A Three-Point Continuous-Variable Quantum MacWilliams Identity

Yinzi Xiao

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 28 references

A Three-Point Continuous-Variable Quantum MacWilliams Identity

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs a three-point continuous-variable quantum MacWilliams identity and proves that, for GKP lattice codes, the three-point bound exactly equals the two-point LP optimum, while the general bosonic completely-positive cone c

desk verdict A genuinely new CV three-point MacWilliams identity and a plausible no-go result, but the proof of the main collapse theorem has a normalization gap that needs fixing before the equality claim holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14920 v1 pith:B4DXWRUE submitted 2026-07-16 quant-ph

Yinzi Xiao This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords continuous-variablequantumerrorcorrectionGKPcodesMacWilliamsidentitythree-pointboundlinearprogrammingsemidefinitespherepackingsymplecticlattices

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper builds the three-point version of the continuous-variable quantum MacWilliams identity and then shows that, unlike in classical sphere packing, the three-point method cannot strengthen the two-point bound. For GKP lattice codes, the three-point optimum exactly equals the two-point linear-programming optimum: no admissible auxiliary, however it depends on the new edge coordinate, improves the bound. For general bosonic codes, the natural completely-positive reformulation collapses to two-point on every finite Laguerre sector the author certifies, with the full trace-class cone left open. The paper identifies a single structural cause: the code projector orients the bound correctly through an asymmetric K²/K¹ prefactor, but that same asymmetry makes the transform fiberwise and removes the full positivity that powers the classical three-point gain.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing structure is the asymmetric two-displacement sandwich F_B^(3)(v₁,v₂) = tr(D(v₁)O₁ D(v₂)† O₂†). A Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff expansion shows the resulting transform is fiberwise in the edge coordinate u = v₂ − v₁, while the center-of-mass coordinate w = v₁ + v₂ is symplectic-Fourier paired; the kernel carries an edge-norm shell constraint, an on-shell phase, and a Bessel factor of order N−2. This fiberwise structure makes the normalization and objective of the bound local to the u = 0 slice, which is why the admissible class reduces to the two-point LP problem. The configuration space is the Hermitian 2×2 Gram matrix H(v₁,v₂) with invariants (r₁², r₂², α, ω₁₂), where ω₁₂ is the

What would settle it

Exhibit any admissible auxiliary f for the lattice bound at some (N,d) with f(0,0) strictly below the two-point LP optimum while satisfying adjoint-positivity, normalization, and the phase-aware sign condition on the lattice triangle; that would refute Theorem 4.7. For the general-bosonic collapse, find a radial Choi form J ⪰ 0 on the ninth Laguerre level at one mode (or any level beyond the certified eight) satisfying the phase-sign condition with J ≠ 0; its existence would show the CP collapse is a finite-truncation artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the natural three-point extension of the CV quantum MacWilliams framework collapses to the two-point bound. The paper constructs three-point weight distributions A₃ and B₃ on the four-parameter configuration space of Hermitian 2×2 Gram matrices, whose fourth parameter is the symplectic invariant ω₁₂ carrying the GKP quantization condition and a ±1 phase, and derives a closed-form integral kernel. For GKP lattice codes, Theorem 4.7 shows the three-point optimum equals the two-point LP optimum exactly; the edge coordinate added by the three-point construction has no effect on the optimal value. For general bosonic codes, the natural factored-form kernel-positive cone

Load-bearing premise

The three-point dual distribution is defined by the asymmetric sandwich tr(D(v₁)O₁ D(v₂)† O₂†); this choice makes the MacWilliams transform fiberwise in the edge coordinate, so the objective, normalization, and constraints collapse onto the u = 0 slice, and if a different dual integrand produced a full 4N-dimensional symplectic Fourier transform, the equality with the two-point LP optimum would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For GKP lattice codes satisfying the stated distance conditions, no admissible three-point auxiliary can improve on the two-point LP optimum; the E8 and Leech magic functions saturate that optimum rather than beat it.
The three-point identity reproduces the known two-point Levenshtein-type, E8, and Leech bounds exactly on the overlap range, so the three-point apparatus adds no new numerical regime to the two-point theory.
For general bosonic codes, on the completely-positive cone, the three-point term f₃(0,0) ≥ 0 together with the phase-sign condition forces the Choi form to zero on every certified Laguerre rank, reducing the bound to two-point there; the full trace-class cone is not settled.
A genuine three-point improvement survives only for well-conditioned GKP lattices through a classical sphere-packing bound on the symplectic dual lattice, which is roughly 5% below the two-point bound at 2N = 4.
The quantum–classical contrast is structural: the projector asymmetry (K² vs K¹) both orients the bound as an upper bound and removes the full positive-definiteness that powers the classical three-point improvement, and within this auxiliary-function class the two effects cannot coexist.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the lattice collapse is generic, the auxiliary-function route to CV three-point bounds is structurally exhausted; the paper's own list of successors — a noncommutative moment/SOS hierarchy, copositive cones, conditional twisted enumerators, and CV shadow enumerators — is where any genuine three-point improvement for bosonic codes would have to live.
A direct test of the boundary is available: extend the N = 1 completely-positive certificate beyond the eight certified radial Laguerre levels using exact rational LDLT certificates. The paper reports that the certificate margin decays geometrically and that a sparse rank-12 net flips to spurious feasibility, so the full trace-class collapse is plausible but not assured.
The same fiberwise-collapse mechanism may recur in other projector-based auxiliary MacWilliams bounds whenever the weight enumerator pair carries asymmetric prefactors; the paper does not claim this, but its quantum–classical contrast is stated generically enough to invite the extrapolation.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short take: this paper constructs a three-point continuous-variable quantum MacWilliams identity and then shows, on the natural admissible class, that the three-point SDP bound does not beat the two-point LP bound for GKP lattice codes or on the certifiable CP sectors. That is a real negative result, novel and well-motivated, and the structural explanation—code projector orients the bound but kills the full positivity that powers the classical improvement—is plausible.

What is genuinely good: the identity and its closed-form kernel are new; the two collapse theorems are proved in detail; and the paper is unusually honest about its boundaries. It says explicitly that the CP collapse is only for the first eight Laguerre levels at N=1, that the full trace-class cone is open, and that the certificate margins decay geometrically. The numerical checks and exact rational LDLT certificates on the CP side are real evidence, not hand-waving.

The soft spot is in Theorem 4.7, which is the headline. Eq. (37) defines the transform with a 2^{-2N}(2π)^{-N} prefactor, so the normalization ef(0,0)=1 forces ∫g = 2^{2N}(2π)^N, not 2^{2N} as the proof states. That missing (2π)^N is load-bearing: it turns the lower bound into (2π)^N times the Cohn–Elkies optimum unless K_Burch_2 uses a convention that absorbs this factor. The proof then identifies K_CE(2N,d) with K_Burch_2(N,d) without spelling out which Fourier normalization applies. As written, the equality is not established; it may become an inequality with a factor, which would still be a no-go but a weaker one. This is central, not cosmetic, and a referee must check the conventions.

A softer second issue: the collapse depends on the asymmetric sandwich dual integrand, which makes the transform fiberwise in u. The paper argues that this is the unique BCH-closed extension, and that is reasonable within the projector-pairing framework, but the negative result is tied to that modeling premise. A different three-point identity built on a full symplectic Fourier transform might not collapse. The paper acknowledges this in Remark 4.8, so it is not hidden.

Verdict: send it to peer review. The novelty is clear, the technical core is substantial, and the normalization gap looks repairable rather than fatal. A careful referee should pin down the Fourier convention in the collapse proof and confirm whether the equality survives or becomes a factor-off inequality.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a three-point continuous-variable (CV) quantum MacWilliams identity, deriving a closed-form integral kernel on the four-parameter Hermitian Gram configuration space, and uses the identity to formulate auxiliary-function bounds on the dimension K of bosonic codes. The main results are two collapse theorems: for GKP lattice codes the three-point optimum equals the Burchards two-point LP optimum (Theorem 4.7), and for general bosonic codes a completely-positive variant collapses to the two-point bound on every Laguerre sector certified (Theorem 6.3). The paper attributes both collapses to the code projector, which orients the bound correctly but makes the MacWilliams transform only fiberwise positive-definite. It also reports a classical dual-lattice packing bound that does improve on the two-point bound and carefully lists open problems.

Significance. If the collapse theorems are correct, the paper is a substantial negative result: unlike the classical Cohn-de Laat-Salmon three-point bound and the discrete-variable SDP hierarchies, the CV auxiliary-function three-point method cannot improve on the two-point LP bound. The paper has real strengths: the kernel derivation is detailed and cross-checked by marginalizations and numerical checks; the CP-collapse certificates for N=1, M=2,...,8 are exact rational LDLT certificates rather than solver outputs; the comparison with Burchards is made without fitted parameters; and the scope of the claims--especially the open full trace-class cone--is stated explicitly. These features make the paper a useful contribution to the CV coding theory literature, provided the normalization gap in the proof of Theorem 4.7 is repaired.

major comments (2)

[Section 4.4, Theorem 4.7 (Eqs. (37), (45)-(46))] The proof of the collapse has a normalization error that is load-bearing. From Definition 4.1(ii), ef(0,0)=1, and Eq. (37) gives ef(0,0) = 2^{-2N}(2pi)^{-N} times the integral over w of f(0,w). Hence for g(w)=f(0,w), condition (ii) fixes the integral of g to be 2^{2N}(2pi)^N. The proof nevertheless states that bg(0)=2^{2N}(2pi)^N ef(0,0) times (2pi)^{-N} = 2^{2N}; the extra (2pi)^{-N} is not present in Eq. (37). With the correct value bg(0)=2^{2N}(2pi)^N, the lower-bound direction yields g(0) >= (2pi)^N K_CE(2N,d) for the standard normalization of the Cohn-Elkies LP optimum, not g(0) >= K_CE(2N,d). Similarly, the equality-direction extension f(u,w)=chi(||u||) g(w) cos(omega(w,u)/4) must be rescaled by 2^{2N}(2pi)^N to satisfy ef(0,0)=1, which multiplies the objective f(0,0) by the same factor. Thus Eq. (46) is not established as written. The authors should either correct Eq. (37) and all
[Section 4.4, Eq. (46) and Remark 4.8] The theorem identifies K_CV_lat(N,d) with K_Burch_2(N,d), but K_Burch_2 is only defined by reference to [Bur25, Thm. 1]. The Cohn-Elkies LP optimum used in the proof is defined with the normalization hat h(0) = integral of h(x) dx. Without an explicit statement of the normalization in Burchards' two-point LP optimum--in particular whether it absorbs any factor of (2pi)^N--the asserted equality K_CE(2N,d) = K_Burch_2(N,d) cannot be checked. This is not a cosmetic issue: the missing factor in the preceding comment changes the result by (2pi)^N unless K_Burch_2 is defined with that same factor. The manuscript should give the precise definition of K_Burch_2 in the conventions of Section 2.1 and prove or cite the identity relating it to the Cohn-Elkies LP optimum with the chosen Fourier normalization.

minor comments (3)

[Sections 5.1-5.2, Eqs. (48)-(51) and Table 1] The numerical gain factors 0.871 and 0.564 should be recomputed against the stated definition of j_N as the first positive zero of J_N. For example, with j_4 approximately 7.588, the expression (4pi)^4 * 4! * 2^4 / j_4^8 is about 0.087, not 0.871. If j_N denotes a different zero or a different Bessel order, that needs to be stated explicitly. This does not affect the collapse theorem but undermines the saturation examples as currently written.
[Definition 4.1 and Theorem 4.7] The theorem's scope depends on the asymmetric dual integrand Eq. (15) and the resulting fiberwise transform. Remark 4.8 argues this is the canonical extension, but the theorem statement itself should make the dependence explicit, for example by saying 'for the class of auxiliary functions defined by the fiberwise MacWilliams transform Eq. (37).' This would help readers who do not accept the canonicity argument.
[Section 2.6 and Table 1] The quantities K times d^{2N} are dimensionful in the Burchards convention. The conversion in Section 2.6 is useful, but Table 1 and Eqs. (50)-(51) should state that all numerical values are in that convention, and ideally the table should include the conversion factors so the numerical claims can be checked independently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: the lattice three-point collapse is a genuine reduction to Burchards' external two-point LP optimum; the only flagged soft spot is a Fourier-normalization convention in the proof of Theorem 4.7, which is a notation/correctness issue, not a circular step.

full rationale

The central claim Theorem 4.7 compares the three-point admissible optimum K_CV_lat(N,d) with an external two-point LP optimum K_Burch_2(N,d) from Burchards [Bur25]. The proof reduces the three-point program to the u=0 slice by showing that the objective, normalization, and fiberwise positivity constraints collapse onto g(w)=f(0,w); the equality direction constructs an admissible f from any two-point LP function g. This is a reduction theorem, not a fitted prediction or a definitional identity: the admissible class could in principle have contained u-dependent functions that beat the two-point bound, and the theorem shows they cannot. The construction Eq. (44) and the E8/Leech saturation results use known external magic functions [Via17, CKM+17] and are explicitly labeled as saturation, not new bounds. The only in-scope soft spot is the normalization bookkeeping in Thm 4.7 (Section 4.4): Eq. (37) gives \tilde f(0,0)=2^{-2N}(2\pi)^{-N}\int f(0,w)dw, and the proof then writes \hat g(0)=2^{2N}; this is consistent if \hat g is the (2\pi)^{-N}-normalized symplectic Fourier transform used in K_CE_2, but the convention is not spelled out and is a clarity/correctness risk, not circularity. The paper openly states its limitations (full trace-class CP cone left open, Section 7.1; no Bessel closed form in \psi, Thm 3.1; finite-Laguerre certification only, Thm 6.3). The sole self-citation [BXRS25] is a peripheral reference to randomized code constructions and is not load-bearing for either collapse theorem. No parameter is fitted to the data being predicted, and no input is renamed as a prediction. Therefore: no significant circularity, score 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The collapse result rests on standard harmonic analysis (Bochner, Poisson summation, BCH) and the Burchards two-point framework. The only paper-specific modeling choice is the asymmetric sandwich that forces a fiberwise transform; no new physical entities or fitted free parameters enter the central claim.

free parameters (3)

u0
Existence parameter in the non-emptiness ansatz Eq. (44), chosen in (0,d); the collapse result does not depend on its value.
b
Gaussian decay rate in Eq. (44), chosen with bR0^2 > N to ensure positive-definiteness; only existence matters for the central claim.
A = chosen so ef(0,0)=1
Normalization constant in Eq. (44), set by the admissibility normalization; not fitted to data.

assumptions (6)

standard math Bochner's theorem and Schur product theorem for positive-definite functions
Used in Prop. 4.6 and Theorem B.2 to characterize adjoint-positivity and to certify the non-emptiness ansatz.
standard math Poisson summation formula for symplectic lattices
Used in Theorem 4.3 and Prop. 4.9 to relate lattice sums of f and its symplectic Fourier transform.
standard math Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula for displacement operators
Used in Section 3 to derive the F-layer identity Eq. (22) and the kernel Eq. (28).
domain assumption GKP stabilizer code structure: stabilizer lattice L with ω|L×L in 2πZ, trace-class characteristic functions
Defines the class of codes for which the lattice collapse theorem is stated; taken from [GKP01] and [Bur25].
domain assumption Burchards convention c_D=1 with stated conversion to the QI convention
The paper works in the Burchards convention to compare directly with [Bur25]; the theoretical claims are claimed to be convention-independent.
ad hoc to paper The asymmetric dual integrand Eq. (15) is the canonical three-point extension
The collapse Theorem 4.7 relies on the fiberwise MacWilliams transform that follows from this specific sandwich choice. The paper justifies it as the unique BCH-closed extension, but this is a modeling premise rather than a forced mathematical fact.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Three-Point Continuous-Variable Quantum MacWilliams Identity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B4DXWRUE

@misc{pith2026260714920,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Three-Point Continuous-Variable Quantum MacWilliams Identity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B4DXWRUE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14920}
}

abstract

We construct the three-point continuous-variable (CV) quantum MacWilliams identity, extending the two-point framework of Burchards, and give its closed-form integral kernel. Its configuration space carries a symplectic invariant with no classical counterpart, which encodes the GKP quantization condition and a three-point sign phase. Using the identity, we derive the semidefinite-programming bounds it supports on the dimension of CV quantum error-correcting codes, and we prove, in two collapse theorems, that the three-point apparatus does not improve on the two-point bound. For GKP lattice codes the three-point optimum equals the Burchards two-point linear-programming optimum identically. This is an exact determination of the lattice three-point optimum, so the $E_8$ and Leech magic functions saturate it rather than beat it. For general bosonic codes a completely-positive reformulation bypasses the positivity obstruction that rules out the natural factored-form constructions; the phase-sign condition together with Choi positivity then force the three-point term to vanish. We certify this collapse for radial Choi forms on the first eight Laguerre levels at one mode, and leave the full trace-class cone open. Both collapses have a single cause with no classical analogue, the code projector: it orients the bound correctly but also removes the full positivity that powers the classical three-point improvement.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

[1]

SDP bounds on quantum codes: Rational certificates

Gerard Angl \`e s Munn \'e and Felix Huber. SDP bounds on quantum codes: Rational certificates. arXiv:2603.19901, 2026

arXiv 2026
[2]

SDP bounds on quantum codes

Gerard Angl \`e s Munn \'e , Andrew Nemec, and Felix Huber. SDP bounds on quantum codes. arXiv:2408.10323, 2024

arXiv 2024
[3]

Brady, Alec Eickbusch, Shraddha Singh, Jing Wu, and Quntao Zhuang

Anthony J. Brady, Alec Eickbusch, Shraddha Singh, Jing Wu, and Quntao Zhuang. Advances in bosonic quantum error correction with G ottesman-- K itaev-- P reskill codes: Theory, engineering and applications. Progress in Quantum Electronics , 93:100496, 2024

2024
[4]

Burchards

Ansgar G. Burchards. Continuous-variable quantum M ac W illiams identities. arXiv:2502.09514, 2025

arXiv 2025
[5]

New upper bounds for kissing numbers from semidefinite programming

Christine Bachoc and Frank Vallentin. New upper bounds for kissing numbers from semidefinite programming. Journal of the American Mathematical Society , 21(3):909--924, 2008

2008
[6]

Symplectic lattices and GKP codes --- simple randomized constructions from cryptographic lattices

Johannes Bl \"o mer, Yinzi Xiao, Zahra Raissi, and Stanislaw Soltan. Symplectic lattices and GKP codes --- simple randomized constructions from cryptographic lattices. arXiv:2509.10183, 2025

arXiv 2025
[7]

Three-point bounds for sphere packing

Henry Cohn, David de Laat, and Andrew Salmon. Three-point bounds for sphere packing. arXiv:2206.15373, 2022

arXiv 2022
[8]

New upper bounds on sphere packings I

Henry Cohn and Noam Elkies. New upper bounds on sphere packings I . Annals of Mathematics , 157(2):689--714, 2003

2003

Show all 28 references

[9]

G ottesman-- K itaev-- P reskill codes: A lattice perspective

Jonathan Conrad, Jens Eisert, and Francesco Arzani. G ottesman-- K itaev-- P reskill codes: A lattice perspective. Quantum , 6:648, 2022

2022
[10]

Good G ottesman-- K itaev-- P reskill codes from the NTRU cryptosystem

Jonathan Conrad, Jens Eisert, and Jean-Pierre Seifert. Good G ottesman-- K itaev-- P reskill codes from the NTRU cryptosystem. Quantum , 8:1398, 2024

2024
[11]

Optimality and uniqueness of the L eech lattice among lattices

Henry Cohn and Abhinav Kumar. Optimality and uniqueness of the L eech lattice among lattices. Annals of Mathematics , 170(3):1003--1050, 2009

2009
[12]

Miller, Danylo Radchenko, and Maryna Viazovska

Henry Cohn, Abhinav Kumar, Stephen D. Miller, Danylo Radchenko, and Maryna Viazovska. The sphere packing problem in dimension 24. Annals of Mathematics , 185(3):1017--1033, 2017

2017
[13]

Encoding a qubit in an oscillator

Daniel Gottesman, Alexei Kitaev, and John Preskill. Encoding a qubit in an oscillator. Physical Review A , 64(1):012310, 2001

2001
[14]

The mixed-dimensional quantum M ac W illiams identity: Bounds for codes and absolutely maximally entangled states in heterogeneous systems

David Gonz \'a lez-Lociga and Simeon Ball. The mixed-dimensional quantum M ac W illiams identity: Bounds for codes and absolutely maximally entangled states in heterogeneous systems. arXiv:2604.25790, 2026

2026 arXiv
[15]

Bounds on absolutely maximally entangled states from shadow inequalities, and the quantum M ac W illiams identity

Felix Huber, Christopher Eltschka, Jens Siewert, and Otfried G \"u hne. Bounds on absolutely maximally entangled states from shadow inequalities, and the quantum M ac W illiams identity. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 51(17):175301, 2018

2018
[16]

Achievable rates for the G aussian quantum channel

Jim Harrington and John Preskill. Achievable rates for the G aussian quantum channel. Physical Review A , 64:062301, 2001

2001
[17]

Kwon, Anthony J

James I. Kwon, Anthony J. Brady, and Victor V. Albert. Absolutely maximal entanglement in continuous variables. arXiv:2503.15698, 2025

2025
[18]

M ac W illiams identities for intrinsic quantum codes

Eric Kubischta and Ian Teixeira. M ac W illiams identities for intrinsic quantum codes. arXiv:2604.16023, 2026

2026 arXiv
[19]

Bounding the set of quantum correlations

Miguel Navascu \'e s, Stefano Pironio, and Antonio Ac \'i n. Bounding the set of quantum correlations. Physical Review Letters , 98(1):010401, 2007

2007
[20]

A convergent hierarchy of semidefinite programs characterizing the set of quantum correlations

Miguel Navascu \'e s, Stefano Pironio, and Antonio Ac \'i n. A convergent hierarchy of semidefinite programs characterizing the set of quantum correlations. New Journal of Physics , 10(7):073013, 2008

2008
[21]

A Quantum Analog of D elsarte's Linear Programming Bounds

Rui Samuel Okada. A Quantum Analog of D elsarte's Linear Programming Bounds . PhD thesis, University of California, Davis, 2023. UC Davis Ph.D. thesis, December 2023; arXiv:2502.14165

2023 arXiv
[22]

Linear programming bounds for approximate quantum error correction over arbitrary quantum channels

Yingkai Ouyang and Ching-Yi Lai. Linear programming bounds for approximate quantum error correction over arbitrary quantum channels. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 68(8):5234--5247, 2022

2022
[23]

Eric M. Rains. Quantum shadow enumerators. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 45(7):2361--2366, 1999

1999
[24]

Schleich

Wolfgang P. Schleich. Quantum Optics in Phase Space . Wiley-VCH, Berlin, 2001

2001
[25]

Shor and Raymond Laflamme

Peter W. Shor and Raymond Laflamme. Quantum analog of the M ac W illiams identities for classical coding theory. Physical Review Letters , 78(8):1600--1602, 1997

1997
[26]

Model-based and sample-efficient AI -assisted math discovery in sphere packing

Rasul Tutunov, Alexandre Maraval, Antoine Grosnit, Xihan Li, Jun Wang, and Haitham Bou-Ammar. Model-based and sample-efficient AI -assisted math discovery in sphere packing. arXiv:2512.04829, 2025

2025
[27]

Christophe Vuillot, Alessandro Ciani, and Barbara M. Terhal. Homological quantum rotor codes: Logical qubits from torsion. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 405(2):53, 2024

2024
[28]

The sphere packing problem in dimension 8

Maryna Viazovska. The sphere packing problem in dimension 8. Annals of Mathematics , 185(3):991--1015, 2017

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

SDP bounds on quantum codes: Rational certificates

Gerard Angl \`e s Munn \'e and Felix Huber. SDP bounds on quantum codes: Rational certificates. arXiv:2603.19901, 2026

arXiv 2026

[2] [2]

SDP bounds on quantum codes

Gerard Angl \`e s Munn \'e , Andrew Nemec, and Felix Huber. SDP bounds on quantum codes. arXiv:2408.10323, 2024

arXiv 2024

[3] [3]

Brady, Alec Eickbusch, Shraddha Singh, Jing Wu, and Quntao Zhuang

Anthony J. Brady, Alec Eickbusch, Shraddha Singh, Jing Wu, and Quntao Zhuang. Advances in bosonic quantum error correction with G ottesman-- K itaev-- P reskill codes: Theory, engineering and applications. Progress in Quantum Electronics , 93:100496, 2024

2024

[4] [4]

Burchards

Ansgar G. Burchards. Continuous-variable quantum M ac W illiams identities. arXiv:2502.09514, 2025

arXiv 2025

[5] [5]

New upper bounds for kissing numbers from semidefinite programming

Christine Bachoc and Frank Vallentin. New upper bounds for kissing numbers from semidefinite programming. Journal of the American Mathematical Society , 21(3):909--924, 2008

2008

[6] [6]

Symplectic lattices and GKP codes --- simple randomized constructions from cryptographic lattices

Johannes Bl \"o mer, Yinzi Xiao, Zahra Raissi, and Stanislaw Soltan. Symplectic lattices and GKP codes --- simple randomized constructions from cryptographic lattices. arXiv:2509.10183, 2025

arXiv 2025

[7] [7]

Three-point bounds for sphere packing

Henry Cohn, David de Laat, and Andrew Salmon. Three-point bounds for sphere packing. arXiv:2206.15373, 2022

arXiv 2022

[8] [8]

New upper bounds on sphere packings I

Henry Cohn and Noam Elkies. New upper bounds on sphere packings I . Annals of Mathematics , 157(2):689--714, 2003

2003