Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
GPT-5.1
GPT-5.1 70 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Flash 169 tok/s Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro 47 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 194 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 38 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

C2 Codes: Quantum, Classical & Geometric Insights

Updated 16 November 2025
  • C2 codes are families of codes defined in quantum, classical, and geometric contexts, each with unique algebraic, combinatorial, or geometric structures.
  • In the quantum setting, C2 codes use hypergraph product constructions from cyclic codes to achieve low logical error rates and constant-depth syndrome extraction, enhancing fault tolerance.
  • In classical and geometric frameworks, quasi-cyclic codes of index 2 and complex spherical 2-codes provide precise duality conditions and optimal distance bounds, enabling efficient error correction and design of tight two-distance sets.

C2 codes refer to several distinct, highly structured families of codes that arise in classical and quantum information theory as well as combinatorial geometry. These include: (1) quantum hypergraph product codes constructed from the product of a cyclic code with itself; (2) quasi-cyclic codes of index 2 in classical coding theory; and (3) complex spherical two-distance sets—often called complex 2-codes—in geometric coding theory. Each context confers a precise algebraic, combinatorial, or geometric structure and offers unique optimality or performance properties relative to their domain.

1. Quantum Hypergraph Product Codes from Cyclic Codes: The “C2” Construction

C2 codes in the context of quantum error correction are quantum low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes formed as a hypergraph product (HGP) of a binary cyclic code with itself. Given a classical cyclic code CC of length nn and dimension kk with minimum distance dCd_C, its parity-check matrix HH is circulant, with each row being a cyclic shift of a generator vector of weight ww. The hypergraph product quantum code is constructed via Calderbank-Shor-Steane (CSS) checks as: HX=[HInInkHT],      HZ=[InHHTInk].H_X = [H \otimes I_n \mid I_{n-k} \otimes H^{T}], \;\;\; H_Z = [I_n \otimes H \mid H^{T} \otimes I_{n-k}]. This yields code parameters:

  • Blocklength: N=n2+(nk)2N = n^2 + (n-k)^2
  • Number of logical qubits: K=k2K = k^2
  • Minimum distance: d=dCd = d_C (when dCTdCd_{C^{T}} \geq d_C, as is often achievable in cyclic families).

Notably, both XX- and ZZ-type stabilizer generators are regular of weight $2w$, enforcing uniform low-weight checks. C2 codes systematically outperform prior HGPs (optimized with progressive edge growth, simulated annealing, RL, etc.): for example, the code [[450,32,8]][[450, 32, 8]] (from [15,7,8][15,7,8] cyclic) achieves per-round logical error rate 4.5×107\approx 4.5 \times 10^{-7} at p=103p=10^{-3} with 14.1\approx 14.1 overhead, while [[882,50,10]][[882,50,10]] attains 2×1082 \times 10^{-8} with overhead 17.6\approx 17.6, significantly lower than surface or bivariate bicycle codes.

C2 codes are particularly suited for trapped ion (QCCD) architectures, supporting a planar cyclic layout that enables regular, constant-depth syndrome extraction: syndrome rounds proceed via cyclically shifting ancillae and enacting CNOT/CZ gates with aligned data, requiring depth $4w+2$ per round, independent of nn.

2. Classification and Structure of Quasi-Cyclic Codes of Index 2 (“QC Index 2” Codes)

In classical coding theory, a quasi-cyclic code of index 2 and length $2m$ over Fq\mathbb{F}_q is defined as a code invariant under shift by mm, or equivalently as an RR-submodule of R2R^2 where R=Fq[x]/(xm1)R = \mathbb{F}_q[x]/(x^m-1). Every such code CC has a unique characterization: C=(g11(x),g12(x)),  (0,g22(x))R,C = \langle (g_{11}(x), g_{12}(x)),\; (0, g_{22}(x)) \rangle_R, where g11(x),g22(x)g_{11}(x), g_{22}(x) divide xm1x^m-1, and degg12(x)<degg22(x)\deg g_{12}(x) < \deg g_{22}(x), with g11g22g_{11}g_{22} dividing (xm1)g12(x^m-1)g_{12}. The dimension is 2mdegg11degg222m - \deg g_{11} - \deg g_{22}. When gcd(q,m)=1\gcd(q, m) = 1, a one-generator criterion holds: g11g220mod(xm1)g_{11}g_{22} \equiv 0 \mod (x^m-1).

Duals with respect to the standard (Euclidean), symplectic, and Hermitian inner products are fully described. For instance, the Euclidean dual admits generators: Ce=(xm1g11,0),(xm1g11g12,xm1g22g22)R,C^{\perp_e} = \langle \left(\tfrac{x^m-1}{g_{11}}, 0\right),\, \left(-\tfrac{x^m-1}{g_{11}} g_{12}^{\circ}, \tfrac{x^m-1}{g_{22}} g_{22}^{\circ}\right) \rangle_R, where f(x)=xmf(x1)f^{\circ}(x) = x^m f(x^{-1}). Self-orthogonality and dual-containing properties have explicit algebraic conditions, and analogous statements hold under symplectic and Hermitian forms.

Minimum distance is bounded below by

d(C)min{d(C2),  d(C4),  d(C1)+d(C3)},d(C) \ge \min\left\{ d(C_2),\; d(C_4),\; d(C_1) + d(C_3) \right\},

where C1=g11C_1 = \langle g_{11} \rangle, C2=g22C_2 = \langle g_{22} \rangle, C3=gcd(g12,g22)C_3 = \langle \gcd(g_{12}, g_{22}) \rangle, C4=gcd(g11g12,g22)C_4 = \langle \gcd(g_{11}g_{12}, g_{22}) \rangle. This lower bound can be tight, as in explicit constructions over F2\mathbb{F}_2 for small mm (e.g., the unique [6,3,3][6,3,3] code with g11(x)=x2+x+1g_{11}(x)=x^2+x+1, g22(x)=x1g_{22}(x)=x-1, g12(x)=1g_{12}(x)=1) (Abdukhalikov et al., 1 Apr 2025).

3. Complex Spherical 2-Codes (“C₂-codes”): Geometric Two-Distance Sets

In combinatorial geometry, a complex spherical 2-code is a finite subset XX of the unit sphere in Cd\mathbb{C}^d such that the angle set A(X)={x,y:x,yX,xy}A(X) = \{\langle x, y \rangle : x, y \in X, x\ne y\} has cardinality $2$, with the two values being nonreal (conjugate) complex numbers. The existence and tightness of such sets are governed by the structure of associated tournaments and certain matrix conditions:

  • If dd is odd, the absolute bound is X2d+1|X| \leq 2d+1, tightness if and only if the tournament on XX (given by “angle α\alpha”) is doubly regular of order $2d+1$.
  • If dd is even, X2d|X| \leq 2d, with equality if and only if I+AATI+A-A^{T} is a skew Hadamard matrix of order $2d$.

Explicit tight examples exist via skew-symmetric D-optimal designs (e.g., for d=4d=4, Paley’s 8×88\times8 skew Hadamard matrix yields a tight 2-code in C4\mathbb{C}^4).

The embedding dimension of the associated tournament into Cd\mathbb{C}^d is determined by the spectrum of its Seidel matrix S=i(AAT)S = i(A - A^{T}). Representation dimension minimization relies on eigenvalue multiplicities and the so-called main angle (overlap with the all-ones vector), establishing exact embedding parameters via analytic formulas based on spectral interlacing and rank-one perturbation theory (Nozaki et al., 2015).

4. Tables of Representative Parameters and Performance

For quantum C2 codes, codes identified via exhaustive search (for n40n \leq 40, w5w \leq 5) have the following representative parameters:

Code [[N,K,d]] Classical C [n,k,dCd_C] Weight ww Overhead N/KN/K
[[450, 32, 8]] [15, 7, 8] 3 \approx14.1
[[882, 98, 8]] [21, 7, 8] 4 9.0
[[882, 50, 10]] [21, 5, 10] 3 17.6

Corresponding logical error rates (per qubit per round, depolarizing noise p=103p=10^{-3}):

Code Logical Error Rate Overhead Distance dd
[[450, 32, 8]] 4.5×1074.5 \times 10^{-7} 14.1 8
[[882, 50, 10]] 2×1082 \times 10^{-8} 17.6 10
Surface [[113,1,8]] 3×1063 \times 10^{-6} 113 8

These C2 codes exhibit logical error rates up to three orders of magnitude better than previous LDPC and surface codes at significantly reduced physical overhead.

5. Trade-offs, Advantages, and Limitations

Key trade-offs for quantum C2 codes include:

  • Pros: Constant-depth and fully parallel syndrome extraction; regular low-weight stabilizers; constant encoding rate in the asymptotic limit (K/N=(k/n)2K/N = (k/n)^2); minimum distance grows linearly with that of the constituent cyclic code.
  • Cons: Block length NN scales quadratically with nn, producing large code "patches" for high minimum distance; implementation of cyclic shifts may conflict with hardware connectivity, especially for large nn or generator weight ww.

For quasi-cyclic codes of index 2, algebraic characterizations ensure tractable generator and dual structure, but the block size and generator constraints may limit certain rate-distance combinations. Tightness in complex spherical 2-codes is fully characterized and only realized for highly restricted combinatorial structures (doubly regular tournaments, skew Hadamard matrices), imposing severe constraints on dimensions and cardinalities.

6. Future Directions and Open Problems

Potential directions for advancing quantum C2 codes include exploring codes with increased generator weight ww to raise dCd_C, combining cyclic symmetry with graph-expansion methods such as progressive edge growth, and optimizing circuit schedules for simultaneous logical operations and ancilla shifts. Design of fault-tolerant logical gates (using lattice surgery or code-switching) and hardware-specific optimizations (for overlap between cyclic shifts and quantum gates) remain open for achieving further performance gains.

In classical quasi-cyclic codes of index 2, extension to higher index or composite-length settings, and exploitation of symplectic or Hermitian duality structures for cryptographic or post-quantum applications, remain active research streams.

The classification of tight and maximal complex spherical 2-codes is complete up to isomorphism; however, the construction of new families connected to previously unclassified combinatorial designs or the realization of such sets in physical quantum state deployments present plausible future investigations.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (2)
Forward Email Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Follow Topic

Get notified by email when new papers are published related to C2 Codes.