Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 42 references

The paper introduces quantum XYZ stabilizer codes and proves an exact rank condition that decides when Y-type checks make a code genuinely non-CSS; finite-length instances then outperform comparable CSS codes under belief propagation decodi

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 00:32 UTC pith:VXSU3LET

load-bearing objection The XYZ stabilizer framework is a real, useful contribution—the rank condition for genuine non-CSS structure is clean and the bounds are sensible—but the flagship d=16 is a heuristic estimate, not a proven distance. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14988 v1 pith:VXSU3LET submitted 2026-07-16 cs.IT math.ITquant-ph

Quantum XYZ Stabilizer Codes

Alessio Baldelli , Davide Orsucci , Francisco L\'azaro , Massimo Battaglioni This is my paper
classification cs.IT math.ITquant-ph
keywords quantum stabilizer codesCSS codesY-type stabilizersquantum LDPC codesminimum distance boundsbelief propagation decodingdepolarizing channelXYZ codes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Quantum XYZ stabilizer codes add a third family of pure Y-type stabilizer checks on top of the usual CSS X/Z structure. The paper's aim is to prove that this extra structure can be genuinely non-CSS — not just a relabeling of a CSS code — and that the added Y constraints can raise the minimum distance and improve decoding at practical block lengths. The central tool is a decomposition of the three parity-check row spaces into shared 'reducible' and independent 'irreducible' components; Theorem 1 turns the question 'are the Y-checks redundant?' into an exact rank equality that can be checked by linear algebra. With this tool the authors derive upper and lower distance bounds, construct two sparse quantum LDPC families, and present simulations in which the XYZ instances outperform representative CSS codes of similar length, rate, and weight under depolarizing noise with belief propagation decoding. The reason to care: finite-length quantum codes are currently dominated by CSS constructions, and this paper gives a structured, testable route to non-CSS codes that may offer real performance gains.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a structural characterization: an XYZ code, defined by pairwise-orthogonal binary parity-check matrices H_X, H_Y, H_Z, is secretly a CSS code if and only if the Y-check space satisfies C_KY = (C_KX ∩ C_KY) + (C_KY ∩ C_KZ), equivalently rk(H_XYZ) = rk([H_X;H_Y]) + rk([H_Y;H_Z]). Violating this rank condition is exactly what makes the Y-checks irreducible and the code genuinely non-CSS. The paper then shows how the same decomposition yields distance bounds: pure-type logical operators give an upper bound, CSS subcodes obtained by deleting one irreducible component give a lower bound, and a mixed-operator argument, using the weight identity for Pauli oper

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the reducible/irreducible decomposition of the XYZ parity-check matrix. The row spans of H_X, H_Y, H_Z are split into mutual intersections (the reducible component, denoted H_XY, H_YZ, H_XZ) and three independent leftover spaces H'_X, H'_Y, H'_Z. Theorem 1 proves that H'_Y = 0, equivalently the rank condition (35), exactly characterizes those XYZ codes that admit a CSS generating set; this is the precise algebraic switch between a disguised CSS code and a genuinely non-CSS one. The same decomposition produces the imposed CSS codes whose distances bound the XYZ distance from below, while the mixed-operator lower bound uses the identity wt(P) = (||u||+||v||+||w||)

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the numerical lower bounds used for the quasi-dyadic instance — B=18 from the classical-distance estimate and L=12 from the distance-estimation routine — are true lower bounds on the quantum minimum distance; if either estimate is too optimistic, the headline d=16 (and the LER comparison that depends on it) is overstated, though the structural criterion and bounds themselves survive.

What would settle it

Run a verified, exact minimum-distance computation for C_XYZ-QDJ257,116,16K. If a logical operator of weight less than 16 exists, the claimed minimum distance is false and the Table I entry overstates the code; the paper's rank criterion and distance bounds would still stand, but the specific benchmark and its LER conclusions would need revision.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For any concrete XYZ code, condition (35) can be evaluated in polynomial time; if it fails, the Y-checks are essential and the code cannot be presented as CSS with the same stabilizer group.
  • The distance bounds imply that adding Y-checks can strictly improve the distance over each constituent CSS subcode; the effective minimum distance is min(U,B) where U is the pure-type bound and B the mixed-operator bound.
  • The framework is a superset of CSS: setting C_Y redundant reproduces CSS codes, and it contains the XYZ^2 hexagonal topological code after local Pauli relabeling.
  • The two constructed families give concrete finite-length qLDPC instances — an intersecting-subset code [512,9,≤16] and a quasi-dyadic code [257,116,16] (numerically estimated) — whose logical error rates under BP4 depolarizing simulations are lower than the compared CSS instances of similar parameters.
  • The LER gains are visible across most of the simulated noise range for the intersecting-subset code and at low noise for the quasi-dyadic comparison, evidence that the non-CSS structure can translate into decoder-level benefits.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A design heuristic follows from Theorem 1: Y-checks earn their keep only when the three classical codes are genuinely distinct and their pairwise intersections are small; codes with C_Y=C_X or similar are guaranteed to collapse to CSS, so the construction effort should target maximal irreducible Y-rank.
  • The paper leaves open whether the large instances are genuine under fully local Pauli relabeling; until that is checked, the strongest 'genuine' claim for those instances is under uniform relabeling. This gap does not affect Theorem 1.
  • The mixed-operator bound suggests a search target: XYZ instances in which the minimum-weight logical operator is mixed (d=B<U) would demonstrate that the three-code interaction, not any pure-type subcode, sets the code's distance.
  • The collapse criterion is a linear-algebra test that could be used as a filter in automated code search: reject XYZ candidates that satisfy (35) before running expensive distance or decoder simulations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces quantum XYZ stabilizer codes, whose parity-check matrix is assembled from three pairwise orthogonal binary PCMs associated with X-, Y-, and Z-type stabilizers. The main theoretical contributions are: (i) a rank criterion, Eq. (35), deciding when the Y-checks are redundant so that the code is CSS in disguise; (ii) distance bounds, including upper bounds from pure Pauli logical operators and lower bounds from imposed CSS codes, with a refined mixed-operator bound in Proposition 8; and (iii) constructions showing that the XYZ^2 hexagonal code fits the framework, together with new finite-length qLDPC instances based on intersecting-subset and quasi-dyadic codes. Numerical BP4 simulations are reported to support the claim that the XYZ instances can outperform representative CSS qLDPC codes of comparable length and rate.

Significance. If the stated results are taken at face value, the paper is a useful contribution to finite-length quantum code design. The structural characterization in Theorem 1 is clean, self-contained, and practically checkable; the mixed-operator distance bound is a new analytical tool; and the IS/QD constructions are concrete and clearly described. The finite-length LER simulations address a question of current interest. However, the headline parameter of the quasi-dyadic example, J257,116,16K, is not actually proven by the methods used in the paper, and this undermines the distance-based interpretation of the numerical comparison. The theoretical framework itself is not jeopardized, but the paper's most prominent quantitative claim needs either certification or an honest downgrade.

major comments (2)
  1. [§V-C, Corollary 4, Eq. (62)–(64)] The claimed exact distance d=16 for C_XYZ-QD is not supported. Corollary 4 gives d ≥ min{U,B} only if B is a genuine lower bound. The value B=18 is obtained in §V-C using classical distances "estimated" with MacKay's MINDIST tool [37]. MINDIST is a heuristic that, in general, returns an upper bound on the true minimum distance; substituting such values into (62)–(64) makes B an upper bound, not a lower bound. Hence the inference d ≥ 16 is invalid. The MILP optimization does establish U=16, so the rigorous statement is d ≤ 16, not d = 16.
  2. [Table I and Footnote 9] Table I presents the quasi-dyadic instance as J257,116,16K, while the IS instance is honestly listed as J512,9,≤16K. Footnote 9 states that the QD distance was "numerically estimated" by tracking minimum-weight logical errors in Monte Carlo simulations, which can only give an upper bound on d. Thus the exact parameter notation in Table I overstates what is proven. The entry should be changed to an explicit upper bound (e.g., d ≤ 16) unless a certified exact-distance computation is supplied, and the discussion in §VI should be adjusted accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Definition 13, Eq. (54)–(55)] The notation in (54) appears to repeat H_X in both blocks of \tilde H_X, which would give \tilde C_X = C_X ∩ C_X rather than the intended code. Presumably the first block should be H'_X or a similar irreducible component; please correct the displayed matrices and the corresponding expressions for \tilde C_X and \tilde C_K^X.
  2. [Eq. (70)] The definition of H_S has a typographical issue: "hifiPS" should read "h if i ∈ S". Please fix the typesetting.
  3. [§IV, after Eq. (73)] The set notation "2rℓs" is ambiguous; it should be "2^{[ℓ]}" (the power set of [ℓ]).
  4. [§V-B, Definition 14] For the IS construction, the condition a_σ < 2^ℓ with distinct subsets is stated, but it might be worth clarifying whether repeated subsets are excluded before or after the intersection condition (68); this affects the counting of stabilizer generators.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: the rank criterion and distance bounds are self-contained; the heuristic d=16 estimate is a correctness limitation, not a circular step.

full rationale

The central claims are derived within the paper rather than imported. Theorem 1 proves Eq. (34) iff Eq. (35) using the decomposition (33), the modular law, and a rank projection argument; this is not a definitional restatement. The distance upper bound (Corollary 2) is an existence bound from pure logical operators, and the lower bounds (Corollary 3 and Proposition 8) follow from containment of the imposed CSS codes and from the weight identity (6); no parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction. The only serious weakness is the numerical distance claim for C_XYZ-QD: L=12 (QDistRnd) and B=18 (MINDIST) are heuristic estimates, and footnote 9 states that d was 'numerically estimated by keeping track of the minimum weight logical errors during the Monte Carlo simulations.' This means d=16 is not certified and the Table I entry overstates what is proven, but this is a rigor/correctness limitation, not circularity, because the bounds are not defined in terms of the LER results nor is the conclusion used as an input to the derivation. Self-citations [20] and [28] provide base constructions and benchmark CSS instances; the XYZ construction and its orthogonality conditions are restated and checked in Definitions 14-17, so these citations are not load-bearing for the new results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central theorems are linear-algebraic and do not introduce fitted parameters. The hand-chosen code instances (IS subsets, QD exponent matrices) are free design parameters that determine the numerical claims. The simulation results depend on the depolarizing channel and BP4 decoder assumptions; the distance certification for the QD instance depends on external tools' exactness.

free parameters (2)
  • IS subset tuples S_X, S_Y, S_Z = S_X={{1,2,3},{4,5,6},{7,8,9}}, S_Y={{1,5,9},{2,6,7},{3,4,8},{3,5,7},{2,4,9},{1,6,8}}, S_Z={{1,4,7},{2,5,8},{3,6,9}}
    Hand-chosen to satisfy the intersection condition (68) and give the claimed [512,9,12..16] parameters; the performance result is instance-specific.
  • QD exponent matrices multipliers/offsets = ℓ=4, u_X=u_Y=u_Z=5, affine rows p^{(σ)}_{i,j}=a^{(σ)}_i j + b^{(σ)}_i
    Hand-chosen to yield C_XYZ-QD [257,116,16]; no systematic search algorithm given.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Binary linear algebra and symplectic inner product over F2
    Used throughout; stabilizer formalism from [1] cited.
  • standard math Stabilizer code distance formula (Prop. 3) and CSS distance formula (Prop. 4)
    Taken from prior literature [1,2].
  • domain assumption Depolarizing code-capacity noise model with independent X/Y/Z errors
    Section II-D; standard but restricts validity of LER comparisons.
  • domain assumption BP4 decoder with CN serialized schedule, 50 iterations, 100 error events
    Section VI; performance conclusions depend on this decoder choice.
  • domain assumption QDistRnd and MacKay MINDIST tools return exact/valid distances
    Section V-C; B=18 and L=12 used to conclude d=16 for QD code.
  • standard math Closed-form distance formulas for CSS IS codes from [19] are correct
    Used to compute distance bounds for IS XYZ code.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22105 in / 33303 out tokens · 301575 ms · 2026-08-02T00:32:49.249393+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Stabilizer codes are often constructed within the Calderbank--Shor--Steane (CSS) framework, where two mutually orthogonal binary classical codes define $X$ and $Z$-type stabilizer generators. While this structure is algebraically convenient, additional non-CSS constraints may help suppress low-weight logical operators and improve decoding performance in the finite-length regime. We thus introduce quantum XYZ stabilizer codes, whose parity-check matrix (PCM) is built from three pairwise orthogonal binary PCMs associated with $X$-, $Y$-, and $Z$-type stabilizer generators. A nontrivial point is that an XYZ code instance is not automatically genuinely non-CSS: the same stabilizer group may admit a CSS generating set. We characterize this collapse, obtaining algebraic and rank conditions for deciding when the $Y$-type checks are redundant and when they define genuinely non-CSS stabilizer constraints. We also derive upper and lower bounds on the quantum minimum distance, including bounds for mixed Pauli logical operators. The novel framework includes a known non-CSS topological code, namely the XYZ$^2$ hexagonal code, and yields also sparse finite-length quantum low-density parity-check (qLDPC) constructions from intersecting-subset and quasi-dyadic code families. Simulations under depolarizing code-capacity noise and quaternary belief propagation decoding show that the proposed XYZ qLDPC instances can outperform representative CSS qLDPC instances with similar finite-length parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14988 by Alessio Baldelli, Davide Orsucci, Francisco L\'azaro, Massimo Battaglioni.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Tanner graph of the CXYZ´2DJ50, 1, 5K. Circles represent qubits and squares represent stabilizers. The qubits joined by a dashed line form minimum-weight logical operators of pure type (in red, weight 2d ´ 1 “ 9) and mixed type (in blue, weight d “ 5). the vertical edges, and weight-3 half-plaquette operators on the boundary. Via local Pauli relabeling, every stabilizer generator can be homogenized to a pu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Monte Carlo simulations of the LER under BP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction,

    D. Gottesman, “Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction,” Ph.D. dissertation, California Institute of Technology, 1997

    1997

  2. [2]

    Good quantum error-correcting codes exist,

    A. R. Calderbank and P. W. Shor, “Good quantum error-correcting codes exist,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 54, no. 2, 1996

    1996

  3. [3]

    Error correcting codes in quantum theory,

    A. M. Steane, “Error correcting codes in quantum theory,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 77, no. 5, 1996

    1996

  4. [4]

    Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory,

    P. W. Shor, “Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 52, no. 4, 1995

    1995

  5. [5]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y . Kitaev. (1998) Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9811052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    Topological quantum memory,

    E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, “Topological quantum memory,”J. Math. Phys., vol. 43, no. 9, 2002

    2002

  7. [7]

    A. Y . Kitaev,Quantum Error Correction with Imperfect Gates. Springer US, 1997

    1997

  8. [8]

    Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation,

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, “Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 86, no. 3, 2012

    2012

  9. [9]

    Tradeoffs for reliable quantum information storage in 2D systems,

    S. Bravyi, D. Poulin, and B. Terhal, “Tradeoffs for reliable quantum information storage in 2D systems,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 104, no. 5, 2010

    2010

  10. [10]

    Quantum LDPC codes with positive rate and minimum distance proportional to the square root of the blocklength,

    J.-P. Tillich and G. Zémor, “Quantum LDPC codes with positive rate and minimum distance proportional to the square root of the blocklength,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 60, no. 2, 2014

    2014

  11. [11]

    Quantum LDPC codes with almost linear minimum distance,

    P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, “Quantum LDPC codes with almost linear minimum distance,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 68, no. 1, 2022

    2022

  12. [12]

    Asymptotically good quantum and locally testable classical LDPC codes,

    ——, “Asymptotically good quantum and locally testable classical LDPC codes,” inProc. Annu. ACM SIGACT Symp. Theory Comput. (STOC), 2022

    2022

  13. [13]

    Codes correcteurs quantiques pouvant se décoder itérative- ment,

    D. Maurice, “Codes correcteurs quantiques pouvant se décoder itérative- ment,” Theses, Université Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris VI, 2014

    2014

  14. [14]

    Quantum XYZ product codes,

    A. Leverrier, S. Apers, and C. Vuillot, “Quantum XYZ product codes,” Quantum, vol. 6, 2022

    2022

  15. [15]

    Liang, Z

    Z. Liang, Z. Yi, F. Yang, J. Chen, Z. Wang, and X. Wang. (2025) High-dimensional quantum XYZ product codes for biased noise. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.03123

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    The XYZ 2 hexagonal stabilizer code,

    B. Srivastava, A. Frisk Kockum, and M. Granath, “The XYZ 2 hexagonal stabilizer code,”Quantum, vol. 6, Apr. 2022

    2022

  17. [17]

    Quantum Kronecker sum-product low-density parity-check codes with finite rate,

    A. A. Kovalev and L. P. Pryadko, “Quantum Kronecker sum-product low-density parity-check codes with finite rate,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 88, 2013

    2013

  18. [18]

    Majorana Fermion codes,

    S. Bravyi, B. M. Terhal, and B. Leemhuis, “Majorana Fermion codes,” New J. Phys., vol. 12, no. 8, 2010

    2010

  19. [19]

    Quantum LDPC codes from intersecting subsets,

    D. Ostrev, “Quantum LDPC codes from intersecting subsets,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 70, no. 8, 2024

    2024

  20. [20]

    Quantum CSS LDPC codes based on dyadic matrices for belief propagation-based decoding,

    A. Baldelli, M. Battaglioni, J. Mandelbaum, S. Miao, and L. Schmalen, “Quantum CSS LDPC codes based on dyadic matrices for belief propagation-based decoding,” inIEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT), 2026

    2026

  21. [21]

    Degenerate quantum LDPC codes with good finite length performance,

    P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, “Degenerate quantum LDPC codes with good finite length performance,”Quantum, vol. 5, 2021

    2021

  22. [22]

    Fifteen years of quantum LDPC coding and improved decoding strategies,

    Z. Babar, P. Botsinis, D. Alanis, S. X. Ng, and L. Hanzo, “Fifteen years of quantum LDPC coding and improved decoding strategies,”IEEE Access, vol. 3, 2015

    2015

  23. [23]

    A recursive approach to low complexity codes,

    M. R. Tanner, “A recursive approach to low complexity codes,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 27, no. 5, 1981

    1981

  24. [24]

    Small binary stabilizer subsystem codes,

    A. Cross and D. Vandeth, “Small binary stabilizer subsystem codes,” ArXiv:2501.17447, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    An efficient algorithm to recognize locally equivalent graphs,

    A. Bouchet, “An efficient algorithm to recognize locally equivalent graphs,”Combinatorica, vol. 11, no. 4, 1991

    1991

  26. [26]

    Efficient algorithm to recognize the local Clifford equivalence of graph states,

    M. Van den Nest, J. Dehaene, and B. De Moor, “Efficient algorithm to recognize the local Clifford equivalence of graph states,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 70, no. 3, 2004

    2004

  27. [27]

    The complexity of the vertex- minor problem,

    A. Dahlberg, J. Helsen, and S. Wehner, “The complexity of the vertex- minor problem,”Information Processing Letters, vol. 175, 2022

    2022

  28. [28]

    Classical product code constructions for quantum Calderbank-Shor-Steane codes,

    D. Ostrev, D. Orsucci, F. Lázaro, and B. Matuz, “Classical product code constructions for quantum Calderbank-Shor-Steane codes,”Quantum, vol. 8, 2024

    2024

  29. [29]

    Quantum CSS LDPC codes with quasi-dyadic structure,

    A. Baldelli, M. Battaglioni, and P. Santini, “Quantum CSS LDPC codes with quasi-dyadic structure,” inProc. Int. Symp. Topics Coding (ISTC), 2025

    2025

  30. [30]

    Baldelli, M

    A. Baldelli, M. Baldi, M. Battaglioni, F. Chiaraluce, and P. Santini. (2026) Design and analysis of quantum dual-containing CSS LDPC codes based on quasi-dyadic matrices. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.03631

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    Gómez-Fonseca, G

    A. Gómez-Fonseca, G. L. Matthews, K. D. Morris, and T. Pllaha. (2026) Combinatorial analysis of dyadic and quasi-dyadic codes. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.01942

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    Quantum Reed-Muller codes,

    A. M. Steane, “Quantum Reed-Muller codes,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 1701–1703, 1999

    1999

  33. [33]

    Algebraic properties of polar codes from a new polynomial formalism,

    M. Bardet, V . Dragoi, A. Otmani, and J.-P. Tillich, “Algebraic properties of polar codes from a new polynomial formalism,” in2016 IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT), 2016

    2016

  34. [34]

    Santini, E

    P. Santini, E. Persichetti, and M. Baldi. (2018) Reproducible families of codes and cryptographic applications. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2018/666. [Online]. Available: https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/666

    2018

  35. [35]

    A joint code and belief propagation decoder design for quantum LDPC codes,

    S. Miao, J. Mandelbaum, H. Jäkel, and L. Schmalen, “A joint code and belief propagation decoder design for quantum LDPC codes,” inProc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT), 2024

    2024

  36. [36]

    QDistRnd: A GAP package for computing the distance of quantum error-correcting codes,

    L. P. Pryadko, V . A. Shabashov, and V . K. Kozin, “QDistRnd: A GAP package for computing the distance of quantum error-correcting codes,” J. Open Source Softw., vol. 7, no. 71, mar 2022

    2022

  37. [37]

    D. J. C. MacKay. (2008) Source code for approximating the mindist problem of LDPC codes. [Online]. Available: http://www.inference.eng.cam.ac.uk/mackay/MINDIST_ECC.html

    2008

  38. [38]

    Sparse-graph codes for quantum error correction,

    D. MacKay, G. Mitchison, and P. McFadden, “Sparse-graph codes for quantum error correction,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 50, no. 10, 2004

    2004

  39. [39]

    Quantum Margulis codes,

    M. Pacenti and B. Vasi ´c, “Quantum Margulis codes,” inProc. Annu. Allerton Conf. Commun., Control, Comput., 2024

    2024

  40. [40]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder. (2024) High-threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.07915

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Quantum quasi-cyclic LDPC codes,

    M. Hagiwara and H. Imai, “Quantum quasi-cyclic LDPC codes,” inProc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT), 2007

    2007

  42. [42]

    Decoding across the quantum low-density parity-check code landscape,

    J. Roffe, D. R. White, S. Burton, and E. Campbell, “Decoding across the quantum low-density parity-check code landscape,”Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 2, no. 4, 2020

    2020