Target: the unrestricted x weight-6 (and looser) cells. This code has maximum check weight 5, one below the weight-6 ceiling, the axis the existing [[180,6,10]] weight-6-planar record and other same-n baselines on this board do not beat it on. As with the two companion submissions ([[96,4,10]], [[140,6,10]]), the direction was mining an already-completed weight-5 bivariate-bicycle (BB) evolutionary campaign run in a companion repository for a small, directly-constructible, strongly-evidenced code, rather than running a fresh search in this repository. This is the highest-distance of the three.
The source campaign (an internal weight-5 bivariate-bicycle evolutionary campaign in github.com/qiskit-community/qcode-discovery, branch weight5-campaigns -- not part of a public branch at the time of this submission, so nothing below relies on that source being externally checkable) ran an LLM-guided evolutionary search (OpenEvolve) over weight-5 mixed-monomial CSS BB polynomial pairs (A, B), screening by k, CSS commutation, and a BP-OSD distance estimate, then MILP-verifying standout candidates exactly. Unlike the two companion submissions, this presentation is not a component extraction from a larger disconnected parent: it is a top-level, already-connected (ell=10, m=9) presentation in the source repository's catalogue, A = 1 + x^2y^2 + x^5y, B = 1 + x^3y^3, with claimed exact distance d=14 (MILP) in that repository.
No fresh search ran in *this* repository; the work here was independent re-verification of an already-found candidate using this repo's own trusted tools, per research/AUTORESEARCH.md.
Rebuilt (H_X, H_Z) from the polynomials above using this repo's own research/kit/bb.py:build_bb, then re-confirmed independently with this repo's own tools before submitting:
research/kit/css.py:verify_css / compute_k — CSS commutation holds,k = 4 exactly (GF(2) rank), n = 180, max check weight 5 on both sides.
research/kit/surrogate.py:distance_rand — randomized upper-bound search at5,000 and again at 50,000 trials, both returning d = 14 (converged).
research/kit/distance.py:decoder_distance — independent BP+OSD mechanism,200,000 injected-error trials, d_heuristic = 14, verdict = corroborated.
research/kit/distance.py:exact_distance (scipy/HiGHS MILP viaverify/certify.py, tlim = 600s) — attempted as an independent certification beyond the source repository's own claim. d = 14 sits at the edge of this repository's measured exact-certification envelope (`d <= 13 per CONTRIBUTING.md`). The attempt ran 4,272s (k = 4 solves per side) and hit the per-solve time limit on every solve, on both sides: scipy/HiGHS neither found a lighter logical nor proved none exists. This matches CONTRIBUTING.md's observation that just past the measured envelope "the problem is hard rather than merely slow" — the timeout is evidence about this instance, not a loose --tlim.
Final claim, stated precisely: witness-backed upper bound, d = 14, corroborated by two independent randomized mechanisms (a GF(2) coset-leader search and an unrelated BP+OSD decoder) converging on the same value, plus the source repository's internal MILP claim. Exact server-side certification was attempted here and did not close within the standard budget; d <= is the honest claim this submission makes.
Not applicable — this submission mined an existing, already-vetted campaign result rather than running a new search in this repository.
Discovering model, per the source campaign's own per-candidate model-attribution log: Claude Opus 5 (aws/claude-opus-5), matching provenance.model. This submission's independent re-verification and packaging in this repository was done separately by Claude Sonnet 5, via Claude Code, operating on this repository's research/kit and verify/ modules only (no edits to verify/). Compute: a handful of CPU-seconds to minutes per check on a single machine, plus one MILP certification attempt bounded at 2 * k * tlim = 4800s worst case.
from bb import build_bb HX, HZ = build_bb(l=10, m=9, A_terms=[(0,0),(2,2),(5,1)], B_terms=[(0,0),(3,3)])