Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 33 references

Quantum Error Correction with Goppa Codes from Maximal Curves: Design, Simulation, and Performance

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Maximal curves of the form $y^{(q+1)/2}=x^m+x$ over $F_{q^2}$ are claimed to produce Hermitian self-orthogonal Goppa codes, and hence systematic families of $q$-ary quantum stabilizer codes with explicit parameter formulas.

desk verdict The main result collapses on a false divisor degree, and the parameter claims don't follow from the paper's own lemmas. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01549 v1 pith:INOG4GEJ submitted 2025-01-02 math.AG quant-ph

Vahid Nourozi This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AGquant-ph MSC 11T7114G5094B2781P70
keywords GoppacodesalgebraicgeometryquantumstabilizermaximalcurvesHermitianself-orthogonalfinitefieldsRiemann-Rochspaceserror-correcting
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 aims to show that Goppa codes attached to a specific family of maximal curves—those defined by $y^{(q+1)/2}=x^m+x$ over $F_{q^2}$—are Hermitian self-orthogonal in a range of divisor degrees, so the standard stabilizer construction converts them into explicit families of $q$-ary quantum error-correcting codes whose length, dimension, and distance are given by closed formulas. It also simulates three classical members of the family over $F_{16}$ and reports how decoding success degrades as noise increases, arguing that the family offers parameter trade-offs even where it does not beat the best known codes. If the construction is right, it gives a systematic, uniform source of quantum codes from one algebraic-geometric family, with parameters readable directly from a formula.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a divisorial duality for one-point Goppa codes on the maximal curve $X:y^{(q+1)/2}=x^m+x$. With $D$ the sum of the $F_{q^2}$-rational points outside $X(F_q)$ and $G=r$ times the sum of the $X(F_q)$-points, the differential $\eta=dt/t$ with $t=x^m-x$ makes the canonical divisor explicit and yields $C_r^\perp=C_{q^2+(q-1)(m-1)/2-r}$. That identity converts a bound on $r$ into Hermitian self-orthogonality, and the stabilizer construction converts the self-orthogonal classical codes into quantum codes.

What would settle it

For $q=3$ and $m=3$, count the $F_9$- and $F_3$-rational points of the curve $y^2=x^3+x$ and check whether their difference equals 9; the claimed $[[9,5,2]]_3$ quantum code and the length formula $n=q^2$ stand or fall on that difference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Goppa codes attached to the divisors $D=X(F_{q^2})\setminus X(F_q)$ and $G=r\sum_{P\in X(F_q)}P$ on the maximal curve $X:y^{(q+1)/2}=x^m+x$ over $F_{q^2}$ satisfy a clean duality: the Hermitian dual of $C_r$ is again a code in the same family, $C_r^\perp=C_{q^2+(q-1)(m-1)/2-r}$ (Lemma 3.5). From this, $C_r$ is Hermitian self-orthogonal whenever $r$ is small enough, and Theorem 3.9 gives the explicit sufficient condition $r\le q-1$. Applying the standard stabilizer-code conversion yields Theorem 5.2: for $q-1\le r\le 2(q-1)$ there exist $q$-ary quantum codes with parameters $[[q^2, q^2+(q-1)(m-1)/2-2-2r, r-(q-1)(m-1)/2+2]]_q$, illustrated by examples such as $[[9,5,2]]_3$ and $[[25,19,2]]_5$. The paper also simulates three classical members of the family over $F_{16}$—$[8,2,6]$, $[16,4,13]$, and $[32,3,28]$—and reports how their decoding success degrades as noise grows.

Load-bearing premise

The parameter formulas depend on the count $\deg(D)=q^2$—that deleting the $F_q$-rational points from the $F_{q^2}$-rational points leaves exactly $q^2$ points—and if that count is wrong, the length and every derived parameter shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every prime power $q$ and admissible $m$, Theorem 5.2 would produce a whole family of $q$-ary quantum codes of length $q^2$ with dimension and distance given directly by the formulas, so no search is needed.
  • The dual-code identity supplies a general self-orthogonality test for these Goppa codes: $C_r$ is self-orthogonal whenever $2r \le q^2+(q-1)(m-1)/2$, and Theorem 3.9 gives the simpler sufficient condition $r\le q-1$.
  • The simulated classical codes $[8,2,6]$, $[16,4,13]$, and $[32,3,28]$ over $F_{16}$ show the expected trade-off: shorter codes decode reliably at low error rates, while longer codes hold a higher success rate under heavier noise.
  • Some resulting quantum codes trade one unit of minimum distance for a larger dimension relative to the best-known tables, which is useful when information rate matters more than distance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct point count for small cases can test the divisor-degree assumption: if $\deg(D)$ is not $q^2$, the length and distance formulas would need revision even though the dual-code identity itself would remain a valid algebraic statement.
  • The proof of Theorem 5.2 establishes Hermitian self-orthogonality only for $r\le q-1$, while the theorem states the range $q-1\le r\le 2(q-1)$; supporting the full range would require a sharper self-orthogonality bound.
  • Because the duality identity is divisor-based rather than curve-specific, the same mechanism could be tried on other maximal curves with two distinguished point sets, potentially generating analogous quantum code families.
  • The simulation's decoder only flips single bits, so its success rates are a lower bound on what full syndrome decoding could achieve; rerunning the same curves with a proper decoder would give a sharper performance comparison.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper investigates algebraic-geometric (Goppa) codes associated with maximal curves y^{(q+1)/2}=x^m+x over F_{q^2}, claims Hermitian self-orthogonality for certain divisors, and applies the standard Ashikhmin-Knill construction to obtain quantum stabilizer codes. It also reports simulation results intended to illustrate performance. The main result, Theorem 5.2, asserts q-ary [[q^2, q^2 + (q-1)(m-1)/2 - 2 - 2r, r - (q-1)(m-1)/2 + 2]]_q quantum codes for q-1 <= r <= 2(q-1). The paper's own definitions and equations, however, contradict this statement: the divisor D defined in Section 3 does not have degree q^2 for the curves used, the self-orthogonality theorem is proved only for r <= q-1 while Theorem 5.2 uses r up to 2(q-1), and the dimension formula in Proposition 3.6 yields k_r > n for the examples in Example 5.3.

Significance. If the main theorem were correct, it would give a systematic family of quantum stabilizer codes from maximal curves with explicit dimension-distance trade-offs, together with a concrete comparison against known tables. The paper deserves credit for making the quantum-code step explicit and for attempting concrete examples. However, the central claim is not supported by the manuscript's own calculations: the false divisor degree changes the code length, the self-orthogonality argument does not cover the stated parameter range, and the dimension formula is internally inconsistent. The simulations in Section 4 are not tied to the theoretical construction in a verifiable way. I do not see machine-checked proofs or reproducible code in the manuscript; the cited GitHub repository is external and not included. Because the defects lie at the heart of the parameter formulas, the claimed theorem cannot be accepted as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3 (divisor definitions)] In Section 3 the paper defines G = X(F_q) and D = X(F_{q^2})\G, then asserts deg(G)=r(q+1) and deg(D)=q^2. For the curves used in Theorem 5.2 and Example 5.3, take q=3 and m=3: the curve y^2=x^3+x has 16 F_9-rational points and 4 F_3-rational points, so the complement has 12 points, not 9. The assertion deg(D)=q^2 is therefore false for the paper's own example, and the divisor identity (t)=D - q^2 P_infinity used in Lemma 3.5 is not valid. Since the code length n=q^2 and every subsequent parameter formula depend on this degree, the construction as written does not apply to the claimed code family.
  2. [Theorem 5.2 and its proof] Theorem 5.2 states the parameter range q-1 <= r <= 2(q-1), but its proof invokes Theorem 3.9, which establishes Hermitian self-orthogonality only for r <= q-1. No argument is supplied for q-1 < r <= 2(q-1). In Example 5.3(1), the values r=3 and r=4 are outside the range established by Theorem 3.9. Moreover, even for r <= q-1 the claimed quantum parameters are impossible: with q=3, m=3, r=2, Proposition 3.6(3) gives k_r = 7 (or 8 by the Riemann-Roch formula stated in the proof), so n - 2k_r is negative and Lemma 5.1 cannot produce a [[9,5,2]]_3 code.
  3. [Proposition 3.6(3)] Proposition 3.6(3) contains an arithmetic inconsistency. The genus is g=(q-1)(m-1)/4, obtained from g=(m-1)((q+1)/2-1)/2, but the proof writes g=(q-1)(m-1)/2, and the displayed formula k_r = r(q+1) - (q-1)(m-1)/4 omits the '+1' from the Riemann-Roch theorem. As a result the dimension formula is wrong by 1 in general and does not match the Riemann-Roch computation even when the divisor degree is corrected. This affects the quantum dimension n-2k_r in Theorem 5.2 and all examples built on it.
  4. [Section 4.1] Section 4.1 reports simulations of three Goppa codes over F_16 with parameters [8,2,6], [16,4,13], and [32,3,28], obtained from curves y^{(q+1)/2}=x^m+x with m=3,4,5. The exposition gives no valid q for these curves: if the field is F_16 = F_{q^2}, then q=4 and (q+1)/2 is not an integer, so the curve equation is undefined. The code lengths also do not follow from the divisors D and G defined in Section 3. Consequently the simulation section does not provide empirical support for the theoretical claims.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The symbol n is used both for the curve exponent (n=(q+1)/2 in Section 1) and for the code length (n=q^2 in Section 3); these should be disambiguated.
  2. [Section 3] The symbol G denotes both a set of rational points and the divisor r * sum(P); the notation should be separated.
  3. [Lemma 3.5] The expression '(t) = D = q^2 P_infinity' is ambiguous and should be written as (t)=D - q^2 P_infinity if that is the intended divisor identity.
  4. [Theorem 3.9] The proof of Theorem 3.9 derives self-orthogonality through an unnecessarily weak chain of inequalities; as written the final inequality uses (q-1)(m-1)/2 >= q+1 and is not generally valid, although the claimed range r <= q-1 would follow directly from Lemma 3.5 were that lemma valid.
  5. [Example 3.2] The generator and parity-check matrices in Example 3.2 are typeset in a garbled way, making it impossible to verify the claimed [8,3,5]_4 parameters from the displayed matrices.
  6. [References] References [2]-[4] on power-system optimization are not connected to the coding-theory content and should either be integrated into the discussion or removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the main flaw is a false divisor-degree premise and an unproved self-orthogonality range, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The algebraic-geometry code C_L(D,G) is defined by the standard evaluation construction (Definition 2.1); the dual-containment identity in Lemma 3.5 follows from Stichtenoth's duality lemma rather than from the paper's own conclusion; the Hermitian self-orthogonality condition (Theorem 3.9) is applied to that identity; and the quantum-code step is the standard Ashikhmin-Knill/CSS construction (Lemma 5.1) from a Hermitian self-orthogonal classical code. None of these steps fits a free parameter to data and then re-predicts that same data. The author's earlier works (refs 16-27) appear only in the introduction as related work and are not invoked in the proofs of Lemma 3.5, Proposition 3.6, Theorem 3.9, or Theorem 5.2, so they are not load-bearing self-citations. I do flag two correctness problems, neither of which is circular: (i) Section 3 asserts deg(D)=q^2 for D = X(F_{q^2}) \ X(F_q), but for the q=3, m=3 example #X(F_9)=16 and #X(F_3)=4, giving deg(D)=12, not 9; and (ii) Theorem 5.2 applies the self-orthogonality result for r up to 2(q-1), although Theorem 3.9 proves it only for r ≤ q-1. These are internal inconsistencies or omitted justifications, not reductions of an output to its own input. The simulation section reports empirical behavior of the constructed codes and does not rename a fitted quantity as a prediction. Overall, no claimed prediction is equivalent by construction to its own input, so the circularity score is minimal.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The construction uses no data-fitted constants. The load-bearing assumptions are the point counts on the curve and the divisor computations in Section 3, one of which is false; these are non-standard domain assumptions introduced specifically for this paper. The maximality of the curve is imported from Tafazolian-Torres [30].

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Riemann-Roch theorem and the Goppa designed minimum distance bound d >= n - deg(G)
    Used in Section 2 and Section 3 to compute dimensions and distance lower bounds.
  • domain assumption The curve y^n = x^m + x with n=(q+1)/2 and m=2,3 or m=p^b with b|s is maximal over F_{q^2}
    Imported from Tafazolian-Torres [30] and used to justify the point-count setup, though the paper never uses the actual maximal point count correctly.
  • ad hoc to paper The divisor D = X(F_{q^2}) \ G has degree q^2 and G = X(F_q) has degree q+1
    Section 3, paragraph defining G and D. This point count is false for the examples (q=3,m=3 gives degree 12, not 9) and is load-bearing for length and distance formulas.
  • ad hoc to paper The differential eta = dt/t with t=x^m-x has nu_P(eta)=-1 and res_P(eta)=1 for all P in Supp(D)
    Lemma 3.5 proof; asserted without a correct divisor computation and used to derive the dual-code and self-orthogonality formulas.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Error Correction with Goppa Codes from Maximal Curves: Design, Simulation, and Performance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/INOG4GEJ

@misc{pith2026250101549,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Error Correction with Goppa Codes from Maximal Curves: Design, Simulation, and Performance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/INOG4GEJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01549}
}
abstract

This paper characterizes Goppa codes of certain maximal curves over finite fields defined by equations of the form $y^n = x^m + x$. We investigate Algebraic Geometric and quantum stabilizer codes associated with these maximal curves and propose modifications to improve their parameters. The theoretical analysis is complemented by extensive simulation results, which validate the performance of these codes under various error rates. We provide concrete examples of the constructed codes, comparing them with known results to highlight their strengths and trade-offs. The simulation data, presented through detailed graphs and tables, offers insights into the practical behavior of these codes in noisy environments. Our findings demonstrate that while the constructed codes may not always achieve optimal minimum distances, they offer systematic construction methods and interesting parameter trade-offs that could be valuable in specific applications or for further theoretical study.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01549 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Goppa Code Performance (Individual Codes) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ashikhmin and E

    A. Ashikhmin and E. Knill, Nonbinary quantum stabilizer codes, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 3065-3072, 2001

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    Davoudi, F

    H. Davoudi, F. Wang, D. Shi, A. Xavier, F. Qiu, and Y. Chen, Market Pricing and Set- tlements Analysis Considering Capacity Sharing and Reserve Substitutions of Operating Reserve Products. 2023 North American Power Symposium (NAPS)(pp. 1-6). 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Davoudi, F

    H. Davoudi, F. Wang, D. Shi, A. Xavier, and F. Qiu, Market Implications of Alterna- tive Operating Reserve Modeling in Wholesale Electricity Markets. IEEE Transactions on Energy Markets, Policy and Regulation.2024. 12

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Davoudi, and F

    H. Davoudi, and F. Wang, Umbrella Uncertainty Set Identification to Enhance Reserve Deliverability. Authorea Preprints.2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Duursma and R

    I. Duursma and R. Kirov, Improved Two-Point Codes on Hermitian Curves, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 4469-4476, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Fuhrmann, A

    R. Fuhrmann, A. Garcia and F. Torres, On maximal curves, J. Number Theory67(1), 29-51, 1997

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    Goppa, Algebraic-Geometric Codes, Math

    V.D. Goppa, Algebraic-Geometric Codes, Math. USSR-Izv. 21(1), 75-93 1983

    work page 1983

  8. [8]

    Grassl, Bounds on the minimum distance of linear codes and quantum codes

    M. Grassl, Bounds on the minimum distance of linear codes and quantum codes. Online available at http://www.codetables.de, 2007. Accessed on 2023-07-23

    work page 2007

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Høholdt, J.H

    T. Høholdt, J.H. van Lint, and R. Pellikaan, Algebraic geometry codes, in Handbook of Coding Theory, V. S. Pless, W. C. Huffman, and R. A. Brualdi, Eds. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, vol. 1, pp. 871-961, 1998

    1998

  2. [10]

    Homma and S.J

    M. Homma and S.J. Kim, Toward the Determination of the Minimum Distance of Two- Point Codes on a Hermitian Curve, Des. Codes Cryptogr, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 111-132, 2005

    2005

  3. [11]

    Homma and S.J

    M. Homma and S.J. Kim, The complete determination of the minimum distance of two- point codes on a Hermitian curve, Des. Codes Cryptogr, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 5-24, 2006

    2006

  4. [12]

    Homma and S.J

    M. Homma and S.J. Kim, The Two-Point Codes on a Hermitian Curve with the Designed Minimum Distance, Des. Codes Cryptogr, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 55-81, 2006

    2006

  5. [13]

    L. F. Jin, S. Ling, J. Q. Luo, and C. P. Xing, Application of classical hermitian self- orthogonal MDS codes to quantum MDS codes, IEEE. Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 4735-4740, 2010

    2010

  6. [14]

    L. F. Jin and C. P. Xing, Euclidean and hermitian self-orthogonal algebraic geometry codes and their application to quantum codes, IEEE. Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 5484- 5489, 2012

    2012

  7. [15]

    Kim and G

    J. Kim and G. Matthews, Quantum Error Correcting Codes from Algebraic Curves. Singa- pore: World Scientific, 2008

    2008

  8. [16]

    Mosallaei, F

    B. Mosallaei, F. Ghanbari, S. Farivar, and V. Nourozi, Goppa Codes: Key to High Efficiency and Reliability in Communications, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08132, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Mosallaei, S

    B. Mosallaei, S. Farivar, F. Ghanbari, and V. Nourozi, The a-number of yn = xm + x over finite fields. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08149.2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Nourozi, M

    V. Nourozi, M. Afshar. Quantum Codes from Hyperelliptic Curve. Southeast Asian Bulletin of Mathematics, 43 (3), 395-400, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Nourozi, Goppa Code Implementation

    V. Nourozi, Goppa Code Implementation. GitHub repository, https://github.com/vahidnorozi8/goppa-code-implementation, 2024. Accessed on 2024-07- 26

    2024

  12. [20]

    Nourozi, Application of the Cartier operator in coding theory, Finite Fields and Their Applications, vol

    V. Nourozi, Application of the Cartier operator in coding theory, Finite Fields and Their Applications, vol. 96, pp. 102419, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    V. Nourozi. The rank Cartier operator and linear system on curves= Classifica¸ c˜ ao do op- erador Cartier e sistemas lineares na curva. Doctoral dissertation., 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Nourozi, and F

    V. Nourozi, and F. Rahmati, The rank of the Cartier operator on Picard curves. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07823. 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Nourozi, and F

    V. Nourozi, and F. Rahmati,. The rank of the Cartier operator on certain Fq2 -maximal function fields. Missouri Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 34(2), pp.184-190, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Nourozi, and S

    V. Nourozi, and S. Tafazolian, The a-number of maximal curves of third largest genus. AUT Journal of Mathematics and Computing,3(1), pp.11-16, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Nourozi, and F

    V. Nourozi, and F. Ghanbari. Goppa code and quantum stabilizer codes from plane curves given by separated polynomials. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07833, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Nourozi, F

    V. Nourozi, F. Rahmati, and S. Tafazolian. The a-number of certain hyperelliptic curves. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions A: Science, 46, no. 4, 1235–1239, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Nourozi, S

    V. Nourozi, S. Tafazolian, and F. Rahamti. The a-number of jacobians of certain maximal curves. Transactions on Combinatorics, 10, no. 2, 121–128, 2021. 13

    2021

  20. [28]

    Stichtenoth, A note on Hermitian codes over GF( q2), IEEE Trans

    H. Stichtenoth, A note on Hermitian codes over GF( q2), IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1345-1348, 1988

    1988

  21. [29]

    Stichtenoth, Algebraic function fields and codes, Universitex, Springer-Verlag, Berlin- Heidelberg, 1993

    H. Stichtenoth, Algebraic function fields and codes, Universitex, Springer-Verlag, Berlin- Heidelberg, 1993

    1993

  22. [30]

    Tafazolian and F

    S. Tafazolian and F. Torres, On the curve yn = xm + x over finite fields. Journal of Number Theory 145, 51-66, 2014

    2014

  23. [31]

    Tiersma, Remarks on codes from Hermitian curves, IEEE Trans

    H.J. Tiersma, Remarks on codes from Hermitian curves, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 33, pp. 605-609, 1987

    1987

  24. [32]

    van der Geer and M

    G. van der Geer and M. van der Vlugt, How to construct curves over finite fields with many points, Arithmetic Geometry (Cortona 1994) (F. Catanese Ed.), 169–189, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1997

    1994

  25. [33]

    Yang and P.V

    K. Yang and P.V. Kumar, On the true minimum distance of Hermitian codes, in Coding theory and algebraic Geometry (Luminy, 1991), vol. 1518 of Lecture Notes in Math., pp. 99–107, Berlin: Springer, 1992. The Klipsch School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, New Mexico State...

    1991

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.