Distance-preserving stabilizer measurements in hypergraph product codes
Open accessAbstract
Unlike the surface code, quantum low-density parity-check (QLDPC) codes can have a finite encoding rate, potentially lowering the error correction overhead. However, finite-rate QLDPC codes have nonlocal stabilizers, making it difficult to design stabilizer measurement circuits that are low-depth and do not decrease the effective distance. Here, we demonstrate that a popular family of finite-rate QLDPC codes, hypergraph product codes, has the convenient property of distance-robustness: any stabilizer measurement circuit preserves the effective distance. In particular, we prove the depth-optimal circuit in [Tremblay et al, PRL 129, 050504 (2022)] is also optimal in terms of effective distance.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The locality of small parity checks limits the damage caused by correlated errors.
“Second, their locality limits the damage caused by correlated errors, sometimes for free28.”
From Yoked surface codes (2025) · cites this paper as [28]
Cites
Good quantum error-correcting codes exist
Calderbank, A. R., & Shor, P. W. (1996) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.54.1098 · Cited by 2,516 · see citing works
Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction
Kitaev, A. Y. (1997) · Russian Mathematical Surveys · doi:10.1070/rm1997v052n06abeh002155 · Cited by 1,424 · see citing works
High-threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory
Bravyi, S., Cross, A. W., Gambetta, J. M., Maslov, D., Rall, P., & Yoder, T. J. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07107-7 · Cited by 456 · cited 2× · see citing works
“In that work, it was found that randomly chosen stabilizer measurement circuits sharply reduced the code distance, and even optimized circuits could not fully preserve the distance [37].”
Leverrier, A., & Zemor, G. (2022) · 2022 IEEE 63rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) · doi:10.1109/focs54457.2022.00117 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gidney, C., Newman, M., Brooks, P., & Jones, C. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-59714-1 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
- Authors
- Manes, A. G., & Claes, J.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Venue
- Quantum
- Published
- 2025-01-30
- Volume
- 9
- Pages
- 1618
- ISSN
- 2521-327X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4406984728
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 6.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Quantum (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- NSF (2137740)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
- Keywords
- hypergraph product codes, quantum low-density parity-check codes, stabilizer measurements, effective distance, quantum error correction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
