Code | Description |
---|---|

Abelian topological code | Code whose codewords realize topological order associated with an abelian group. Stub. |

Analog stabilizer code | Also known as an Gaussian stabilizer code. 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. |

Approximate secret-sharing code | A family of \( [[n,k,d]]_{GF(q)} \) 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. |

Balanced product code | 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. |

Binary quantum Goppa code | Also known as a quantum AG code. Binary quantum Goppa codes are a family of \( [[n,k,d]]_{GF(q)} \) CSS codes for \( q=2^m \), generated using classical Goppa codes. |

Bosonic stabilizer code | Also known as a continuous-variable (CV) 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. |

Braunstein five-mode code | A \([[5,1,3]]_{\mathbb{R}}\) Gaussian stabilizer analogue of the five-qubit perfect code. |

Calderbank-Shor-Steane (CSS) stabilizer code | An \([[n,k,d]]\) stabilizer code admitting a set of stabilizer generators that are either \(Z\)-type or \(X\)-type Pauli strings. The stabilizer generator matrix is of the form \begin{align} H=\begin{pmatrix}0 & H_{Z}\\ H_{X} & 0 \end{pmatrix} \label{eq:parity} \end{align} such that the rows of the two blocks must be orthogonal \begin{align} H_X H_Z^T=0~. \label{eq:comm} \end{align} The above condition guarantees that the \(X\)-stabilizer generators, defined in the symplectic representation as rows of \(H_X\), commute with the \(Z\)-stabilizer generators associated with \(H_Z\). |

Clifford-deformed surface code (CDSC) | 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. |

Color code | A family of abelian topological CSS stabilizer codes defined on a \(D\)-dimensional lattice which satisfies two properties: The lattice is (1) a homogeneous simplicial \(D\)-complex obtained as a triangulation of the interior of a \(D\)-simplex and (2) is \(D+1\)-colorable. Qubits are placed on the \(D\)-simplices and generators are supported on suitable simplices [1]. For 2-dimensional color code, the lattice must be such that it is 3-valent and has 3-colorable faces, such as a honeycomb lattice. The qubits are placed on the vertices and two stabilizer generators are placed on each face [2]. |

Dinur-Hsieh-Lin-Vidick (DHLV) code | Stub. |

Distance-balanced code | CSS stabilizer 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 [3], later generalized in Ref. [4], can yield QLDPC codes; see Thm. 1 in Ref. [3]. |

Double-semion code | Stub. |

Entanglement-assisted (EA) stabilizer code | Constructed using a variation of the stabilizer formalism designed to utilize pre-shared entanglement between sender and receiver. An EA stabilizer code is denoted as \([[n,k;c]]\) or \([[n,k,d;c]]\), where \(d\) is the code's distance, and \(c\) is the number of required pre-shared maximally entangled Bell states.' |

Expander lifted-product code | Family of \(G\)-lifted product codes constructed using two random classical Tanner codes defined on expander graphs. 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. |

Fiber-bundle code | Also called a twisted product code. CSS code constructed by combining a random LDPC code as the base and a cyclic repetition code as the fiber of a fiber bundle. After applying distance balancing, a QLDPC code with distance \(\Omega(n^{3/5}\text{polylog}(n))\) and rate \(\Omega(n^{-2/5}\text{polylog}(n))\) is obtained. |

Five-qubit perfect code | Five-qubit stabilizer code with generators that are symmetric under cyclic permutation of qubits, \begin{align} \begin{split} S_1 &= IXZZX \\ S_2 &= XZZXI \\ S_3 &= ZZXIX \\ S_4 &= ZXIXZ~. \end{split} \end{align} |

Floquet code | Dynamically-generated stabilizer-based code whose logical qubits are generated through a particular sequence of check-operator measurements such that the number of logical qubits is larger than when the code is viewed as a static subsystem stabilizer code. After each measurement in the sequence, the codespace is a joint \(+1\) eigenspace of an instantaneous stabilizer group (ISG), i.e., a particular stabilizer group corresponding to the measurement. The ISG specifies the state of the system as a Pauli stabilizer state at a particular round of measurement, and it evolves into a (potentially) different ISG depending on the check operators measured in the next step in the sequence. As opposed to subsystem codes, only specific measurement sequences maintain the codespace. |

Fractal surface code | Kitaev surface code on a fractal geometry, which is obtained by removing qubits from the surface code on a cubic lattice. Stub. |

Fracton code | A code whose codewords make up the ground-state space of a fracton-phase Hamiltonian. |

Freedman-Meyer-Luo code | Hyperbolic surface code constructed using cellulation of a Riemannian Manifold \(M\) exhibiting systolic freedom [5]. 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 [6]. 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. |

Frobenius code | Let \(C\) be a quantum cyclic code on \(n\) prime-dimensional qudits. \(C\) is a Frobenius code if there exists a positive integer \(t\) such that \(n\) divides \(p^t +1\). |

Fusion-based quantum computing (FBQC) code | Fusion Based Quantum Computing, or FBQC, describes a fault tolerant way to produce fusion networks, or large entangled states starting from small constant-sized entangled resource states along with destructive measurements called fusions. These large states can be produced asychronously in the fusion framework and can be used as resources, as in measurement-based quantum computation (MBQC), or as logical states of topological codes. The difference from ordinary MBQC is that error-correction is baked into the state-generation protocol. |

GKP cluster-state concatenated code | Multi-mode code encoding logical qubits into a cluster-state stabilizer code concatenated with a single-mode GKP code. Provides a way to perform a continuous-variable (CV) analogue of fault-tolerant measurement-based qubit computation. |

GKP-stabilizer code | Stub. |

Galois-qudit BCH code | True Galois-qudit stabilizer code constructed from BCH codes via either the Hermitian construction or the Galois-qudit CSS construction. |

Galois-qudit CSS code | An \([[n,k,d]]_{GF(q)} \) Galois-qudit true stabilizer code admitting a set of stabilizer generators that are either \(Z\)-type or \(X\)-type Galois-qudit Pauli strings. The stabilizer generator matrix, taking values from \(GF(q)\), is of the form \begin{align} H=\begin{pmatrix}0 & H_{Z}\\ H_{X} & 0 \end{pmatrix} \label{eq:parityg} \end{align} such that the rows of the two blocks must be orthogonal \begin{align} H_X H_Z^T=0~. \label{eq:commG} \end{align} The above condition guarantees that the \(X\)-stabilizer generators, defined in the symplectic representation as rows of \(H_X\), commute with the \(Z\)-stabilizer generators associated with \(H_Z\). |

Galois-qudit GRS code | True \(q\)-Galois-qudit stabilizer code constructed from generalized Reed-Solomon (GRS) codes via either the Hermitian construction [7][8][9] or the Galois-qudit CSS construction [10]. |

Galois-qudit RS code | Also called polynomial code (QPyC). An \([[n,k,n-k+1]]_{GF(q)}\) (with \(q>n\)) Galois-qudit CSS code constructed using two Reed-Solomon codes over \(GF(q)\). |

Galois-qudit stabilizer code | An \(((n,K,d))_{GF(q)}\) 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. |

Galois-qudit topological code | Abelian topological code, such as a surface [11] or color [12] code, constructed on lattices of Galois qudits. |

Generalized homological product code | Stabilizer code formulated in terms a chain complex consisting of some type of product of other chain complexes. The 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. The codes participating in the product can be quantum, classical, or mixed. Products can be of more than two codes, in which case the output code need not be of CSS type (e.g., for XYZ-product codes). The simplest product is a tensor product, with more general products imposing equivalence or symmetry relations on the outputs of the tensor product. A product of two codes can be interpreted as a fiber bundle, with one element of the product being the base and the other being the fiber. |

Golden code | Variant of the Guth-Lubotzky hyperbolic surface code that uses regular tessellations for 4-dimensional hyperbolic space. |

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. |

Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP) code | Bosonic qudit-into-oscillator code whose stabilizers 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 another constraint that \(\alpha\beta=2k\pi\) where \(k\) is an integer. Codewords can be expressed as equal weight superpositions of coherent states on an infinite lattice, such as a square lattice in phase space with spatial period \(2\sqrt{\pi}\). The exact GKP state is non-normalizable, so approximate constructs have to be considered. |

Guth-Lubotzky code | 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. |

H code | Family of \([[k+4,k,2]]\) CSS codes with transversal Hadmard gates; relevant to magic state distillation. Four stablizer generators are \(X_1X_2X_3X_4\), \(Z_1Z_2Z_3Z_4\), \(X_1X_2X_5X_6...X_{k+4}\), and \(Z_1Z_2Z_5Z_6...Z_{k+4}\). |

Haah cubic code | Class of stabilizer codes on a length-\(L\) cubic lattice with one or two qubits per site. We also require that the stabilizer group \(\mathsf{S}\) is translation invariant and generated by two types of operators with support on a cube. 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. Haah showed in his original construction that there is exactly one non-CSS code of this form, and 17 CSS codes [13]. The non-CSS code is labeled code 0, and the rest are numbered from 1 - 17. Codes 1-4, 7, 8, and 10 do not have string logical operators [13][14]. |

Hemicubic code | Stub. |

Higher-dimensional surface code | A family of Kitaev surface codes on planar or toric surfaces of dimension greater than two. Stub. |

Homological bosonic code | An \([[n,1]]_{\mathbb{R}}\) Gaussian CSS code defined using homological structres associated with an \(n-1\) simplex. Relevant to the study of spacetime replication of quantum information [15]. |

Homological product code | CSS code formulated using the homological product of two chain complexes (see CSS-to-homology correspondence). Stub. |

Honeycomb code | Floquet code inspired by the Kitaev honeycomb model [16] whose logical qubits are generated through a particular sequence of measurements. |

Hyperbolic surface code | An extension of the Kitaev surface code construction to hyperbolic manifolds in dimension two or greater. 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. |

Hypergraph product code | A family of \([[n,k,d]]\) CSS codes whose construction is based on two binary linear seed codes \(C_1\) and \(C_2\). |

Hypersphere product code | Stub. |

Kitaev surface code | 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). Toric code often either refers to the construction on the two-dimensional torus or is an alternative name for the general construction. The construction on surfaces with boundaries is often called the planar code [17]. |

Lifted-product (LP) code | Also called a Panteleev-Kalachev (PK) code. 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. |

Lloyd-Slotine nine-mode code | A \([[9,1,3]]_{\mathbb{R}}\) Gaussian CSS analogue of Shor's nine-qubit code. |

Majorana stabilizer code | Majorana fermion stabilizer codes are stabilizer codes 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 \([[n,k,d]]_{f}\) [18], where \(n\) is the number of fermionic modes. |

Matching code | Stub. |

Modular-qudit CSS code | 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. The stabilizer generator matrix, taking values from \(\mathbb{Z}_q\), is of the form \begin{align} H=\begin{pmatrix}0 & H_{Z}\\ H_{X} & 0 \end{pmatrix} \label{eq:parityq} \end{align} such that the rows of the two blocks must be orthogonal \begin{align} H_X H_Z^T=0~. \label{eq:commQ} \end{align} The above condition guarantees that the \(X\)-stabilizer generators, defined in the symplectic representation as rows of \(H_X\), commute with the \(Z\)-stabilizer generators associated with \(H_Z\). |

Modular-qudit stabilizer code | 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. |

Modular-qudit surface code | A family of stabilizer codes whose 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 (with a qudit located at each edge of the tesselation). The code has \( n=E \) many physical qudits, where \( E \) is the number of edges of the tesselation, and \( k=2g \) many logical qudits, where \( g \) is the genus of the surface. |

Multi-mode GKP code | Generalization of the GKP code to \(n\) bosonic modes whose stabilizer group is an infinite countable group of oscillator displacement operators. |

Pastawski-Yoshida-Harlow-Preskill (HaPPY) code | Also known as a hyperbolic pentagon code (HyPeC). Holographic code constructed out of a network of perfect tensors that tesselates 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 code serves as a minimal model for several aspects of the AdS/CFT holographic duality. The construction below is described for qubits, but straightforward generalizations exist to modular qudits, oscillators, and rotors [19]. |

Projective-plane surface code | 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. |

Quantum Reed-Muller code | A CSS code formed from a classical Reed-Muller code in which polynomials over finite fields encode data. This is done by transforming these polynomials into the stabilizer generator matrices. |

Quantum Reed-Solomon code | Also called prime-qudit polynomial code (QPyC). Prime-qudit CSS code constructed using two Reed-Solomon codes. |

Quantum Tanner code | Stub. |

Quantum check-product code | Stub. |

Quantum convolutional code | Stub. |

Quantum divisible code | Consider a CSS code whose \(Z\)-stabilizers are determined by the dual of a classical \([n, k_1]\) linear binary code \(C_1\), and whose \(X\)-stabilizers are determined by a classical \([n, k_2]\) binary code \(C_2 \subset C_1\). This code is quantum divisible if all weights in \(C_2\) share a common divisor \(\Delta > 1\), and all weights in each coset of \(C_2\) in \(C_1\) are congruent to \(\Delta\). |

Quantum expander code | CSS codes constructed from a hypergraph product of bipartite expander graphs 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. |

Quantum low-density parity-check (QLDPC) code | Family of \([[n,k,d]]\) stabilizer codes for which the number of sites (either qubit or qudit) participating in each stabilizer generator and the number of stabilizer generators that each site participates in are both bounded by a constant as \(n\to\infty\). A geometrically local stabilizer code is a QLDPC code where the sites involved in any syndrome bit are contained in a fixed volume that does not scale with \(n\). As opposed to general stabilizer codes, syndrome extraction of the constant-weight check operators of a QLDPC codes can be done using a constant-depth circuit. |

Quantum parity code (QPC) | Also called a generalized Shor code [20]. 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. Logical codewords are \begin{align} \begin{split} |\overline{0}\rangle&=\frac{1}{2^{m_2/2}}\left(|0\rangle^{\otimes m_1}+|1\rangle^{\otimes m_1}\right)^{\otimes m_2}\\ |\overline{1}\rangle&=\frac{1}{2^{m_2/2}}\left(|0\rangle^{\otimes m_1}-|1\rangle^{\otimes m_1}\right)^{\otimes m_2}~. \end{split} \end{align} |

Quantum polar code | 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 [21] using an encoding based on classical polar codes. Variants of the initial scheme have been developed for degradable channels [22] and extended to arbitrary channels [23]. |

Quantum repetition code | Encodes \(1\) qubit into \(n\) qubits according to \(|0\rangle\to|\phi_0\rangle^{\otimes n}\) and \(|1\rangle\to|\phi_1\rangle^{\otimes n}\). Also known as a bit-flip code when \(|\phi_i\rangle = |i\rangle\), and a phase-flip code when \(|\phi_0\rangle = |+\rangle\) and \(|\phi_1\rangle = |-\rangle\). |

Qubit BCH code | 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 stabilizer-over-\(GF(4)\) 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. |

Qubit stabilizer code | Also called a Pauli stabilizer 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. |

Ramanujan-complex product code | 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. 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. |

Raussendorf-Bravyi-Harrington (RBH) code | Stub. (see Sec. III E of [24]) |

Rotated surface code | Also called a checkerboard code. CSS 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. |

Shor \([[9,1,3]]\) code | Nine-qubit CSS code that is the smallest such code to correct a single-qubit error. The logical state is encoded using \begin{align} \begin{split} |\overline{0}\rangle&=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}\left(|000\rangle+|111\rangle\right)^{\otimes3}\\ |\overline{1}\rangle&=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}\left(|000\rangle-|111\rangle\right)^{\otimes3}~. \end{split} \end{align} The code works by concatenating each qubit of a phase-flip with a bit-flip repetition code. Therefore, the code can correct both type of errors simultaneously. |

Skew-cyclic CSS code | Stub. |

Solid code | A variant of Kitaev's surface code on a 3D lattice. |

Stabilizer code | A code whose logical subspace is the joint eigenspace (usually with eigenvalue \(+1\)) of a set of commuting unitary operators forming the code's stabilizer group. Stabilizer codes have been defined for qubits, modular qudits, Galois qudits, and oscillators using their respective Pauli-type groups. |

Stabilizer code over \(GF(4)\) | An \([[n,k,d]]\) stabilizer code constructed from a quaternary classical 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 \(GF(4)\). |

Stabilizer code over \(GF(q^2)\) | An \([[n,k,d]]_{GF(q)}\) Galois-qudit stabilizer code constructed from a classical code over \(GF(q^2)\) using the one-to-one correspondence between the Galois-qudit Pauli matrices and elements of the Galois field \(GF(q^2)\). |

Steane \([[7,1,3]]\) code | A \([[7,1,3]]\) CSS code that uses the classical binary \([7,4,3]\) Hamming code for protecting against \(X\) errors and its dual \([7,3,4]\) for \(Z\) errors. The parity-check matrix for the \([7,4,3]\) Hamming code is \begin{align} H = \left(\begin{matrix} 1&0&0&1&0&1&1\\ 0&1&0&1&1&0&1\\ 0&0&1&0&1&1&1 \end{matrix}\right), \end{align} and the check matrix for the Steane code is therefore \begin{align} \left(\begin{matrix} 0&H\\ H&0 \end{matrix}\right). \end{align} The stabilizer group for the Steane code has six generators. |

Surface-17 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 error correction on a surface code with parallel syndrome extraction. |

Tensored-Ramanujan-complex product code | Code constructed in a similar way as the Ramanujan-complex product code, but whose construction utilizes tensor products of Ramanujan complexes in order to improve code distance 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. |

Three qutrit code | A \([[3,1,2]]_3\) prime-qudit CSS code 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. The codewords are \begin{align} \begin{split} | \overline{0} \rangle &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} (| 000 \rangle + | 111 \rangle + | 222 \rangle) \\ | \overline{1} \rangle &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} (| 012 \rangle + | 120 \rangle + | 201 \rangle) \\ | \overline{2} \rangle &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} (| 021 \rangle + | 102 \rangle + | 210 \rangle)~. \end{split} \end{align} The elements in the superposition of each logical codeword are related to each other via cyclic permutations. |

Translationally-invariant stabilizer code | A geometrically local qubit or qudit stabilizer code with qudits organized on a lattice modeled by the additive group \(\mathbb{Z}^D\) for spatial dimension \(D\) such that each lattice point, referred to as a site, contains \(m\) qudits of dimension \(q\). The stabilizer group of the translationally invariant code is generated by site-local Pauli operators and their translations. |

Transverse-field Ising model (TFIM) code | 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). |

Triorthogonal code | A triorthogonal \(m \times n\) binary matrix is triorthogonal if its rows \(r_1, \ldots, r_m\) satisfy \(|r_i \cdot r_j| = 0\) and \(|r_i \cdot r_j \cdot r_k| = 0\), where addition and multiplication are done on \(\mathbb{Z}_2\). The triorthogonal code associated with the matrix is constructed by mapping non-zero entries in even-weight rows to \(X\) operators, and \(Z\) operators for each row in the orthogonal complement. |

True Galois-qudit stabilizer code | Also called a linear stabilizer code. A \([[n,k,d]]_{GF(q)}\) stabilizer code whose stabilizer's 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. |

Two-dimensional hyperbolic surface code | 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). |

XY surface code | Non-CSS derivative of the surface code whose generators are \(XXXX\) and \(YYYY\), obtained by mapping \(Z \to Y\) in the surface code. |

XYZ product code | A non-CSS QLDPC code constructed from three classical codes. The construction of an XYZ product code is similar to that of a hypergraph product code and related 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. |

XYZ\(^2\) hexagonal stabilizer code | An instance of the matching code based on the Kitaev honeycomb model. It is described on a hexagonal lattice 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. |

XZZX surface code | Non-CSS variant of the rotated surface code whose generators are \(XZXZ\) 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). |

\([[15,1,3]]\) quantum Reed-Muller code | \([[15,1,3]]\) CSS code that is most easily thought of as a tetrahedral 3D color code. This code contains 15 qubits, represented by four vertices, four face centers, six edge centers, and one body center. The tetrahedron is cellulated into four identical polyhedron cells by connecting the body center to all four face centers, where each face center is then connected by three adjacent edge centers. Each colored cell corresponds to a weight-8 \(X\)-check, and each face corresponds to a weight-4 \(Z\)-check. A logical \(Z\) is any weight-3 \(Z\)-string along an edge of the entire tetrahedron. The logical \(X\) is any weight-7 \(X\)-face of the entire tetrahedron. |

\([[2^r, 2^r-r-2, 3]]\) quantum Hamming code | A family of stabilizer codes of distance \(3\) that asymptotically saturate quantum Hamming bound. |

\([[2^r-1, 2^r-2r-1, 3]]\) Hamming-based CSS code | A Hamming-based CSS code is a CCS code constructed with a classical Hamming code \([2^r-1,2^r-1-r,3]=C_X=C_Z\). |

\([[2^r-1, 2^r-2r-1, 3]]_p\) prime-qudit CSS code | A family of CSS codes extending Hamming-based CSS codes to prime qudits of dimension \(p\) by expressing the qubit code stabilizers in local-dimension-invariant (LDI) form [25]. |

\([[4,2,2]]\) CSS code | Also known as the \(C_4\) code. Four-qubit CSS stabilizer code with generators \(\{XXXX, ZZZZ\} \) and codewords \begin{align} \begin{split} |\overline{00}\rangle = (|0000\rangle + |1111\rangle)/\sqrt{2}~{\phantom{.}}\\ |\overline{01}\rangle = (|0011\rangle + |1100\rangle)/\sqrt{2}~{\phantom{.}}\\ |\overline{10}\rangle = (|0101\rangle + |1010\rangle)/\sqrt{2}~{\phantom{.}}\\ |\overline{11}\rangle = (|0110\rangle + |1001\rangle)/\sqrt{2}~. \end{split} \end{align} This code is the smallest single-qubit error-detecting code. It is also the smallest instance of the toric code, and its various single-qubit subcodes are small planar surface codes. |

## References

- [1]
- A. M. Kubica, The Abcs of the Color Code: A Study of Topological Quantum Codes as Toy Models for Fault-tolerant Quantum Computation and Quantum Phases of Matter, California Institute of Technology, 2018. DOI
- [2]
- H. Bombin, “An Introduction to Topological Quantum Codes”. 1311.0277
- [3]
- M. B. Hastings, “Weight Reduction for Quantum Codes”. 1611.03790
- [4]
- Shai Evra, Tali Kaufman, and Gilles Zémor, “Decodable quantum LDPC codes beyond the $\sqrt{n}$ distance barrier using high dimensional expanders”. 2004.07935
- [5]
- M. H. Freedman, “<b>Z</b><sub>2</sub>–Systolic-Freedom”, Proceedings of the Kirbyfest (1999). DOI
- [6]
- E. Fetaya, “Bounding the distance of quantum surface codes”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 53, 062202 (2012). DOI
- [7]
- Lingfei Jin and Chaoping Xing, “A Construction of New Quantum MDS Codes”. 1311.3009
- [8]
- X. Liu, L. Yu, and H. Liu, “New quantum codes from Hermitian dual-containing codes”, International Journal of Quantum Information 17, 1950006 (2019). DOI
- [9]
- L. Jin et al., “Application of Classical Hermitian Self-Orthogonal MDS Codes to Quantum MDS Codes”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 56, 4735 (2010). DOI
- [10]
- Dorit Aharonov and Michael Ben-Or, “Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation With Constant Error Rate”. quant-ph/9906129
- [11]
- Iryna Andriyanova, Denise Maurice, and Jean-Pierre Tillich, “New constructions of CSS codes obtained by moving to higher alphabets”. 1202.3338
- [12]
- P. Sarvepalli, “Topological color codes over higher alphabet”, 2010 IEEE Information Theory Workshop (2010). DOI
- [13]
- J. Haah, “Local stabilizer codes in three dimensions without string logical operators”, Physical Review A 83, (2011). DOI; 1101.1962
- [14]
- A. Dua et al., “Sorting topological stabilizer models in three dimensions”, Physical Review B 100, (2019). DOI; 1908.08049
- [15]
- 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). DOI; 1210.0913
- [16]
- A. Kitaev, “Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond”, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006). DOI; cond-mat/0506438
- [17]
- S. B. Bravyi and A. Yu. Kitaev, “Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary”. quant-ph/9811052
- [18]
- Sagar Vijay and Liang Fu, “Quantum Error Correction for Complex and Majorana Fermion Qubits”. 1703.00459
- [19]
- P. Faist et al., “Continuous Symmetries and Approximate Quantum Error Correction”, Physical Review X 10, (2020). DOI; 1902.07714
- [20]
- Dave Bacon and Andrea Casaccino, “Quantum Error Correcting Subsystem Codes From Two Classical Linear Codes”. quant-ph/0610088
- [21]
- J. M. Renes and J.-C. Boileau, “Physical underpinnings of privacy”, Physical Review A 78, (2008). DOI; 0803.3096
- [22]
- M. M. Wilde and J. M. Renes, “Quantum polar codes for arbitrary channels”, 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory Proceedings (2012). DOI; 1201.2906
- [23]
- M. M. Wilde and S. Guha, “Polar Codes for Degradable Quantum Channels”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 59, 4718 (2013). DOI; 1109.5346
- [24]
- S. Roberts and S. D. Bartlett, “Symmetry-Protected Self-Correcting Quantum Memories”, Physical Review X 10, (2020). DOI; 1805.01474
- [25]
- Arun J. Moorthy and Lane G. Gunderman, “Local-dimension-invariant Calderbank-Shor-Steane Codes with an Improved Distance Promise”. 2110.11510