Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · November 4, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Choosing a quantum error-correcting code for a real device means scoring candidates with circuit-level simulations so slow that only a few hundred can be run. So every evaluation counts, and a search is judged by how many good codes it finds per paid evaluation. Quantum LDPC codes built from a few group elements protect many logical qubits, but good ones are rare in a huge space. We introduce GFlowQEC, to our knowledge the first generative flow network (GFlowNet) for quantum code design. It builds a code one group element at a time and learns to propose codes in proportion to a power of their score. We train it once on scores from earlier searches, freeze it, and let it propose lifted-product codes with 180 physical qubits, scored by their distances. Ranking ten of its draws per paid call, it finds more than twice as many new top-scoring codes (inequivalent to any it was trained on) as tuned parallel tempering, even when tempering starts from GFlowQEC's training codes. It finds more than three and a half times as many as a supervised screen ranking ten random candidates per call. When both rank a hundred, the screen beats GFlowQEC, and does best ranking GFlowQEC's draws. Soft Q-learning, which shares the GFlowNet's optimal policy, does as well at one noise bias and better at the other, so the gain does not depend on the GFlowNet's training loss. Trained proposers can make a budget of expensive evaluations go further when good codes are rare.