Here is a list of code families which contain perfect quantum codes.
| Code | Description |
|---|---|
| Five-qubit perfect code | Five-qubit cyclic stabilizer code that is the smallest qubit stabilizer code to correct a single-qubit error. |
| Hermitian-construction qubit code | An \([[n,k,d]]\) stabilizer code constructed from a Hermitian self-orthogonal linear quaternary code using the one-to-one correspondence between the four Pauli matrices \(\{I,X,Y,Z\}\) and the four elements \(\{0,1,\alpha^2,\alpha\}\) of the quaternary field \(GF(4)\). |
| Modular-qudit 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. |
| Perfect code | An \((n,K,2t+1)_q\) code is perfect if parameters \(n\), \(K\), \(t\), and \(q\) are such that the Hamming (a.k.a. sphere-packing) bound \begin{align} \sum_{j=0}^{t}(q-1)^{j}{n \choose j}\leq q^{n}/K \tag*{(1)}\end{align} becomes an equality. In other words, the code's packing radius matches its covering radius. |
| Perfect quantum code | A non-degenerate code constructed out of \(q\)-dimensional qudits and having parameters \(((n,K,2t+1))\) is perfect if \(n\), \(K\), \(t\), and \(q\) are such that the quantum Hamming bound \begin{align} \sum_{j=0}^{t}(q^2-1)^{j}{n \choose j}\leq q^{n}/K \tag*{(2)}\end{align} becomes an equality. For example, for a qubit \(q=2\) code with one logical qubit (\(K=2\)) and \(t=1\), the bound becomes \(3n+1 \leq 2^{n-1}\). The bound can be saturated only at certain \(n\). |
| \([[15, 7, 3]]\) Hamming-based CSS code | Self-dual Hamming-based CSS code that admits permutation-based CZ logical gates. |
| \([[2^r, 2^r-r-2, 3]]\) quantum Hamming code | A family of stabilizer codes of distance \(3\) that saturate the asymptotic quantum Hamming bound. Can be obtained from the CSS construction using a first-order \([2^r,r+1,2^{r-1}]\) RM code and a \([2^r,2^r-1,2]\) even-weight code [1]. |
References
- [1]
- A. M. Steane, “Simple quantum error-correcting codes”, Physical Review A 54, 4741 (1996) arXiv:quant-ph/9605021 DOI