Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction
Open accessAbstract
Controlling operational errors and decoherence is one of the major challenges facing the field of quantum computation and other attempts to create specified many-particle entangled states. The field of quantum error correction has developed to meet this challenge. A group-theoretical structure and associated subclass of quantum codes, the stabilizer codes, has proved particularly fruitful in producing codes and in understanding the structure of both specific codes and classes of codes. I will give an overview of the field of quantum error correction and the formalism of stabilizer codes. In the context of stabilizer codes, I will discuss a number of known codes, the capacity of a quantum channel, bounds on quantum codes, and fault-tolerant quantum computation.
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 emergence of bulk locality in AdS/CFT is connected to the theory of quantum error correction.
“We point out a connection between the emergence of bulk locality in AdS/CFT and the theory of quantum error correction.”
From Bulk locality and quantum error correction in AdS/CFT (2015) · cites this paper as [10]
The AdS-Rindler construction of bulk fields has several paradoxical features.
“We will observe that this construction has several paradoxical features, which we will illuminate by recasting it on the CFT side in the language of quantum error correcting codes [9, 10].”
From Bulk locality and quantum error correction in AdS/CFT (2015) · cites this paper as [10]
Many important QEC codes can be described using the stabilizer formalism, including the Shor code, the Steane code, the five-qubit code, CSS codes, and surface code-type constructions.
“Many of the most important QEC codes can be described this way, including the Shor code, the Steane code, the five-qubit code, CSS codes, and surface code-type constructions.”
From Quantum error correction and fault tolerance: A comprehensive tutorial (2026) · cites this paper as [63]
The quantum Hamming bound provides a powerful upper bound on the achievable encoding rate of a QEC code by relating the code's parameters to the geometry of the underlying Hilbert space.
“The quantum Hamming bound, also known as the sphere-packing bound, provides a powerful upper bound on the achievable encoding rate of a QEC code by relating the code's parameters to the geometry of the underlying Hilbert space [76, 78].”
From Quantum error correction and fault tolerance: A comprehensive tutorial (2026) · cites this paper as [76]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 753
- Authors
- Gottesman, D.
- Corresponding author
- Gottesman, Daniel
- ORCID
- Gottesman, Daniel
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 1997
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- quant-ph/9705052
- OpenAlex
- W4394672652
- Cited by
- 753
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 88 · 2023: 96 · 2022: 81 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 23
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Coding theory and cryptography
- Keywords
- stabilizer codes, quantum error correction, quantum computing, decoherence, quantum channel capacity, fault-tolerant quantum computing, group theory, entangled states
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
