Good Codes Have Logarithmic Branchwidth¶
Claim/Theorem¶
Let \(C\) be an [n,k,d] linear code, and let
denote the code branchwidth in the sense of minimal tree realizations, where \(J(e)\) is the coordinate subset displayed by the tree edge \(e\) and
Then
More explicitly, combining Kashyap's treewidth lower bound with the branchwidth-treewidth comparison of Forney, Hu, Kschischang, and Koetter gives
Equivalently, every cubic tree decomposition of the coordinate set of \(C\) has some displayed cut \(L\) with
Using [[cross-cut-stabilizer-rank-rank-formula.md]], the same statement can be read as an intrinsic stabilizer claim: for any stabilizer space \(\mathcal S\) represented by a full-row-rank matrix with kernel \(C\), every branch decomposition has an edge-displayed cut with
So good codes do not just have some large cut as in [[good-codes-have-some-linear-cut-rank.md]]; they already force logarithmically large intrinsic connectivity in every tree decomposition of the coordinate set.
Dependencies¶
- [[cross-cut-stabilizer-rank-rank-formula.md]]
Conflicts/Gaps¶
- This is still weaker than the balanced-cut statement needed for Conjecture 3. A branch decomposition edge of width
Omega(n/log n)need not correspond to a balanced coordinate partition or to a cut aligned with a hardware separator. - The direct-sum obstruction in [[good-code-parameters-do-not-imply-cut-rank.md]] shows that even very good code parameters do not force linear balanced-cut connectivity, so branchwidth alone does not close the frontier.
- Turning this intrinsic branchwidth lower bound into a circuit-depth theorem still needs an additional bridge: either a theorem relating hardware-limited circuits to low-width graphical realizations, or a structural result showing that the relevant Quantum Tanner stabilizer spaces have large balanced-cut connectivity rather than merely large branchwidth.
Sources¶
10.48550/arXiv.0805.219910.48550/arXiv.0711.1383