Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Error Correction Fault Tolerance Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations

Degeneracy Cannot Violate the Quantum Hamming Bound

arXiv
Authors: Yu-Xuan Zhang, Jing-Ling Chen

Year

2026

Paper ID

69202

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

124

Citations

N/A

Abstract

The quantum Hamming bound is the standard finite-length sphere-packing bound for exact correction of arbitrary qubit errors. Whether degeneracy can evade this bound has remained unresolved in full generality for nearly three decades: distinct correctable errors may act identically on the code space, so the usual disjoint-sphere argument breaks down. We prove that every exact binary quantum subspace code with K>1 obeys the bound, without assuming either nondegeneracy or additivity. Our proof turns the Li--Xing linear-programming polynomial into an exact intersection count for quaternary Hamming balls. Monotonicity in block length and in ball-center separation then reduces the problem to a local node--edge charging inequality at the shortest admissible length. Thus degeneracy can merge correctable error sectors, but cannot enlarge the finite-length binary Hamming bound.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Error Correction & Fault Tolerance research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2026 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • The quantum Hamming bound is the standard finite-length sphere-packing bound for exact correction of arbitrary qubit errors.

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 #69202

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.