Finite-rate sparse quantum codes aplenty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce a methodology for generating random multi-qubit stabilizer codes based on solving a constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) on random bipartite graphs. This framework allows us to enforce stabilizer commutation, <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math> balancing, finite rate, sparsity, and maximum-degree constraints simultaneously in a CSP that we can then solve numerically. Using a state-of-the-art CSP solver, we obtain convincing evidence for the existence of a satisfiability threshold. Furthermore, the extent of the satisfiable phase increases with the number of qubits. In that phase, finding sparse codes becomes an easy problem. Moreover, we observe that the sparse codes found in the satisfiable phase practically achieve the channel capacity for erasure noise. Our results show that intermediate-size finite-rate sparse quantum codes are easy to find, while also demonstrating a flexible methodology for generating good codes with custom properties. We therefore establish a complete and customizable pipeline for random quantum code discovery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".