pith. sign in

arxiv: 2501.08036 · v3 · submitted 2025-01-14 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.IT· math.IT

Decoding Quantum LDPC Codes using Collaborative Check Node Removal

Mainak Bhattacharyya , Ankur Raina This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 05:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.ITmath.IT
keywords quantum LDPC codesmin-sum decodingtrapping setsqubit separationcheck node removalGHP codesbelief propagationcollaborative decoding
0
0 comments X

The pith

Selective removal of stabilizer checks during min-sum decoding generates highly separated trapped qubits and raises success rates on quantum LDPC codes.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proposes a collaborative decoding framework that combines standard belief propagation message passing with selective removal of stabilizer check nodes. Information measurements on data qubits and their adjacent checks are used to choose which nodes to remove, with the goal of increasing qubit separation among trapped data qubits. The authors claim this directly mitigates trapping sets that otherwise limit min-sum decoding performance. They evaluate the approach on Generalized Hypergraph Product codes and report gains without substantial added cost. If correct, the method offers a lightweight way to strengthen iterative decoders for quantum error correction.

Core claim

We present a collaborative decoding framework that integrates message passing with stabilizer check node removals. We introduce the concept of qubit separation and show that the improved decoding performance is directly related to the generation of highly separated trapped data qubits. To guide a more selective removal of check nodes that constrain the separation of the trapped data qubits, we introduce information measurements for the data qubits and their adjacent stabilizer checks. We evaluate the performance of the proposed collaborative decoder on Generalized Hypergraph Product codes and demonstrate that appropriate decoder configurations mitigate trapping sets in min-sum decoding.

What carries the argument

Collaborative check node removal guided by information measurements on data qubits and adjacent checks, which produces qubit separation to reduce trapping-set effects in the min-sum decoder.

If this is right

  • Improved decoding performance correlates directly with higher qubit separation among trapped data qubits.
  • Appropriate configurations of the collaborative decoder mitigate trapping sets without significant overhead.
  • The method applies to Generalized Hypergraph Product codes and integrates with existing min-sum message passing.
  • Selective check removal can be guided by local information measurements to avoid constraining trapped qubit separation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same removal strategy might be tested on other QLDPC families to see if qubit separation remains predictive of decoder gains.
  • Code constructions could be optimized in advance to allow larger separation values under this kind of dynamic graph modification.
  • The approach may reduce reliance on post-processing steps such as ordered statistics decoding by handling some degeneracy inside the iterative loop.

Load-bearing premise

That information measurements on data qubits and adjacent stabilizer checks can reliably guide which checks to remove so that trapped qubits become highly separated and decoding succeeds more often.

What would settle it

Simulations on the same GHP code instances and error patterns showing that the collaborative decoder with IM-guided removals achieves no higher success rate than plain min-sum decoding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08036 by Ankur Raina, Mainak Bhattacharyya.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: In (a) we show a typical (3, 3) 6-cycle classical type trapping set and in (b) is a (6, 0) Quantum Trapping set of the [[882, 24]] GHP code. v0 c0 c1 v1 c2 c6 v6 c7 c12 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 (a) Iteration K = 1 v0 c0 c1 v1 c2 c6 v6 c7 c12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (b) Iteration K = 2 v0 c0 c1 v1 c2 c6 v6 c7 c12 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 (c) Iteration K = 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: We show a typical oscillatory behaviour of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Computation tree of the trapped qubit v0 of CTS (3, 3). We show one of the trapped qubits as a descendant of v0 at layer K = 3. At each level, the nodes (data or stabilizer check) are added according to where the messages are being passed from parent to child based on the iterative decoder. Removed Stabilizer check nodes Affected trapped qubit New syndrome bit predictions by min-sum de￾coder c6 v0, v6 [c0,… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Computation tree and the potential structure indicating the scope [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Numerical experiment showing the sub-decoder’s ability to identify stabilizer violations correctly, which were not possible by decoding with min-sum based BP alone (which we denote as ‘main decoding region’). We assume that the error occurs on the data qubits after each round of an error correction cycle, and the syndrome measurements are perfect. Under these phenomenological noise assumptions, we sample a… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The logical error rates obtained for the GHP codes from [7], under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Code capacity threshold obtained for the GB codes under the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Fault tolerance in quantum protocols requires contributions from error-correcting codes and their suitable decoders. Quantum Low-Density Parity Check (QLDPC) codes are one of the most explored quantum codes that have good coding rate and efficient decoders. Iterative message passing-based decoders, although fast, fail to produce suitable success rates due to the colossal degeneracy and short cycles intrinsic to these codes. In this work we present a strategy to improve the performance of the Belief Propagation (BP) decoding, specifically the min-sum algorithm. We propose a collaborative decoding framework that integrates message passing with stabilizer check node removals. We further introduce the concept of ``qubit separation" and show that the improved decoding performance is directly related to the generation of highly separated trapped data qubits. To guide a more selective removal of check nodes that constrain the separation of the trapped data qubits, we introduce information measurements (IMs) for the data qubits and their adjacent stabilizer checks. We evaluate the performance of the proposed collaborative decoder on Generalized Hypergraph Product (GHP) codes and demonstrate that appropriate decoder configurations mitigate trapping sets in min-sum decoding without significant overhead.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a collaborative decoding framework for quantum LDPC codes that augments min-sum belief propagation with selective stabilizer check-node removals. Removals are guided by information measurements (IMs) on data qubits and adjacent checks; the authors introduce the metric of 'qubit separation' and assert that the resulting highly separated trapped data qubits directly mitigate trapping sets, yielding improved success rates on Generalized Hypergraph Product (GHP) codes without significant overhead.

Significance. If the performance claims and the causal link to qubit separation are substantiated, the framework would supply a practical, low-overhead heuristic for improving iterative decoders on degenerate QLDPC codes. The absence of free parameters in the core construction and the explicit focus on an independent addition to BP are positive features that could make the method reproducible and extensible.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (Evaluation): the central claim of performance gains on GHP codes is stated without any numerical results, error bars, success-rate tables, or comparison baselines. This prevents assessment of whether the reported mitigation occurs or whether overhead remains negligible.
  2. [§3 and §4] §3 (Collaborative Framework) and §4: the assertion that improved decoding is 'directly related' to generation of highly separated trapped qubits requires an ablation that holds the number of removed check nodes fixed while varying the selection policy (IM-guided versus random or degree-based). Without it, the contribution of the separation metric cannot be isolated from the mere reduction in active checks.
  3. [§2–3] §2–3 (Definitions): 'qubit separation' and 'information measurements' are introduced as invented entities but lack explicit mathematical definitions, algorithms, or pseudocode that would allow independent verification of measurability or of the claimed correlation with decoding success.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§3] Clarify the precise computational steps for IMs and how they are normalized across qubits of different degrees.
  2. [§4] Ensure all figures include standard min-sum baselines and report the exact code parameters (n,k,d) and noise model used for the GHP instances.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to improve the clarity and substantiation of our claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (Evaluation): the central claim of performance gains on GHP codes is stated without any numerical results, error bars, success-rate tables, or comparison baselines. This prevents assessment of whether the reported mitigation occurs or whether overhead remains negligible.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract and Section 4 would benefit from explicit numerical support. Although the manuscript reports evaluations on GHP codes, we will revise the abstract to include key quantitative metrics and expand Section 4 with success-rate tables, error bars from multiple simulation trials, and direct baseline comparisons against standard min-sum BP to allow proper assessment of both performance gains and overhead. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3 and §4] §3 (Collaborative Framework) and §4: the assertion that improved decoding is 'directly related' to generation of highly separated trapped qubits requires an ablation that holds the number of removed check nodes fixed while varying the selection policy (IM-guided versus random or degree-based). Without it, the contribution of the separation metric cannot be isolated from the mere reduction in active checks.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes that an ablation study is required to isolate the contribution of the qubit separation metric. We will add such an ablation to the revised Section 4, comparing IM-guided removal against random and degree-based policies while holding the number of removed check nodes fixed. This will clarify whether the observed improvements stem from the separation property rather than the reduction in active checks alone. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§2–3] §2–3 (Definitions): 'qubit separation' and 'information measurements' are introduced as invented entities but lack explicit mathematical definitions, algorithms, or pseudocode that would allow independent verification of measurability or of the claimed correlation with decoding success.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for explicit formalization to support reproducibility. In the revised manuscript we will supply precise mathematical definitions of qubit separation and information measurements in Section 2, together with the corresponding algorithms and pseudocode in Section 3, enabling independent verification of the metrics and their correlation with decoding performance. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical framework with independent evaluation

full rationale

The paper introduces a collaborative BP decoder with check-node removal guided by information measurements and the new concept of qubit separation, claiming that performance gains on GHP codes are directly related to generation of highly separated trapped qubits. No equations, derivations, or self-citations are exhibited in the provided text that reduce this claim to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or prior author result by construction. The central results are presented as outcomes of decoder configurations and empirical evaluation rather than tautological predictions, satisfying the default expectation of a self-contained contribution.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions of iterative message-passing decoders plus two newly introduced concepts whose utility is asserted without external validation in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Min-sum belief propagation operates correctly on the underlying Tanner graph of the QLDPC code
    Implicit in any BP decoder evaluation; standard for the field.
invented entities (2)
  • qubit separation no independent evidence
    purpose: Metric claimed to correlate directly with improved decoding performance on trapped sets
    Newly defined in the work; no independent evidence supplied in abstract.
  • information measurements (IMs) no independent evidence
    purpose: Quantities used to guide selective stabilizer check removal
    Newly introduced concept; no prior or external validation mentioned.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5726 in / 1259 out tokens · 37550 ms · 2026-05-23T05:30:21.131867+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation with Constant Overhead

    D. Gottesman, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant over- head,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1310.2984 , 2013

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  2. [2]

    Quantum ldpc codes with almost linear minimum distance,

    P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, “Quantum ldpc codes with almost linear minimum distance,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 213–229, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Quantum ldpc codes with positive rate and minimum distance proportional to the square root of the blocklength,

    J.-P. Tillich and G. Zémor, “Quantum ldpc codes with positive rate and minimum distance proportional to the square root of the blocklength,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 1193– 1202, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons,

    A. Y . Kitaev, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons,” Annals of physics, vol. 303, no. 1, pp. 2–30, 2003

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Asymptotically good quantum and locally testable classical ldpc codes,

    P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, “Asymptotically good quantum and locally testable classical ldpc codes,” in Proceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing , 2022, pp. 375–388

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Quantum tanner codes,

    A. Leverrier and G. Zémor, “Quantum tanner codes,” in 2022 IEEE 63rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 872–883

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Degenerate quantum ldpc codes with good finite length performance,

    P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, “Degenerate quantum ldpc codes with good finite length performance,” Quantum, vol. 5, p. 585, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Quintavalle, Jens Eisert, Robert Wille, and Joschka Roffe

    T. Hillmann, L. Berent, A. O. Quintavalle, J. Eisert, R. Wille, and J. Roffe, “Localized statistics decoding: A parallel decoding algo- rithm for quantum low-density parity-check codes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18655, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14527 (2024)

    S. Wolanski and B. Barber, “Ambiguity clustering: an accurate and efficient decoder for qldpc codes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14527 , 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Combining hard and soft decoders for hypergraph product codes,

    A. Grospellier, L. Grouès, A. Krishna, and A. Leverrier, “Combining hard and soft decoders for hypergraph product codes,” Quantum, vol. 5, p. 432, 2021

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Learning to decode trapping sets in qldpc codes,

    A. K. Pradhan, N. Raveendran, N. Rengaswamy, X. Xiao, and B. Vasi ´c, “Learning to decode trapping sets in qldpc codes,” in 2023 12th International Symposium on Topics in Coding (ISTC) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Trapping sets of iterative decoders for quantum and classical low-density parity-check codes,

    N. Raveendran, “Trapping sets of iterative decoders for quantum and classical low-density parity-check codes,” Ph.D. dissertation, The Uni- versity of Arizona, 2021

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Neural belief-propagation decoders for quan- tum error-correcting codes,

    Y .-H. Liu and D. Poulin, “Neural belief-propagation decoders for quan- tum error-correcting codes,” Physical review letters, vol. 122, no. 20, p. 200501, 2019

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    Graph neural networks for enhanced decoding of quantum ldpc codes,

    A. Gong, S. Cammerer, and J. M. Renes, “Graph neural networks for enhanced decoding of quantum ldpc codes,” in 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT). IEEE, 2024, pp. 2700–2705

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Stabilizer inactivation for message-passing decoding of quantum ldpc codes,

    J. Du Crest, M. Mhalla, and V . Savin, “Stabilizer inactivation for message-passing decoding of quantum ldpc codes,” in 2022 IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 488–493. 13

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    Breaking the trapping sets in ldpc codes: Check node removal and collaborative decoding,

    S. Kang, J. Moon, J. Ha, and J. Shin, “Breaking the trapping sets in ldpc codes: Check node removal and collaborative decoding,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 15–26, 2015

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    Quantum low-density parity- check codes,

    N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, “Quantum low-density parity- check codes,” PRX Quantum, vol. 2, no. 4, p. 040101, 2021

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Good quantum error-correcting codes exist,

    A. R. Calderbank and P. W. Shor, “Good quantum error-correcting codes exist,” Physical Review A , vol. 54, no. 2, p. 1098, 1996

    work page 1996

  19. [19]

    Error correcting codes in quantum theory,

    A. M. Steane, “Error correcting codes in quantum theory,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 77, no. 5, p. 793, 1996

    work page 1996

  20. [20]

    Quantum kronecker sum-product low- density parity-check codes with finite rate,

    A. A. Kovalev and L. P. Pryadko, “Quantum kronecker sum-product low- density parity-check codes with finite rate,” Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , vol. 88, no. 1, p. 012311, 2013

    work page 2013

  21. [21]

    Collective bit flipping-based decoding of quantum ldpc codes,

    D. Chytas, N. Raveendran, and B. Vasi ´c, “Collective bit flipping-based decoding of quantum ldpc codes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.17070 , 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Signal-space characterization of iterative decoding,

    B. J. Frey, R. Koetter, and A. Vardy, “Signal-space characterization of iterative decoding,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 766–781, 2001

    work page 2001

  23. [23]

    Codes and decoding on general graphs,

    N. Wiberg, “Codes and decoding on general graphs,” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of electrical engineering, linköping university Sweden, 1996

    work page 1996

  24. [24]

    Quantized iterative message passing decoders with low error floor for ldpc codes,

    X. Zhang and P. H. Siegel, “Quantized iterative message passing decoders with low error floor for ldpc codes,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2013

    work page 2013

  25. [25]

    An iterative scheme for lowering the error-floor of low-density parity-check codes,

    Z. Xu, Y . Ma, Q. Cheng, J. Zhu, and K. Gao, “An iterative scheme for lowering the error-floor of low-density parity-check codes,” in 2018 International Symposium on Communication Engineering & Computer Science (CECS 2018) . Atlantis Press, 2018, pp. 99–103

    work page 2018

  26. [26]

    LDPC: Python tools for low density parity check codes,

    J. Roffe, “LDPC: Python tools for low density parity check codes,”

    work page

  27. [27]

    Available: https://pypi.org/project/ldpc/

    [Online]. Available: https://pypi.org/project/ldpc/

    work page

  28. [28]

    Decoding across the quantum low-density parity- check code landscape

    J. Roffe, D. R. White, S. Burton, and E. Campbell, “Decoding across the quantum low-density parity-check code landscape,” Physical Review Research , vol. 2, no. 4, Dec 2020. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.043423

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.043423 2020

  29. [29]

    Compilation of all the qldpc codes used for simulations in alist,

    J. D. Crest, “Compilation of all the qldpc codes used for simulations in alist,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://gricad-gitlab. univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/ducrestj/qldpc-codes VI. A PPENDIX A. Algorithm to find the IM values In this section we provide the complete algorithm to cal- culate the IM values for a set of stabilizer check nodes. We assume the pas...

    work page 2022