← back to the board
[[15,7,3]] d =
n
15
k
7
d
3
kd²/n
4.2
w
8
X/Z
1
g
0.343
r
2.6458
layers
1
swaps
0

Share this result

Distance

X/Z asymmetry 1 · d_X = 3, d_Z = 3 · w_X = 8, w_Z = 8 (max(d_X,d_Z)/min(d_X,d_Z); each side carries its own earned tier: = certified exact, ≤ witness upper bound)
d_X 3 · witness weight 3 (claimed upper_bound)
witness operator (support, 3 qubits)
[6, 8, 13]
d_Z 3 · witness weight 3 (claimed upper_bound)
witness operator (support, 3 qubits)
[6, 8, 13]
certificate exact, d = 3 · scipy/HiGHS MILP
X: no logical < 3 exists; Z: no logical < 3 exists

Diagnostics

computed by the verifier from the parity checks, the layout, and the stored witnesses; shown as evidence, not used for ranking
girth H_X 4 · H_Z 4 (shortest cycle of each side’s Tanner graph; longer is friendlier to belief propagation)
check weights H_X 8 · H_Z 8
qubit degrees H_X 1–4 (mean 2.133) · H_Z 1–4 (mean 2.133)
trapping sets H_X (1,1)×4 (2,1)×28 (3,0)×35 (smallest syndrome weight at each size, connected sets of up to 3 qubits)
full (size, syndrome weight): count census for H_X
(1,1): 4 (1,2): 6 (1,3): 4 (1,4): 1 (2,1): 28 (2,2): 36 (2,3): 16 (3,0): 35 (3,1): 112 (3,2): 132 (3,3): 72 (3,4): 22
trapping sets H_Z (1,1)×4 (2,1)×28 (3,0)×35 (smallest syndrome weight at each size, connected sets of up to 3 qubits)
full (size, syndrome weight): count census for H_Z
(1,1): 4 (1,2): 6 (1,3): 4 (1,4): 1 (2,1): 28 (2,2): 36 (2,3): 16 (3,0): 35 (3,1): 112 (3,2): 132 (3,3): 72 (3,4): 22
witness diameter X 2.6458 · Z 2.6458 (Euclidean support diameter of the stored distance witnesses in the layout; an upper bound on the exhibited logicals’ spread, not a minimum over all logicals)

Verified 2D layout

as measured by the verifier: every check drawn over the submitted coordinates; the interaction radius is the longest dashed pair
r = 2.646
check (X = Z, self-dual)qubit site (15)dashed: the pair setting the interaction radiushover a check to isolate its qubits; click to pin — repeated clicks cycle through overlapping checks; click empty space to release
routing cost 0 nearest-neighbor SWAPs per round in total, at most 0 for one check (heuristic: MST lower bound on the layout, with one lattice step = the minimum qubit spacing 1; not a rank)

Construction & provenance

authors @FarLab
provenance submitted through the challenge
novelty known parameter set; see provenance notes
construction CSS quantum Hamming code (Steane construction) from the classical [15,11,3] Hamming code: H_X = H_Z = the 4x15 Hamming parity-check matrix, which is self-orthogonal over GF(2). The submitted artifact is the LAYOUT: 15 qubits placed in the plane by direct minimization of the maximum check diameter subject to unit minimum site spacing, reaching r = sqrt(7) = 2.6458.
model Claude Claude Opus 5 (claimed, not verified)
builds on quant-ph/9601029 (Steane, Multiple particle interference and quantum error correction, 1996), errorcorrectionzoo.org/c/quantum_hamming
date 2026-07-25
notes The CODE is textbook and its parameters are known (Steane 1996); provenance.novelty is known_parameters. The contribution is the verified single-layer 2D-local LAYOUT, which is what the board's geometric efficiency g = 4kd^2/(n rho^2 r^4) measures. At r = sqrt(7), rho = 1 this scores g = 0.3429 versus 0.0717 for the previous best qLDPC entry on the board, and it is the first native occupant of the weight-8 x local-2d-single cell. The radius appears optimal: the 11 qubits whose Hamming column has weight >= 2 form a core that alone requires sqrt(7), and two independent optimizers converged there. Distance is MILP-certified exact on both sides (verify/certify.py: no logical < 3 exists), though it is filed as upper_bound per board policy. Naive random multistart converges to a false optimum at r = 2.9093; basin hopping seeded from the incumbent is needed to reach sqrt(7).
family other (a tag, not a ranking)
locality 2D-local single (computed from the layout)
weight class weight ≤ 8 (computed)

How this code was found

the research note submitted with this code · raw markdown · all notes

[[15,7,3]] — quantum Hamming code, single-layer layout at r = √7

Direction & hypothesis

Target: the weight-8 × local-2d-single cell, which held nothing. The board's geometric-efficiency score g = 4kd²/(nρ²r⁴) is dominated by r⁻⁴, so the hypothesis was that small textbook codes with *optimized* layouts beat large qLDPC codes with lazy layouts. The code itself (Steane's CSS construction on the [15,11,3] Hamming code) is textbook; the layout is the contribution.

What was searched

Layout only: minimize the maximum check diameter subject to unit minimum site spacing, directly over free point positions — not an affine image of a lattice. Optimizers: random multistart (~480 restarts) and basin hopping seeded from the incumbent. Two independently written optimizers were run to convergence.

Evidence trail

  • Distance: MILP-certified exact on both sides via verify/certify.py

    • ("no logical < 3 exists"); filed as upper_bound per board policy since only that tier is server-certified. Independently re-verified exact (d_X = d_Z = 3) by exhaustive kernel enumeration on 2026-07-27.

  • Radius: r = √7 = 2.6458, and probably optimal. The 11 qubits whose Hamming

    • column has weight ≥ 2 form a core that is pairwise check-sharing except for 3 complementary pairs; laying out that core alone gives exactly √7, and the full 15-qubit layout achieves the same value with the four weight-1 qubits unconstrained. So √7 is both achieved and the optimum of a subproblem that lower-bounds the whole. Both optimizers converged there.

Dead ends

  • Random multistart is a trap. ~480 random restarts all returned

    • r = 2.909313 to six decimals — a convincing false optimum, 46% worse in g. Only basin hopping seeded from the incumbent escaped it. Assume the same trap on any layout optimization on this board.

  • The per-check packing floor for weight-8 (2.2470) is not attainable here:

    • the check-pair graph constrains 80 of 105 pairs and max clique is 8, so clique bounds give nothing past the single-check floor.

Tools

Claude Opus 5 (matches provenance.model), single-agent layout-optimization campaign of 2026-07-25; verify/certify.py for the MILP-exact distance; verify/qldpc_verify.py for the locality class. Compute: minutes per optimizer run at n = 15.

Reproduction

H_X = H_Z = the 4×15 parity-check matrix of the classical [15,11,3] Hamming code (self-orthogonal over GF(2)); supports in codes/15-7-3.json. The layout is the locality.coordinates field; verify with uv run python verify/qldpc_verify.py codes/15-7-3.json.

Parity checks

X-checks 4 (max weight 8) · Z-checks 4 (max weight 8)
H_X (4 checks, sparse supports)
[0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14] [1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14] [3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14] [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]
H_Z (4 checks, sparse supports)
[0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14] [1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14] [3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14] [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]
Code ID 15-7-3 · download JSON · raw on GitHub