Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Multi-agent discovery of practical quantum LDPC codes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A multi-agent search framework discovers finite-length quantum LDPC codes with leading or competitive rate–distance performance in every weight class from 6 to 10, including certified record-setters [[288,16,18]], [[288,18,18]], and…

desk verdict Plausible new finite-length qLDPC instances with a careful search pipeline, but the 'best-known' claims hinge on an unreleased comparison benchmark and MILP certificates. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08996 v1 pith:PI46LC7K submitted 2026-08-10 quant-ph cs.AI

Dongheng Qian , Tianyi Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.AI MSC 81P7094B05 PACS 03.67.Pp
keywords quantumLDPCcodesbalancedproductmulti-agentsearcherrorcorrectionfinite-lengthdistancecertificationBP-OSDdecodingAIforscientificdiscovery
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that a multi-agent search framework can discover practical quantum LDPC codes that are competitive with or better than previously known finite-length codes under realistic hardware constraints. The framework evolves executable programs that generate coset-orbit balanced-product code families, and it couples program evolution with a scientific-reasoning loop of researcher agents, a curator that maintains lessons, and deterministic evaluation. Under the constraints of block length n ≤ 400 and overall weight w ≤ 10, it reports codes with the largest parameter scores Q = k $d^{2}$/n in the w = 7, 9, and 10 weight classes among codes with rigorously certified distances: [[288,16,18]], [[288,18,18]], and [[234,28,18]]. These matter because finite-length qLDPC codes are prime candidates for low-overhead quantum error correction in near-term hardware, and certified distance records provide concrete targets for experiments. The paper also shows the search reaches structurally new constructions, including genuine balanced-product codes with non-normal subgroup actions, and that selected discoveries have low logical failure rates under a standard decoder.

What carries the argument

The central object is the coset-orbit balanced-product code construction, which builds a CSS code from a finite host group G, subgroup assignments K_i and K_j, and two protograph matrices A(t), B(t) whose entries are F2 sums of double-coset orbits K_i g K_j; this space includes lifted products when subgroups are trivial or normal and extends to genuinely new codes for non-normal actions. The search machinery is a four-level executable representation—local terms, protograph shape, subgroup action, and host-group family—that a worker agent mutates under a MAP-Elites archive. Candidates are scored by the proxy Q_proxy = k $d_ub^{2}$/n using a distance upper bound from an evolutionary routine (QDistEvol), capped at 1.3√n to avoid rewarding loose bounds, and the most promising candidates are escalated to more expensive verification tiers. After the search, exact distances are certified by mixed-integer linear programming, with each claim backed by an explicit logical-operator witness and independent linear-algebra verification.

What would settle it

One concrete check is to independently compile all published binary CSS codes with n≤400 and overall weight w≤10 under the paper's weight convention, compute Q = k $d^{2}$/n for every code with exact distance, and see whether any code in the w=7, w=9, or w=10 class exceeds Q=18.00, Q=20.25, or Q=38.77 respectively; finding one would refute the record claims. A second check is to re-certify the distance of [[288,16,18]] by an independent MILP or exhaustive logical-operator search: if the true distance is below 18, the headline w=7 record fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a closed-loop search coupling scientific reasoning with executable-program evolution finds finite-length binary CSS codes that set or approach the best-known rate–distance trade-off under practical sparsity constraints. The strongest reported results are certified exact-distance codes [[288,16,18]] at w=7 (Q=18.00), [[288,18,18]] at w=9 (Q=20.25), and [[234,28,18]] at w=10 (Q=38.77), each stated to exceed the best previously known exact code in its weight class; in addition, upper-bound findings such as [[390,32,≤32]] (Q≤84.02 at w=10) indicate further headroom. The search also produced structurally distinct constructions, including a [[336,12,≤24]] candidate over PSL(2,11) and an exact [[368,18,16]] code over A6×Z2, both realized as genuine balanced products with non-normal subgroup actions, demonstrating that the framework explores beyond the lifted-product family. Under code-capacity depolarizing noise with a common BP-OSD decoder, all ten parameter champions have pseudo-thresholds between 5.4% and 9.3% and per-logical error rates below 1.7×$10^{-5}$ at p=0.03.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the discovered codes are the strongest known in their weight classes rests on the completeness of a curated comparison set of 1,209 published qLDPC instances from 91 sources; if a published code with a larger Q was missed, the 'best-known' statements for those weight classes would fail, although the discovered codes would remain valid with their certified parameters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The certified codes, particularly [[288,16,18]], [[288,18,18]], and [[234,28,18]], provide concrete finite-length qLDPC instances that experimental groups can target directly, with rigorous distance proofs already in hand.
  • If the literature comparison is complete, these results shift the known finite-length rate–distance frontier in weight classes 7, 9, and 10, giving new reference points for future code design.
  • The framework's architecture is construction-agnostic: any qLDPC family with a deterministic constructor and a compact program representation can be plugged into the same search loop, so the method should carry over to other construction families.
  • The systematic decay of pseudo-threshold with increasing weight suggests that high-weight codes need better decoders or decoder-aware search; the paper proposes incorporating decoder feedback directly into the loop as a next step.
  • The discovery of genuine balanced-product codes with non-normal subgroup actions shows the search reaches structurally new territory, but the paper conjectures that lifted products may still dominate at n≤400, w≤10.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves open whether the scientific-reasoning loop (researcher council and curator) is essential; a natural ablation would compare this framework against a version with only program evolution and fitness feedback, to quantify the contribution of persistent lessons.
  • The record claims are contingent on the comparison dataset, which is stated to be released upon publication; until then, an independent re-computation of Q for all published codes in the same regime is the only way to verify the 'best-known' statements.
  • The paper's conjecture that genuine balanced products may win at larger n or higher w could be tested by extending the search window to n≈1000, where balanced-product orbit geometry might overcome lifted products.
  • The proxy score Q=k d_ub^2/n with a cap rewards high-distance, high-rate codes but ignores decoding performance; a direct extension would be multi-objective search that adds pseudo-threshold or logical error rate as an archive dimension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a multi-agent AI search framework for discovering finite-length quantum LDPC codes. The framework combines researcher and curator agents that propose hypotheses and maintain persistent lessons, worker agents that evolve executable code-family generators, and a fixed deterministic evaluator that constructs coset-orbit balanced-product CSS codes, enforces CSS orthogonality, block length n<=400 and overall weight w<=10 (Eq. 1), canonically labels Tanner graphs to remove isomorphic copies, and scores candidates by Qproxy = k d~^2/n using a capped QDistEvol distance upper bound (Eq. 2). The paper reports 20 highlighted codes in Table I and 7 structurally distinct codes in Table II, including claimed exact-distance leaders [[288,16,18]] at w=7, [[288,18,18]] at w=9, and [[234,28,18]] at w=10, as well as genuine balanced-product constructions with non-normal subgroup actions. The paper also reports BP-OSD code-capacity simulations showing low per-logical error rates and pseudo-thresholds around 5--9%.

Significance. If the claimed parameters and benchmark comparisons hold, the paper contributes practically relevant finite-length qLDPC codes under hardware-motivated weight constraints, and the multi-agent methodology with persistent memory and deterministic evaluation is a useful template for structured search in quantum error correction. Strengths of the manuscript include the explicit separation of exact distances (MILP) from upper bounds (QDistEvol), the deterministic evaluator with independent F2 arithmetic, the careful marking of upper-bound entries in Tables I--III, and the inclusion of full construction data for the highlighted codes in the Supplementary Information. The main weakness is not internal correctness but audibility: the comparative 'best-known' claims and the exact-distance certificates are not replayable from the submitted materials. These are verification gaps rather than identified errors.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods V.G; Data availability] The central comparative claims in Section III.A, for example that [[288,16,18]], [[288,18,18]], and [[234,28,18]] are the strongest known codes in their respective weight classes, rest entirely on the 1,209-instance literature benchmark described in Methods V.G, but that benchmark is not included in the preprint and is promised only upon publication. Since the overall weight under Eq. (1) is recomputed from defining matrices or construction data, the reader cannot check that every compared instance satisfies the intended weight class or that no stronger published code is omitted. Please provide the complete comparison set, including instances, sources, matrices or construction data, distance-evidence labels, and recomputed w and Q values, as a supplementary table or public repository at submission, or clearly restrict the claims to 'best among the compared set'.
  2. [Methods V.F; Data availability] The exact distance claims in Table I, such as [[288,16,18]], [[288,18,18]], and [[234,28,18]], depend on Gurobi 12.0.3 MILP certificates and explicit witnesses described in Methods V.F, but the evidence bundles containing matrix hashes, solver statuses, and witnesses are not included in the manuscript or SI, and the code is not available until publication. The SI provides only the balanced-product construction data, which is insufficient to replay the distance certification. Please include or release the MILP certificates, witnesses, and an independent replay script, or at minimum the final binary check matrices with verified parameters, so that the exact-distance assertions are checkable before acceptance.
  3. [Section III.A; Table I] Several headline 'leading' entries are distance upper bounds rather than exact distances, for example [[390,32,<=32]] and [[384,18,<=28]], and the abstract's phrase 'leading or competitive rate--distance performance in every weight class' covers both cases. The text is generally careful to label these entries, but some sentences in Section III.A, such as the statement that an upper-bound endpoint 'exceeds' a previous upper-bound endpoint, could be read as ordering actual code performance. Please add an explicit sentence stating that comparisons involving upper-bound entries are comparisons of upper endpoints, not of certified code distances, and ensure the abstract reflects this distinction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Data availability] The word 'recoreds' should be 'records'.
  2. [Methods V.H] The term 'non-BB codes' is used without definition; please define it as 'non-bivariate-bicycle codes' at first use.
  3. [Methods V.H] The description of confidence intervals for adaptively stopped simulation runs would benefit from a concrete statement of how the negative-binomial interval is computed and how the stopping rule affects the reported shot counts.
  4. [Section II, Eq. (2)] The proxy score Qproxy is a heuristic because the cap min(d_ub,1.3*sqrt(n)) can either overestimate or underestimate the true Q; a sentence stating explicitly that Qproxy is neither an upper nor a lower bound on Q would prevent misinterpretation.
  5. [Section III.C and Table III] The phrase 'the pseudo-threshold decreases monotonically' is based on the ten selected codes in Table III; please state that this is an observation on the selected set rather than a proven general trend.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the search optimizes an explicit score and all reported parameters are recomputed and independently certified.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are results of a closed-loop search over executable code-family generators, not derivations that assume their conclusions. The proxy score Qproxy = k d~^2/n (Eq. 2) is an optimization objective; final scores use independently recomputed parameters k = n - rank(H_X) - rank(H_Z) and exact distances from post-search MILP certification (Methods V.F), with logical witnesses replayed by independent F2 arithmetic. The best-known comparisons use an external curated set of 1,209 published instances (Methods V.G) and therefore do not reduce to the paper's own outputs. The only overlap with the authors' prior work is the citation of MadEvolve [40] as an example of AlphaEvolve-style program evolution; this is contextual and not load-bearing for any reported code parameter or comparison. The manuscript does contain an auditability limitation: the comparison benchmark and MILP certificates are promised only upon publication, and the SI gives construction data but not the full replay artifacts. That is a verification gap, not a circular step: the construction logic is self-contained and the reported [[288,16,18]], [[288,18,18]], and [[234,28,18]] parameters are recomputed from explicit matrices, not imported from the search score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central code-existence claims are deterministic: given the defining groups, subgroups and protograph matrices in the Supplement, one can recompute n, k, d and check the weight bound. No continuous parameter is fitted to the target results. The search hyperparameters listed above influence which codes are found, but are not part of the code definition. The main non-standard assumptions are the validity of external distance tools and the completeness of the comparison benchmark, neither of which is independently verifiable from the current preprint.

free parameters (4)
  • Qproxy cap factor 1.3 = 1.3
    Appears in Eq. (2) as d_tilde = min(d_ub, 1.3 sqrt(n)); hand-chosen cap to prevent loose QDistEvol upper bounds from dominating selection. It affects which codes are promoted but not the correctness of reported parameters.
  • weight-class exploration epsilon = 0.3
    Eq. (9) mixes uniform exploration with niche-count-biased sampling; hand-chosen search hyperparameter.
  • coverage factor beta = 0.5
    Eqs. (10)-(12) weight coverage by sparsely occupied group family and rate bin; hand-chosen.
  • temperature and mutation schedule = tau 0.6 to 0.3; L1-L4 from (1/3,1/3,1/6,1/6) to (0.50,0.30,0.08,0.12)
    Automatic refinement scheduler hyperparameters, hand-chosen; they shape exploration but do not enter code validity.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math CSS condition H_X H_Z^T = 0 and k = n - rank(H_X) - rank(H_Z) > 0
    Used in Methods V.B to validate every candidate; standard CSS code requirement.
  • domain assumption Balanced-product assembly from double-coset orbits produces valid binary CSS matrices
    Inherited from Ref. [14]; the paper does not re-derive the construction.
  • domain assumption QDistEvol witnesses give valid distance upper bounds
    Used throughout for proxy scores and upper-bound candidates; relies on external tool [33].
  • domain assumption Gurobi MILP global optimality and independent replay certify exact distances
    Post-search certification in Methods V.F; exact claims depend on solver correctness and replay checks.
  • domain assumption The 1,209-instance literature benchmark is sufficiently complete to support 'best-known' claims
    Methods V.G; the preprint does not include the full list, so completeness cannot be checked.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-agent discovery of practical quantum LDPC codes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PI46LC7K

@misc{pith2026260808996,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-agent discovery of practical quantum LDPC codes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PI46LC7K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08996}
}
abstract

Quantum low-density parity-check (qLDPC) codes can encode multiple logical qubits using sparse parity checks, yet searching for useful finite-length instances remains a challenging design problem because code performance must be optimized while satisfying practical constraints. Motivated by recent advances in artificial-intelligence agents for scientific discovery, we develop a multi-agent framework for discovering practical qLDPC codes. The framework combines specialist proposal and review, persistent scientific memory, long-horizon evolution of executable programs, and deterministic construction and evaluation within a closed-loop search. These programs instantiate coset-orbit balanced-product codes, providing a search space that includes bicycle and lifted-product constructions as well as non-normal subgroup actions. To incorporate practical constraints, we restrict the search to binary CSS codes with block length $n\leq400$ and overall weight $w\leq10$. Within this regime, the framework discovers codes with leading or competitive rate--distance performance in every weight class considered, with representative instances including $[[288,16,18]]$ at $w=7$, $[[288,18,18]]$ at $w=9$, and $[[234,28,18]]$ at $w=10$. The search also uncovers structurally distinct, high-performing constructions, including a $[[336,12,\leq24]]$ candidate and a $[[368,18,16]]$ code, both of which are genuine balanced-product constructions with non-normal subgroup actions. When evaluated under code-capacity depolarizing noise using a common BP-OSD decoding protocol, the discovered codes also exhibit low logical failure rates. Together, these results provide hardware-relevant finite-length candidates for further experimental evaluation and show how structured agentic search can contribute to scientific discovery.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08996 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The multi-agent discovery framework. A scientific-reasoning loop (top) uses researcher proposals, curator synthesis and persistent memory to generate exploration and validation tasks. A program-evolution loop (bottom) mutates executable qLDPC-family generators within a MAP-Elites archive and scores candidates using a fixed evaluator. Evaluated candidates update both the archive and the evidence available to the scie… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Finite-length performance under overall-weight constraints. Panels (a)–(e) compare the parameter score 𝑄 = 𝑘𝑑2/𝑛 against block length 𝑛 at fixed overall weights 𝑤 = 6–10. Purple circles are codes discovered in this work and gray squares are literature codes; filled markers denote exact distances and open markers denote QDistEvol distance upper bounds, for which the plotted 𝑄 is an upper endpoint. Selected discoverie… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Code-capacity performance under depolarizing noise. (a) Block error rate 𝑝block and (b) per￾logical error rate 𝜖𝐿 versus the physical error rate 𝑝 for four discovered codes at 𝑤 = 6 and 7 (solid purple: [[288, 16, 18]], [[336, 12, 20]], [[384, 16, ≤ 24]] and [[400, 16, ≤ 22]]) and two weight-six bivariate-bicycle benchmarks (dashed gray: [[288, 12, 18]] and [[360, 12, ≤ 24]]), all decoded with the same minimum-sum B… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang.Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, 10th anniversary edition, 2010

    2010

  2. [2]

    Fowler, Matteo Mariantoni, John M

    Austin G. Fowler, Matteo Mariantoni, John M. Martinis, and Andrew N. Cleland. Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation.Physical Review A, 86:032324, 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit.Nature, 614:676– 681, 2023

    Google Quantum AI. Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit.Nature, 614:676– 681, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold.Nature, 638:920–926, 2025

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators. Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold.Nature, 638:920–926, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Geim, Sophie H

    Dolev Bluvstein, Alexandra A. Geim, Sophie H. Li, Simon J. Evered, J. Pablo Bonilla Ataides, Gefen Baranes, Andi Gu, Tom Manovitz, Muqing Xu, Marcin Kalinowski, et al. A fault-tolerant neutral-atom architecture for universal quantum computation.Nature, 649:39–46, 2026

    work page 2026

  6. [6]

    Quantum LDPC codes with positive rate and minimum distance proportional to the square root of the blocklength.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 60(2):1193– 1202, 2014

    Jean-Pierre Tillich and Gilles Zemor. Quantum LDPC codes with positive rate and minimum distance proportional to the square root of the blocklength.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 60(2):1193– 1202, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Asymptotically good quantum and locally testable classical LDPC codes

    Pavel Panteleev and Gleb Kalachev. Asymptotically good quantum and locally testable classical LDPC codes. InProceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 375–388, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Good quantum LDPC codes with linear time decoders

    Irit Dinur, Min-Hsiu Hsieh, Ting-Chun Lin, and Thomas Vidick. Good quantum LDPC codes with linear time decoders. InProceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 905–918, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum tanner codes

    Anthony Leverrier and Gilles Zemor. Quantum tanner codes. InProceedings of the 63rd IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 872–883, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Cross, Jay M

    Sergey Bravyi, Andrew W. Cross, Jay M. Gambetta, Dmitri Maslov, Patrick Rall, and Theodore J. Yoder. High-threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory.Nature, 627:778–782, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Evered, Alexandra A

    Dolev Bluvstein, Simon J. Evered, Alexandra A. Geim, Sophie H. Li, Hengyun Zhou, Tom Manovitz, Sepehr Ebadi, Madelyn Cain, Marcin Kalinowski, Dominik Hangleiter, et al. Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays.Nature, 626:58–65, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Demonstration of low-overhead quantum error correction codes.Nature Physics, 22:308–314, 2026

    Ke Wang, Zhide Lu, Chuanyu Zhang, Gongyu Liu, Jiachen Chen, Yanzhe Wang, Yaozu Wu, Shibo Xu, Xuhao Zhu, Feitong Jin, et al. Demonstration of low-overhead quantum error correction codes.Nature Physics, 22:308–314, 2026

    2026

  5. [13]

    Hastings, Jeongwan Haah, and Ryan O’Donnell

    Matthew B. Hastings, Jeongwan Haah, and Ryan O’Donnell. Fiber bundle codes: Breaking the 𝑛1/2 polylog(𝑛)barrier for quantum LDPC codes. InProceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 1276–1288, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Breuckmann and Jens N

    Nikolas P. Breuckmann and Jens N. Eberhardt. Balanced product quantum codes.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 67(10):6653–6674, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Degenerate quantum LDPC codes with good finite length performance

    Pavel Panteleev and Gleb Kalachev. Degenerate quantum LDPC codes with good finite length performance. Quantum, 5:585, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Generalized toric codes on twisted tori for quantum error correction.PRX Quantum, 6:020357, 2025

    Zijian Liang, Ke Liu, Hao Song, and Yu-An Chen. Generalized toric codes on twisted tori for quantum error correction.PRX Quantum, 6:020357, 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    ⋊swap Z2 produces [ [306,8,≤25] ]and admits the closed double-coset count, for which the number of K-double cosets has the closed form𝑡(𝑡 + 1)/2. These constructions span several distinct forms of non-normal group action, demonstrating that genuine balanced products are a recu...

  10. [18]

    Hsiang-Ku Lin and Leonid P. Pryadko. Quantum two-block group algebra codes.Physical Review A, 109:022407, 2024. 16

    2024

  11. [19]

    Breaking the bicycle frame: Coset-based quantum LDPC codes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.17268, 2026

    Arda Aydin, Itzhak Tamo, and Alexander Barg. Breaking the bicycle frame: Coset-based quantum LDPC codes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.17268, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Multivariate multicycle codes for complete single-shot decoding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.18879, 2026

    Feroz Ahmed Mian, Owen Gwilliam, and Stefan Krastanov. Multivariate multicycle codes for complete single-shot decoding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.18879, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  13. [21]

    A two-branch finite-field construction for regular CSS LDPC bases.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.23894, 2026

    Koki Okada and Kenta Kasai. A two-branch finite-field construction for regular CSS LDPC bases.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.23894, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Quantum LDPC codes with design rate 1/5 and good performance below 1000 physical qubits

    Yifan Hong. Quantum LDPC codes with design rate 1/5 and good performance below 1000 physical qubits. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.27644, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Lifting lifted product codes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.28621, 2026

    Yuta Hirasaki and Jong Yeon Lee. Lifting lifted product codes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.28621, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Discovery of optimal quantum codes via reinforcement learning.Physical Review Applied, 23:034048, 2025

    Vincent Paul Su, ChunJun Cao, Hong-Ye Hu, Yariv Yanay, Charles Tahan, and Brian Swingle. Discovery of optimal quantum codes via reinforcement learning.Physical Review Applied, 23:034048, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Discovering highly efficient low-weight quantum error-correcting codes with reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14372, 2025

    Austin Yubo He and Zi-Wen Liu. Discovering highly efficient low-weight quantum error-correcting codes with reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14372, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Bayesianoptimization for quantum error-correcting code discovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.18562, 2026

    YihuaChengyu, RichardMeister, ConorCarty, Sheng-KuLin, andRobertoBondesan. Bayesianoptimization for quantum error-correcting code discovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.18562, 2026

    2026

  19. [27]

    Cross, David Kremer, and Ismael Faro

    Juan Cruz-Benito, Andrew W. Cross, David Kremer, and Ismael Faro. Evolutionary discovery of bivariate bicycle codes with LLM-guided search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.02418, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Large-language-model discovery of quantum LDPC codes through structured concept evolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.24808, 2026

    Zidu Liu and Florian Marquardt. Large-language-model discovery of quantum LDPC codes through structured concept evolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.24808, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Accelerating scientific discovery with Co-Scientist.Nature, 655:487–496, 2026

    Juraj Gottweis, Wei-Hung Weng, Alexander Daryin, Tao Tu, Petar Sirkovic, Artiom Myaskovsky, Grzegorz Glowaty, Felix Weissenberger, Alessio Orlandi, Dan Popovici, et al. Accelerating scientific discovery with Co-Scientist.Nature, 655:487–496, 2026

    2026

  22. [30]

    Szostkiewicz, Dmytro Shved, Gavin J

    Ali Essam Ghareeb, Benjamin Chang, Ludovico Mitchener, Angela Yiu, Caralyn J. Szostkiewicz, Dmytro Shved, Gavin J. Gyimesi, Jon M. Laurent, Samantha M. Wright, Muhammed T. Razzak, et al. A multi-agent system for automating scientific discovery.Nature, 655:497–505, 2026

    2026

  23. [31]

    InternAgent: When agent becomes the scientist—building closed-loop system from hypothesis to verification.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.16938, 2025

    InternAgent Team, Bo Zhang, Shiyang Feng, Xiangchao Yan, Jiakang Yuan, Runmin Ma, Yusong Hu, Zhiyin Yu, Xiaohan He, Songtao Huang, et al. InternAgent: When agent becomes the scientist—building closed-loop system from hypothesis to verification.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.16938, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    InternAgent-1.5: A unified agentic framework for long-horizon autonomous scientific discovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08990, 2026

    Shiyang Feng, Runmin Ma, Xiangchao Yan, Yue Fan, Yusong Hu, Songtao Huang, Shuaiyu Zhang, Zongsheng Cao, Tianshuo Peng, Jiakang Yuan, et al. InternAgent-1.5: A unified agentic framework for long-horizon autonomous scientific discovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08990, 2026

    2026

  25. [33]

    OmniQEC: discovering practical quantum error-correcting codes by an AI scientist.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.25865, 2026

    Ge Yan, Shanchuan Li, Pengyue Ma, Qixin Zhang, Pingchuan Ma, Jianping Wang, Min-Hsiu Hsieh, and Yuxuan Du. OmniQEC: discovering practical quantum error-correcting codes by an AI scientist.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.25865, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Distance-finding algorithms for quantum codes and circuits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.22532, 2026

    Mark Webster, Abraham Jacob, and Oscar Higgott. Distance-finding algorithms for quantum codes and circuits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.22532, 2026

    2026

  27. [35]

    High-rate qldpc processors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.28795, 2026

    Aditya Bhardwaj, Muzhou Ma, Nadine Meister, Robbie King, Dolev Bluvstein, John Preskill, Madelyn Cain, Qian Xu, and Hsin-Yuan Huang. High-rate qldpc processors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.28795, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Engineering an efficient canonical labeling tool for large and sparse graphs

    Tommi Junttila and Petteri Kaski. Engineering an efficient canonical labeling tool for large and sparse graphs. InProceedings of the Ninth Workshop on Algorithm Engineering and Experiments (ALENEX), pages 135–149, 2007

    2007

  29. [37]

    Quantum LDPC codes with almost linear minimum distance.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 68(1):213–229, 2022

    Pavel Panteleev and Gleb Kalachev. Quantum LDPC codes with almost linear minimum distance.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 68(1):213–229, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Kovalev and Leonid P

    Alexey A. Kovalev and Leonid P. Pryadko. Quantum kronecker sum-product low-density parity-check codes with finite rate.Physical Review A, 88:012311, 2013

    2013

  31. [39]

    Illuminating search spaces by mapping elites.arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.04909, 2015

    Jean-Baptiste Mouret and Jeff Clune. Illuminating search spaces by mapping elites.arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.04909, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    AlphaEvolve: a coding agent for scientific and algorithmic discovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.13131, 2025

    Alexander Novikov, Ngân V˜ u, Marvin Eisenberger, Emilien Dupont, Po-Sen Huang, Adam Zsolt Wagner, et al. AlphaEvolve: a coding agent for scientific and algorithmic discovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.13131, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    MadEvolve: evolutionary optimization of cosmological algorithms with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.15951, 2026

    Tianyi Li, Shihui Zang, and Moritz Münchmeyer. MadEvolve: evolutionary optimization of cosmological algorithms with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.15951, 2026

    2026

  34. [42]

    Gurobi optimizer reference manual.https://www.gurobi.com, 2025

    Gurobi Optimization, LLC. Gurobi optimizer reference manual.https://www.gurobi.com, 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    Pair-partition constructions for CPM-based quantum LDPC codes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.14091, 2026

    Koki Okada and Kenta Kasai. Pair-partition constructions for CPM-based quantum LDPC codes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.14091, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Abraham Jacob, Campbell McLauchlan, and Dan E. Browne. Single-shot decoding and fault-tolerant gates with trivariate tricycle codes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.08191, 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    Routing codes: High-rate quantum LDPC codes with short, parallel 17 non-local connectivity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.25330, 2026

    Jiaxuan Zhang, Zhao-Yun Chen, Peng Duan, Jia-Ning Li, Tian-Hao Wei, Qing-Yang Hou, Wei-Cheng Kong, Yu-Chun Wu, and Guo-Ping Guo. Routing codes: High-rate quantum LDPC codes with short, parallel 17 non-local connectivity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.25330, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Chou, and David G

    Mohsen Moradi, Taejoon Kim, Rémi A. Chou, and David G. M. Mitchell. Learning to decode quantum LDPC codes via cluster-based sequential belief propagation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.20130, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Co-designing quantum codes with transversal diagonal gates via multi-agent systems

    Xi He, Sirui Lu, and Bei Zeng. Co-designing quantum codes with transversal diagonal gates via multi-agent systems. InProceedings of the 2026 IEEE 19th Dallas Circuits and Systems Conference (DCAS), pages 1–6, 2026

    2026

  40. [48]

    Addala, Catherine Tang, William D

    Melvin Mathews, Lukas Pahl, David Pahl, Vaishnavi L. Addala, Catherine Tang, William D. Oliver, and Jeffrey A. Grover. Placing and routing quantum LDPC codes in multilayer superconducting hardware.npj Quantum Information, 12:114, 2026

    2026

  41. [49]

    Pryadko, Vadim A

    Leonid P. Pryadko, Vadim A. Shabashov, and Valerii K. Kozin. QDistRnd: a GAP package for computing the distance of quantum error-correcting codes.Journal of Open Source Software, 7(71):4120, 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    White, Simon Burton, and Earl Campbell

    Joschka Roffe, David R. White, Simon Burton, and Earl Campbell. Decoding across the quantum low-density parity-check code landscape.Physical Review Research, 2:043423, 2020

    2020

  43. [51]

    LDPC: Python tools for low density parity check codes.https://pypi.org/project/ldpc/, 2022

    Joschka Roffe. LDPC: Python tools for low density parity check codes.https://pypi.org/project/ldpc/, 2022. 18 Supplementary Information Construction data for the codes in Tables I and II Each code below is the coset-orbit balanced product specified by its host group𝐺, stabiliz...

    2022

  44. [52]

    𝐴=𝑦 4 +𝑥+𝑥 3𝑦3𝜎, 𝐵=𝑥 2𝑦3 +𝑥 5𝑦+𝑥 6𝑦6𝜎

    ⋊swap Z2, generators𝑥,𝑦,𝜎 : 𝑥17 =𝑦17 =𝜎2 =𝑒, 𝑥𝑦=𝑦𝑥,𝜎𝑥𝜎=𝑦;|𝐺|= 578.𝐾=⟨𝜎⟩(non-normal, order 2). 𝐴=𝑦 4 +𝑥+𝑥 3𝑦3𝜎, 𝐵=𝑥 2𝑦3 +𝑥 5𝑦+𝑥 6𝑦6𝜎

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.