On the Hardness of the Minimum Distance Problem of Quantum Codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the hardness of the problem of finding the distance of quantum error-correcting codes. The analogous problem for classical codes is known to be NP-hard, even in approximate form. For quantum codes, various problems related to decoding are known to be NP-hard, but the hardness of the distance problem has not been studied before. In this work, we show that finding the minimum distance of stabilizer quantum codes exactly or approximately is NP-hard. This result is obtained by reducing the classical minimum distance problem to the quantum problem, using the CWS framework for quantum codes, which constructs a quantum code using a classical code and a graph. A main technical tool used for our result is a lower bound on the so-called graph state distance of 4-cycle free graphs. In particular, we show that for a 4-cycle free graph$G$, its graph state distance is either$\delta $or$\delta +1$, where$\delta $is the minimum vertex degree of$G$. Due to a well-known reduction from stabilizer codes to CSS codes, our results also imply that finding the minimum distance of CSS codes is also NP-hard.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".