Balanced Linear Cut-Rank From Trellis Width¶
Claim/Theorem¶
Every good linear code has not just some large cut-rank, but a large cut-rank across a balanced prefix cut.
Let \(C\) be an [n,k,d] linear code, and let
Then for every coordinate ordering \(\pi\), there exists a prefix cut \(L=P_i^\pi\) such that
Equivalently, for any stabilizer space \(\mathcal S\) with kernel code \(C=\ker H\), every ordering of the qubits has a balanced prefix cut with
In particular, for any asymptotically good family with \(k=\Theta(n)\) and \(d=\Theta(n)\), there exists a constant \(\varepsilon>0\) such that every ordering has a prefix cut satisfying
Proof sketch:
- By the trellis-width lower bound used in [[good-codes-have-some-linear-cut-rank.md]], every ordering \(\pi\) has some prefix cut \(P_i^\pi\) with
- Along any ordering, the prefix connectivity sequence changes by at most
1at each step:
because adding one coordinate changes each projected rank by at most 1.
3. Since \(\lambda_C(P_0^\pi)=\lambda_C(P_n^\pi)=0\), any prefix where the sequence reaches height at least \(h\) must lie at distance at least \(h\) from both endpoints. Hence the maximizing prefix satisfies
So linear trellis width automatically forces a balanced linear cut in every ordering.
Dependencies¶
- [[good-codes-have-some-linear-cut-rank.md]]
- [[cross-cut-stabilizer-rank-rank-formula.md]]
Conflicts/Gaps¶
- This theorem removes “balancedness” as a missing issue for ordering-based cuts, but it still does not imply that an arbitrary hardware-balanced separator cut has large connectivity.
- The direct-sum obstruction in [[good-code-parameters-do-not-imply-cut-rank.md]] remains valid: a code can have some balanced cuts with zero connectivity and other balanced cuts with linear connectivity.
- Therefore the real remaining invariant gap is alignment with the small-capacity cuts forced by hardware geometry, not mere existence of a balanced linear cut.
Sources¶
10.48550/arXiv.0805.219910.48550/arXiv.0711.1383