Stabilizer code Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-14
A stabilizer code is the common eigenspace of a stabilizer group , an abelian subgroup of the Pauli group excluding . Choose independent stabilizer generators on physical qubits. They are commuting Hermitian operators, each squaring to . The stabilizer subspace and its orthogonal projector areThe stabilizer-projector formula gives , so logical qubits remain. Independent here means that no nonempty product of the chosen stabilizer generators is . Excluding is necessary: a vector cannot simultaneously be fixed by and unless it is zero.
For the three-qubit bit-flip repetition code, take and , with the Pauli Z gate on site and identities elsewhere. The stabilizer group is . Both stabilizer generators have eigenvalue exactly on the span of and , giving dimensions for one logical qubit. A projective measurement of these checks distinguishes four orthogonal two-dimensional sectors rather than eight individual computational basis states.
A Pauli error that anticommutes with a stabilizer generator changes that check's sign, producing an error syndrome. A Pauli operator commuting with every check can still act on the logical qubits; the centralizer of a stabilizer group describes these possibilities. Thus the number of checks determines the encoded dimension, while the quantum code distance determines protection against arbitrary local errors. The five-qubit error correcting code, for instance, has four stabilizer generators and quantum code distance three; the three-qubit bit-flip repetition code has two checks but quantum code distance one because a single phase flip is unflagged. [ref]
https://www.preskill.caltech.edu/ph229/notes/chap7.pdf. Preskill, §7.9.1: stabilizers, syndromes and logical operators
. Three-qubit bit-flip syndrome table 2026-10-14
Measure the commuting stabilizer generators and in that order. Use error syndrome bit for eigenvalue and bit for eigenvalue . For the Pauli X gate on physical qubit , every row holds for arbitrary normalized . This ordered parity-check convention follows [ref]
https://www.preskill.caltech.edu/ph229/notes/chap7.pdf. Preskill, §7.1
:| Error | State before recovery | eigenvalues | Error syndrome | Recovery |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Each pair of computational basis words within a row has the same two parities. Consequently the projective measurement reveals the row without distinguishing its two amplitudes. For example, becomes under . Both checks give with probability one, and applying restores both coefficients exactly, including the relative phase .
One implementation uses two quantum ancillas initialized to . Two controlled-NOT gates from data qubits 1 and 2 to the first quantum ancilla write their parity; two more from data qubits 2 and 3 to the second quantum ancilla write the other parity. Measuring only the quantum ancillas in the computational basis gives . Measuring the individual data qubits instead would reveal the encoded computational basis value and destroy the unknown quantum superposition. The existing coherent syndrome extraction for the three-qubit repetition code uses the alternative ordered checks , so its bit labels differ from this table.
The recovery also handles coherent errors. Put . Their images of the code are mutually orthogonal, giving , the Knill--Laflamme condition for this family. For any linear combination , its component in sector is . Measuring that error syndrome has probability on the normalized erroneous state, and recovery returns . More generally one recovery quantum channel corrects every noise quantum channel whose Kraus operators belong to this span. The assumption concerns the whole jointly correctable family; it does not extend to the span of arbitrary single-site Pauli errors. [ref]
https://www.preskill.caltech.edu/ph229/notes/chap7.pdf. Preskill, §7.2: correction of an error span
.A fully computed coherent example is the unitary operator . At it givesThe error syndromes and occur with probabilities and , independently of . Doing nothing for and applying for restores the same logical qubit in both branches; the scalar in the second branch is an irrelevant global phase. This is an example of linearity of coherent quantum error correction, rather than an assumption that the original error was a classical random bit flip.
