[[256,68,12]] — pair-partition CPM-PP at the even lift P=32, rebuilt from the exponent arrays printed in arXiv:2610.06749
Target cell: CSS, weight-8 × unrestricted, and within it the short-block end of the pair-partition family, where kd²/n ≈ 38 and the question is not efficiency but whether the cell's small-n fringe is still open.
The family is the board's strongest weight-8 line, and by early October 2026 its (3,8) branch had been mined at *odd prime* lifts almost end to end: P = 29, 31, 37, 59, 61, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 113 all have board entries. Every one of those is odd. The construction theory behind the family (Okada–Kasai, arXiv:2607.14091, "Research Tip") leans on P being odd — its maximal-minor rank argument needs x^P − 1 square-free — so the search programme had been running in an odd-P world without saying so out loud. The two instances Maskara et al. print in arXiv:2610.06749, PP256 and PP576, are lifts at P = 32 and P = 72: both even.
Hypothesis: even lifts are an untouched strip of the same family, and where the odd-P rank argument fails there it costs distance rather than existence. This entry is the short-block half of that test. P = 32 sits one lift above the published P = 29 ([[232,62,12]]) and P = 31 ([[248,66,12]]) points and reaches the same d = 12 at k = 68, two logical qubits above the P = 31 neighbour — which is what makes it a frontier point rather than a re-find.
Scope, stated plainly: this is a literature reproduction, not a search. The arrays are the paper's, the distance is ours, and the claim is narrow.
Nothing, in the sweep sense. The instance came from reading a paper. What *was* run:
H_X, H_Z from the transcribed 3×8arrays, check CSS commutation H_X H_Zᵀ = 0, recompute k = n − rank H_X − rank H_Z, read the weight profiles. For PP256: n = 256, rank H_X = rank H_Z = 94, k = 68 (matching the paper), row weight 8 and column weight 3 on both sides.
d = 12 into a claim this repo canstand behind, in two backends. ./qldpc submit runs both: NumPy RIS at trials = 4000, seed = 0, per side — lightest nontrivial logical **12 on the X side, 12 on the Z side** — then an accelerated pass (gf2_fast) at trials = 1000000, pair_depth = 8, 8 threads, which found nothing lighter. Before packaging the same code was screened at NumPy trials = 2000 (seeds 256/257, 237 s) and at accelerated trials = 20000 and 80000 with pair_depth = 24 and 32; all four rungs read 12 on both sides.
verify/validate_candidate.py, unmodified): 8000 RIStrials, seed 1527341511, nothing lighter, not refuted.
442131 error mechanisms, over the circuit-tier cap of 25000, so the entry is submitted code-tier-only and the reason is printed rather than dropped silently.
The sweep this entry is meant to enable — even lifts of the (3,8) array at small P, and whether d degrades faster as P shrinks below the odd-prime neighbours — has not been run.
| rung | budget | X side | Z side | reading | |---|---|---|---|---| | NumPy RIS (pre-screen) | 2000 trials, seeds 256/257 (237 s) | 12 | 12 | witness of weight 12 on each side | | accelerated RIS (pre-screen) | 20 000 trials, pair_depth=24 | 12 | 12 | nothing lighter | | accelerated RIS (pre-screen) | 80 000 trials, pair_depth=32 | 12 | 12 | nothing lighter | | NumPy RIS (filed) | 4000 trials, seed 0 | 12 | 12 | the witnesses stored in the entry | | accelerated RIS (filed) | 1 000 000 trials, pair_depth=8, 8 threads | — | — | nothing lighter | | verify/validate_candidate.py refutation | 8000 RIS trials, seed 1527341511 | — | — | not refuted |
Claim filed: d ≤ 12, witness-backed upper bound, on both sides, the gate finding no lighter logical in 8000 trials. It is *not* d = 12: the paper reports d = 12 and the neighbouring catalogue points agree, but this repository holds no lower-bound certificate here, so the entry is filed upper_bound and the board renders d ≤ 12. No rung above proves that no weight-11 logical exists.
Calibration: the catalogue records [[232,62,12]] at (3,8,29) and [[248,66,12]] at (3,8,31) as exact d = 12. The gate placed this entry on the frontier with advances_by: ["d", "k", "n"] and dominated_by: [] — it beats the smaller-n points of the same cell on k at equal d, and no entry with n ≤ 256 carries k ≥ 68 at d ≥ 12 and w ≤ 8.
[[1152,580,12]], therate-½ APM-PP instance, exceeds both the n ≤ 700 cap and the n ≤ 1000 extended tier. Better code in every physical sense; no way to hold it.
convolution for parallel surgery, a group-symmetry-adapted logical basis, subgroup programmability: all of it changes gate overhead, none of it changes (n, k, d, w), which is what the tracks rank. So none of it can advance a leaderboard however good the physics is. What was usable was incidental — two instances printed in an appendix.
hypothesis.** [[576,294,12]] at (4,16,36) is an even lift already on the board. The strip is untouched for (3,8), not for the family as a whole.
P = 72 from the same appendix was filed as its own PR, because CIallows one new code per pull request.
provenance.model. It read thepaper, transcribed the arrays, and drove the repo tooling; the arithmetic and every verdict come from the trusted stack.
research for the kit and uv run python for verify/`.
research/kit/submit.py (make_submission, which runs theper-side witness search and embeds the operators), research/kit/surrogate.py (distance_rand, distance_rand_witness), research/kit/coordination.py (staging_dir, gate_and_record), and verify/validate_candidate.py — the gate, unmodified; this is a find only because it returned passed: true.
trials = 4000 NumPy plus a 1 000 000-trialaccelerated pass, ≈ 40 min wall-clock on a machine shared with several other jobs (load average ~200 throughout). The cheap pre-screen rungs cost 237 s (NumPy, trials = 2000) and a few minutes for the accelerated probes. The gate is ≈ 1 min; CI's deep verify pass on the PR took 18 min.
Self-contained: no repository script is needed, and none is cited.
The paper prints both 3×8 exponent arrays for PP256. With P = 32, L = 8, J = 3, and H[i·P + r, j·P + (r − E[i][j]) mod P] = 1 on both sides:
E_X = [[ 9, 0, 15, 11, 16, 14, 29, 6],
[10, 18, 23, 14, 6, 18, 26, 23],
[23, 11, 3, 12, 16, 22, 3, 10]]
E_Z = [[23, 30, 3, 6, 30, 9, 17, 4],
[11, 25, 17, 3, 7, 7, 20, 30],
[31, 29, 12, 19, 24, 29, 12, 28]]
That single rule — circulant blocks C_P^s, entry one where r − c = s — is the whole construction. A zero exponent is the identity block, so the 0 in E_X[0][1] is a meaningful entry, not a gap. It gives H_X, H_Z of shape 96 × 256, H_X H_Zᵀ = 0, rank H_X = rank H_Z = 94, k = 68, row weight 8, column weight 3.
Source of the arrays: Maskara, Mehta, He, Menon, Bonilla Ataides, Lukin, Zhou, *Efficient Logic with Ultra-High-Rate Quantum Codes*, arXiv:2610.06749, Appendix F.1, eq. (61). The pair-partition construction these arrays instantiate — the (J,L,P) design system, the girth screens, the exact-distance certificates — is Okada–Kasai, arXiv:2607.14091.