Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Error Correction Fault Tolerance

Deflating quantum error-correcting codes

arXiv
Authors: Jaron Skovsted Gundersen, Rene Bødker Christensen, Petar Popovski, Rafał Wisniewski

Year

2025

Paper ID

5964

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

115

Citations

N/A

Abstract

In this work, we introduce a technique for reducing the length of a quantum stabilizer code, and we call this deflation of the code. Deflation can be seen as a generalization of the well-known puncturing and shortening techniques in cases where more than a single qudit is removed. We show that the parameters of the deflated quantum code can be controlled, and argue that a similar approach is not as beneficial when applied to classical linear codes. Furthermore, it is shown that deflation introduces additional freedom compared to applying just puncturing and shortening consecutively. We exemplify that it is possible to obtain better parameters by deflating a code rather than consecutively using puncturing and shortening.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Error Correction & Fault Tolerance research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2025 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • In this work, we introduce a technique for reducing the length of a quantum stabilizer code, and we call this deflation of the code.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #5964 #68397 Optimizing Parallel Execution o...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.