pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.24808 · v1 · pith:RBSFLZEEnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.AI

Large-Language-Model Discovery of Quantum LDPC Codes through Structured Concept Evolution

Zidu Liu , Florian Marquardt This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 23:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.AI
keywords quantum LDPC codeslifted-product codesstructured concept evolutionlarge language modelsquantum error correctionCSS codesdepolarizing noiseBP+OSD decoding
0
0 comments X

The pith

An LLM with a hierarchical algebraic mutation grammar discovers competitive new families of lifted-product quantum LDPC codes, including non-abelian constructions beyond standard designs.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents structured concept evolution, a method that combines a large language model with a structured mutation grammar to search for lifted-product CSS quantum LDPC codes. Instead of direct design, the process evolves pairs of algebraic specifications and executable programs by mutating group algebra, protograph geometry, or base space. Running the search produces a range of code families from abelian groups to non-abelian ones not used in conventional constructions such as bivariate-bicycle codes. These families are then evaluated for performance under code-capacity depolarizing noise using BP+OSD decoding, showing competitive results with lightweight models. The approach addresses the discrete combinatorial difficulty of building qLDPC codes that combine sparsity, positive rate, and growing distance.

Core claim

Structured concept evolution discovers a diverse set of competitive code families, ranging from abelian constructions to families over non-abelian groups beyond those underlying standard designs such as bivariate-bicycle codes, and characterizes them under code-capacity depolarizing noise with BP+OSD decoding.

What carries the argument

Structured concept evolution (SCE), a search process that evolves algebraic specifications paired with executable programs via hierarchical mutations on group algebra, protograph geometry, or base space.

If this is right

  • Automated discovery can expand the set of known lifted-product qLDPC constructions to include non-abelian group families.
  • Lightweight LLMs suffice to generate and validate executable code realizations alongside algebraic descriptions.
  • Performance evaluation under depolarizing noise with BP+OSD becomes feasible for newly generated families.
  • The method supplies concrete code parameters and decoding thresholds for the discovered families.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same grammar-guided evolution could be applied to other algebraic objects in quantum error correction beyond lifted products.
  • Success here suggests that domain-specific mutation rules can steer LLMs toward valid mathematical structures in discrete design spaces.
  • Discovered codes could be tested in circuit-level noise models to check whether their advantages persist beyond the code-capacity setting.

Load-bearing premise

The LLM paired with the mutation grammar can systematically generate and validate lifted-product constructions that are genuinely competitive and novel rather than rediscoveries or minor variations of known families.

What would settle it

Running SCE repeatedly yields only codes whose distance-rate trade-off and decoding performance match or fall below those of established families such as bivariate-bicycle codes, with no new non-abelian groups appearing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.24808 by Florian Marquardt, Zidu Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The SCE framework used for qLDPC discovery. At [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Hierarchical mutation and score evolution. (a) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Performance of evolved LP codes against BB base [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum computers could outperform classical machines on important problems, but only if the errors that pervade quantum hardware can be corrected at scale. Quantum low-density parity-check (qLDPC) codes offer a promising route to this goal by combining sparse parity checks with finite encoding rate and growing distance, but their construction remains a challenging discrete design problem. Here we introduce structured concept evolution (SCE), a search framework that pairs a large language model with a structured algebraic mutation grammar to discover lifted-product code families, a class of CSS qLDPC codes. Instead of asking the LLM to design codes from first principles, SCE evolves structured concepts consisting of algebraic specifications paired with executable programs that realize them, using hierarchical mutations that modify the group algebra, protograph geometry, or base space. Running SCE, we discover a diverse set of competitive code families, ranging from abelian constructions to families over non-abelian groups beyond those underlying standard designs such as bivariate-bicycle codes, and characterize them under code-capacity depolarizing noise with BP+OSD decoding. These results are obtained with lightweight models (GPT-5.4-mini and GPT-5.4-nano).

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Structured Concept Evolution (SCE), a framework pairing an LLM with a hierarchical algebraic mutation grammar over group algebra, protograph geometry, and base space to evolve executable specifications for lifted-product CSS qLDPC codes. It claims that running SCE with lightweight models (GPT-5.4-mini and GPT-5.4-nano) yields a diverse set of competitive code families, including abelian constructions and non-abelian groups beyond those in standard designs such as bivariate-bicycle codes, and characterizes their performance under code-capacity depolarizing noise with BP+OSD decoding.

Significance. If the output families are verifiably novel and at least competitive in parameters and thresholds with existing constructions, the work would demonstrate a new LLM-driven search method for qLDPC codes that could complement algebraic and combinatorial approaches. The use of structured mutations and executable validation is a concrete strength, but significance is currently limited by the absence of explicit disambiguation from prior art and quantitative performance data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that SCE discovers 'competitive code families' and 'families over non-abelian groups beyond those underlying standard designs such as bivariate-bicycle codes' is not supported by any reported code parameters, distance scaling, or threshold values under depolarizing noise; without these metrics or explicit comparison tables, the competitiveness and novelty assertions cannot be evaluated.
  2. [Abstract] The description of the search process (hierarchical mutations on group algebra/protograph/base space) does not include an exhaustive check against known lifted-product or bivariate-bicycle families; this leaves open the possibility that generated specifications are rediscoveries or marginal variants, directly undermining the 'discovery' claim.
  3. [Abstract] No baseline comparisons (e.g., against known abelian or non-abelian qLDPC constructions) or quantitative thresholds are supplied for the BP+OSD performance characterization, making it impossible to assess whether the evolved families meet or exceed existing performance under the stated noise model.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract mentions 'lightweight models' but does not specify exact model versions or prompting details used in the SCE runs.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive feedback. We agree that the abstract requires strengthening with explicit quantitative support and comparisons to make the claims fully evaluable. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that SCE discovers 'competitive code families' and 'families over non-abelian groups beyond those underlying standard designs such as bivariate-bicycle codes' is not supported by any reported code parameters, distance scaling, or threshold values under depolarizing noise; without these metrics or explicit comparison tables, the competitiveness and novelty assertions cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract is concise and does not embed the supporting metrics. The full manuscript reports code parameters, distance scaling, and BP+OSD thresholds under depolarizing noise in the results sections. In revision we will augment the abstract with representative [[n,k,d]] parameters, scaling behavior, threshold values, and a compact comparison table to bivariate-bicycle and other known constructions, allowing direct evaluation of the competitiveness and novelty claims. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The description of the search process (hierarchical mutations on group algebra/protograph/base space) does not include an exhaustive check against known lifted-product or bivariate-bicycle families; this leaves open the possibility that generated specifications are rediscoveries or marginal variants, directly undermining the 'discovery' claim.

    Authors: The methods section describes the hierarchical mutation grammar and executable validation pipeline. To address the concern we will add an explicit statement in the abstract (and, if space permits, a short methods paragraph) confirming that all output families were cross-checked against the standard lifted-product and bivariate-bicycle constructions in the literature. While a literally exhaustive enumeration of every conceivable variant is intractable, the checks against all published families suffice to establish that the reported non-abelian constructions are distinct. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Abstract] No baseline comparisons (e.g., against known abelian or non-abelian qLDPC constructions) or quantitative thresholds are supplied for the BP+OSD performance characterization, making it impossible to assess whether the evolved families meet or exceed existing performance under the stated noise model.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract should reference the quantitative thresholds and baselines. The manuscript already contains BP+OSD simulations under code-capacity depolarizing noise; we will revise the abstract to include the key threshold numbers and explicit statements of competitiveness relative to both abelian and non-abelian reference constructions, thereby enabling direct assessment of performance. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is an independent search procedure

full rationale

The paper introduces SCE as a search framework pairing an LLM with a hierarchical mutation grammar over algebraic specifications to generate lifted-product CSS codes. The central claims (discovery of diverse competitive families, including non-abelian constructions) are presented as outputs of executing this search process under code-capacity depolarizing noise with BP+OSD, rather than as quantities fitted from the same data or reduced by self-citation chains. No equations, self-definitional steps, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described framework that would make the reported performance equivalent to its inputs by construction. The method is self-contained against external benchmarks of code performance.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the effectiveness of the LLM-mutation pairing and the definition of 'competitive' performance; these are not supported by external benchmarks or shipped code in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard algebraic properties of lifted-product constructions and CSS quantum codes hold as described in prior literature.
    Invoked implicitly when describing the code families and their characterization.
invented entities (1)
  • Structured Concept Evolution (SCE) framework no independent evidence
    purpose: To evolve algebraic specifications of lifted-product codes via LLM-guided hierarchical mutations.
    New search framework introduced by the paper; no independent evidence supplied in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5728 in / 1344 out tokens · 29495 ms · 2026-06-25T23:50:34.650303+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Evolving Quantum Error-Correcting Encodings for Molecular Simulation

    quant-ph 2026-06 conditional novelty 7.0

    LLM-driven evolutionary program synthesis discovers Generalized Superfast Encodings with exact distance 5 (and 6 on one instance) for molecular Hamiltonians, the first beyond distance 3.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 9 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation, Nature607, 667 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    McArdle, S

    S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 015003 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quantum approximate optimization algorithm, arXiv:1411.4028 (2014)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  4. [4]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio,et al., Variational quantum algorithms, Nature Reviews Physics3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    Biamonte, P

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Quantum machine learning, Na- ture549, 195 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    Huanget al., Quantum advantage in learning from experiments, Science376, 1182 (2022)

    H.-Y. Huanget al., Quantum advantage in learning from experiments, Science376, 1182 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, G. Torlai, V. V. Albert, and J. Preskill, Provably efficient machine learning for quan- tum many-body problems, Science377, eabk3333 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    P. W. Shor, Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory, Phys. Rev. A52, R2493 (1995)

    1995

  9. [9]

    D. E. Gottesman,Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technol- ogy (1997)

    1997

  10. [10]

    Dennis, A

    E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Topo- logical quantum memory, J. Math. Phys.43, 4452 (2002)

    2002

  11. [11]

    B. M. Terhal, Quantum error correction for quantum memories, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 307 (2015)

    2015

  12. [12]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Ann. Phys.303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  13. [13]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9811052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  14. [14]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A86, 032324 (2012)

    2012

  15. [15]

    Krinner, N

    S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, A. Remm,et al., Realizing re- peated quantum error correction in a distance-three sur- face code, Nature605, 669 (2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    Google Quantum AIet al., Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, Nature614, 676 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    Google Quantum AIet al., Quantum error correction be- low the surface code threshold, Nature638, 920 (2025)

    2025

  18. [18]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. Poulin, and B. Terhal, Tradeoffs for reliable quantum information storage in 2D systems, Physical Re- view Letters104, 050503 (2010)

    2010

  19. [19]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, X. Lv, K. H. Leung, and M. Endres, A tweezer array with 6,100 highly coherent atomic qubits, Nature647, 60 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    Guo, Y.-K

    S.-A. Guo, Y.-K. Wu, J. Ye, L. Zhang, W.-Q. Lian, R. Yao, Y. Wang, R.-Y. Yan, Y.-J. Yi, Y.-L. Xu,et al., A site-resolved two-dimensional quantum simulator with hundreds of trapped ions, Nature630, 613 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    Gottesman, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant overhead, Quantum Information and Computa- tion14, 1338 (2014)

    D. Gottesman, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant overhead, Quantum Information and Computa- tion14, 1338 (2014)

    2014

  22. [22]

    Bravyi, A

    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, Nature627, 778 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    Bluvsteinet al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature626, 58 (2024)

    D. Bluvsteinet al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    K. Wang, Z. Lu, C. Zhang, G. Liu, J. Chen, Y. Wang, Y. Wu, S. Xu, X. Zhu, F. Jin,et al., Demonstration of low-overhead quantum error correction codes, Nature Physics , 1 (2026)

    2026

  25. [25]

    Q. Xu, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, C. A. Pattison, N. Raveen- dran, D. Bluvstein, J. Wurtz, B. Vasi´ c, M. D. Lukin, L. Jiang, and H. Zhou, Constant-overhead fault-tolerant quantum computation with reconfigurable atom arrays, 6 Nature Physics20, 1084 (2024)

    2024

  26. [26]

    M. Cain, Q. Xu, R. King, L. R. B. Picard, H. Levine, M. Endres, J. Preskill, H.-Y. Huang, and D. Bluvstein, Shor’s algorithm is possible with as few as 10,000 recon- figurable atomic qubits (2026), arXiv:2603.28627

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Tillich and G

    J.-P. Tillich and G. Z´ emor, Quantum LDPC codes with positive rate and minimum distance proportional to the square root of the blocklength, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory60, 1193 (2014)

    2014

  28. [28]

    Panteleev and G

    P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, Degenerate quantum LDPC codes with good finite length performance, Quan- tum5, 585 (2021)

    2021

  29. [29]

    Panteleev and G

    P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, Asymptotically good Quantum and locally testable classical LDPC codes, in Proceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Sympo- sium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2022 (New York, NY, USA, 2022) pp. 375–388

    2022

  30. [30]

    N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, Quantum low- density parity-check codes, PRX Quantum2, 040101 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    Leverrier and G

    A. Leverrier and G. Zemor, Quantum Tanner codes, in 2022 IEEE 63rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)(Denver, CO, USA, 2022) pp. 872–883

    2022

  32. [32]

    D. J. C. MacKay, G. Mitchison, and P. L. McFadden, Sparse-graph codes for quantum error correction, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory50, 2315 (2004)

    2004

  33. [33]

    A. A. Kovalev and L. P. Pryadko, Quantum Kronecker sum-product low-density parity-check codes with finite rate, Physical Review A88, 012311 (2013)

    2013

  34. [34]

    Panteleev and G

    P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, Quantum LDPC codes with almost linear minimum distance, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory68, 213 (2022)

    2022

  35. [35]

    N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, Balanced prod- uct quantum codes, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory67, 6653 (2021)

    2021

  36. [36]

    M. B. Hastings, J. Haah, and R. O’Donnell, Fiber bundle codes: breaking then 1/2 polylog(n) barrier for quantum LDPC codes, inProceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) (2021) pp. 1276–1288

    2021

  37. [37]

    Dinur, M.-H

    I. Dinur, M.-H. Hsieh, T.-C. Lin, and T. Vidick, Good quantum LDPC codes with linear time decoders, inPro- ceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC)(2023) pp. 905–918

    2023

  38. [38]

    A. R. Calderbank and P. W. Shor, Good quantum error-correcting codes exist, Physical Review A54, 1098 (1996)

    1996

  39. [39]

    A. M. Steane, Error correcting codes in quantum theory, Physical Review Letters77, 793 (1996)

    1996

  40. [40]

    Roffe, D

    J. Roffe, D. R. White, S. Burton, and E. Campbell, De- coding across the quantum low-density parity-check code landscape, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043423 (2020)

    2020

  41. [41]

    F¨ osel, P

    T. F¨ osel, P. Tighineanu, T. Weiss, and F. Marquardt, Re- inforcement learning with neural networks for quantum feedback, Physical Review X8, 031084 (2018)

    2018

  42. [42]

    H. P. Nautrup, N. Delfosse, V. Dunjko, H. J. Briegel, and N. Friis, Optimizing quantum error correction codes with reinforcement learning, Quantum3, 215 (2019)

    2019

  43. [43]

    J. Olle, R. Zen, M. Puviani, and F. Marquardt, Si- multaneous discovery of quantum error correction codes and encoders with a noise-aware reinforcement learning agent, npj Quantum Information10, 126 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    J. Olle, O. M. Yevtushenko, and F. Marquardt, Scal- ing the automated discovery of quantum circuits via reinforcement learning with gadgets, arXiv:2503.11638 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    A. Y. He and Z.-W. Liu, Discovering highly efficient low- weight quantum error-correcting codes with reinforce- ment learning, arXiv:2502.14372 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    N¨ agele and F

    M. N¨ agele and F. Marquardt, Agentic exploration of physics models (2025), arXiv:2509.24978

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    S. Arlt, H. Duan, F. Li, S. M. Xie, Y. Wu, and M. Krenn, Meta-designing quantum experiments with language models, Nature Machine Intelligence8, 148 (2026), arXiv:2406.02470

    arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    X. He, S. Lu, and B. Zeng, Co-designing quantum codes with transversal diagonal gates via multi-agent systems (2025), arXiv:2510.20728

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Lehman, J

    J. Lehman, J. Gordon, S. Jain, K. Ndousse, C. Yeh, and K. O. Stanley, Evolution through large models (2022), arXiv:2206.08896 [cs.NE]

    arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    Romera-Paredes, M

    B. Romera-Paredes, M. Barekatain, A. Novikov, M. Ba- log, M. P. Kumar, E. Dupont, F. J. R. Ruiz, J. S. Ellen- berg, P. Wang, O. Fawzi, P. Kohli, and A. Fawzi, Math- ematical discoveries from program search with large lan- guage models, Nature625, 468 (2024)

    2024

  51. [51]

    Novikov, N

    A. Novikov, N. V˜ u, M. Eisenberger, E. Dupont, P.-S. Huang, A. Z. Wagner, S. Shirobokov, B. Kozlovskii, F. J. Ruiz, A. Mehrabian,et al., Alphaevolve: A coding agent for scientific and algorithmic discovery, arXiv:2506.13131 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Mouret and J

    J.-B. Mouret and J. Clune, Illuminating search spaces by mapping elites, arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.04909 (2015)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  53. [53]

    Sharma, Openevolve: an open-source evolutionary coding agent (2025)

    A. Sharma, Openevolve: an open-source evolutionary coding agent (2025)

    2025

  54. [54]

    Liu and F

    Z. Liu and F. Marquardt, Supplemental material for: Large-language-model discovery of quantum LDPC codes through structured concept evolution (2026)

    2026

  55. [55]

    Poulin and Y

    D. Poulin and Y. Chung, On the iterative decoding of sparse quantum codes, Quantum Information and Com- putation8, 987 (2008), arXiv:0801.1241

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  56. [56]

    M. P. C. Fossorier, M. Mihaljevi´ c, and H. Imai, Reduced complexity iterative decoding of low-density parity check codes based on belief propagation, IEEE Transactions on Communications47, 673 (1999)

    1999

  57. [57]

    L. P. Pryadko, V. A. Shabashov, and V. K. Kozin, QDis- tRnd: A GAP package for computing the distance of quantum error-correcting codes, Journal of Open Source Software7, 4120 (2022)

    2022

  58. [58]

    Lin and L

    H.-K. Lin and L. P. Pryadko, Quantum two-block group algebra codes, Physical Review A109, 022407 (2024)

    2024

  59. [59]

    Vardy, The intractability of computing the minimum distance of a code, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory43, 1757 (1997)

    A. Vardy, The intractability of computing the minimum distance of a code, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory43, 1757 (1997)

    1997

  60. [60]

    C. J. Clopper and E. S. Pearson, The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial, Biometrika26, 404 (1934)

    1934

  61. [61]

    Cruz-Benito, A

    J. Cruz-Benito, A. W. Cross, D. Kremer, and I. Faro, Evolutionary discovery of bivariate bicycle codes with LLM-guided search (2026), arXiv:2606.02418 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    B. Y. Weisfeiler and A. A. Leman, The reduction of a graph to canonical form and the algebra which ap- pears therein, Nauchno-Technicheskaya Informatsia2, 12 (1968)

    1968

  63. [63]

    local code or checks

    N. Shervashidze, P. Schweitzer, E. J. van Leeuwen, K. Mehlhorn, and K. M. Borgwardt, Weisfeiler-lehman 7 graph kernels, Journal of Machine Learning Research12, 2539 (2011). 8 Supplemental Material for: Large-Language-Model Discovery of Quantum LDPC Codes through Structured Concept Evolution S1. LIFTED-PRODUCT CONSTRUCTION AND CSS V ALIDITY Calderbank–Shor...

    2011