction with a tesseract code”, (2024) arXiv:2409.04628
[700]
A. Kubica, B. Yoshida, and F. Pastawski, “Unfolding the color code”, New Journal of Physics 17, 083026 (2015) arXiv:1503.02065 DOI
[701]
E. Campbell, “The smallest interesting colour code,” Online available at https://earltcampbell.com/2016/09/26/the-smallest-interesting-colour-code/ (2016), accessed on 2019-12-09.
[702]
D. Hangleiter, M. Kalinowski, D. Bluvstein, M. Cain, N. Maskara, X. Gao, A. Kubica, M. D. Lukin, and M. J. Gullans, “Fault-tolerant compiling of classically hard IQP circuits on hypercubes”, (2024) arXiv:2404.19005
[703]
D. Gottesman, “Class of quantum error-correcting codes saturating the quantum Hamming bound”, Physical Review A 54, 1862 (1996) arXiv:quant-ph/9604038 DOI
[704]
A. J. Moorthy and L. G. Gunderman, “Local-dimension-invariant Calderbank-Shor-Steane Codes with an Improved Distance Promise”, (2021) arXiv:2110.11510
[705]
D. Gottesman and I. L. Chuang, “Demonstrating the viability of universal quantum computation using teleportation and single-qubit operations”, Nature 402, 390 (1999) arXiv:quant-ph/9908010 DOI
[706]
B. Zeng, H. Chung, A. W. Cross, and I. L. Chuang, “Local unitary versus local Clifford equivalence of stabilizer and graph states”, Physical Review A 75, (2007) arXiv:quant-ph/0611214 DOI
[707]
S. X. Cui, D. Gottesman, and A. Krishna, “Diagonal gates in the Clifford hierarchy”, Physical Review A 95, (2017) arXiv:1608.06596 DOI
[708]
B. J. Brown, N. H. Nickerson, and D. E. Browne, “Fault-tolerant error correction with the gauge color code”, Nature Communications 7, (2016) arXiv:1503.08217 DOI
[709]
J. Preskill. Lecture notes on Quantum Computation. (1997–2020) URL
[710]
D. Gottesman, “Theory of fault-tolerant quantum computation”, Physical Review A 57, 127 (1998) arXiv:quant-ph/9702029 DOI
[711]
L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, “Dynamical Decoupling of Open Quantum Systems”, Physical Review Letters 82, 2417 (1999) arXiv:quant-ph/9809071 DOI
[712]
N. Rengaswamy, R. Calderbank, H. D. Pfister, and S. Kadhe, “Synthesis of Logical Clifford Operators via Symplectic Geometry”, 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) (2018) arXiv:1803.06987 DOI
[713]
J. Conrad, C. Chamberland, N. P. Breuckmann, and B. M. Terhal, “The small stellated dodecahedron code and friends”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 376, 20170323 (2018) arXiv:1712.07666 DOI
[714]
L. Vaidman, L. Goldenberg, and S. Wiesner, “Error prevention scheme with four particles”, Physical Review A 54, R1745 (1996) arXiv:quant-ph/9603031 DOI
[715]
K. Betsumiya and A. Munemasa, “On triply even binary codes”, Journal of the London Mathematical Society 86, 1 (2012) DOI
[716]
H. F. Chau, “Five quantum register error correction code for higher spin systems”, Physical Review A 56, R1 (1997) arXiv:quant-ph/9702033 DOI
[717]
B. Shaw, M. M. Wilde, O. Oreshkov, I. Kremsky, and D. A. Lidar, “Encoding one logical qubit into six physical qubits”, Physical Review A 78, (2008) arXiv:0803.1495 DOI
[718]
E. Knill, “Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices”, Nature 434, 39 (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0410199 DOI
[719]
Z. Jiang and E. G. Rieffel, “Non-commuting two-local Hamiltonians for quantum error suppression”, Quantum Information Processing 16, (2017) arXiv:1511.01997 DOI
[720]
Keqin Feng, “Quantum codes [[6, 2, 3]]/sub p/ and [[7, 3, 3]]/sub p/ (p ≥ 3) exist”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 48, 2384 (2002) DOI
[721]
Z. Wang, S. Yu, H. Fan, and C. H. Oh, “Quantum error-correcting codes over mixed alphabets”, Physical Review A 88, (2013) arXiv:1205.4253 DOI
[722]
E. Knill, “Fault-Tolerant Postselected Quantum Computation: Schemes”, (2004) arXiv:quant-ph/0402171
[723]
E. Knill, “Fault-Tolerant Postselected Quantum Computation: Threshold Analysis”, (2004) arXiv:quant-ph/0404104
[724]
H. Goto, “High-performance fault-tolerant quantum computing with many-hypercube codes”, Science Advances 10, (2024) arXiv:2403.16054 DOI
[725]
A. Ganti, U. Onunkwo, and K. Young, “Family of[[6k,2k,2]]codes for practical and scalable adiabatic quantum computation”, Physical Review A 89, (2014) arXiv:1309.1674 DOI
[726]
“Multiple-particle interference and quantum error correction”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 452, 2551 (1996) DOI
[727]
M. Li, M. Gutiérrez, S. E. David, A. Hernandez, and K. R. Brown, “Fault tolerance with bare ancillary qubits for a [[7,1,3]] code”, Physical Review A 96, (2017) arXiv:1702.01155 DOI
[728]
H. F. Chau, “Correcting quantum errors in higher spin systems”, Physical Review A 55, R839 (1997) arXiv:quant-ph/9610023 DOI
[729]
M. Grassl and M. Rotteler, “Quantum MDS codes over small fields”, 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) 1104 (2015) arXiv:1502.05267 DOI
[730]
C. Jones, “Multilevel distillation of magic states for quantum computing”, Physical Review A 87, (2013) arXiv:1210.3388 DOI
[731]
M. Y. Niu, I. L. Chuang, and J. H. Shapiro, “Hardware-efficient bosonic quantum error-correcting codes based on symmetry operators”, Physical Review A 97, (2018) arXiv:1709.05302 DOI
[732]
M. Barkeshli, H.-C. Jiang, R. Thomale, and X.-L. Qi, “Generalized Kitaev Models and Extrinsic Non-Abelian Twist Defects”, Physical Review Letters 114, (2015) arXiv:1405.1780 DOI
[733]
P. H. Bonderson, Non-Abelian Anyons and Interferometry, California Institute of Technology, 2007 DOI
[734]
S. Koutsioumpas, D. Banfield, and A. Kay, “The Smallest Code with Transversal T”, (2022) arXiv:2210.14066
[735]
S. P. Jain, E. R. Hudson, W. C. Campbell, and V. V. Albert, “Absorption-Emission Codes for Atomic and Molecular Quantum Information Platforms”, Physical Review Letters 133, (2024) arXiv:2311.12324 DOI