Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 97 references

End-to-end switchless architecture for fault-tolerant photonic quantum computing

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper's central claim is that a fully passive, switchless photonic architecture can run fault-tolerant continuous-variable quantum computing with only 12 to 13 dB of Gaussian cluster squeezing.

desk verdict Real architecture ideas, but the 90% yield and 12–13 dB thresholds are conditional on an unquantified fidelity filter and zero-outcome post-selection; worth refereeing, not worth accepting as headline numbers yet. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12680 v3 pith:XY64FPRJ submitted 2024-12-17 quant-ph

Paul Renault , Patrick Yard , Raphael C. Pooser , Miller Eaton , Hussain Asim Zaidi This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords continuous-variablequantumcomputingGKPqubitsphotonicclusterstatesmeasurement-basedcomputationfaulttolerancemagicintegratedphotonicserrorcorrection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that fault-tolerant quantum computing can be done on a fully passive photonic chip, with no optical switches and no quantum memories. Its central claim is that a continuous-variable architecture built from time-frequency multiplexed cluster states produces GKP qubits above the fault-tolerance threshold with probability above 90%, at Gaussian cluster squeezing between 12 and 13 dB. It also claims a magic-state generation protocol that, with 13 dB squeezing, yields distillable magic states at 4.8% success probability, about an order of magnitude higher than the vacuum-based alternative. If these numbers hold, the main obstacle shifts from integrating low-loss switches and high-photon-number detectors to pushing on-chip squeezing from the current ~8 dB toward 13 dB.

What carries the argument

The central mechanisms are PhANTM (repeated photon subtraction and teleportation along a dual-rail cluster state, which builds a large squeezed cat state without switches), adaptive breeding (an algorithm that squeezes each probabilistic cat to the required amplitudes, replaces unsuitable cats by momentum-squeezed states, and breeds pairs through homodyne measurements to form GKP sensor states), and the teleportation-based squeezing gate whose homodyne angles set the effective squeezing. The magic-state protocol replaces the vacuum mode in GKP error correction by an optimized cat state, which is what lets weaker GKP states remain distillable. At the logical level, GKP Bell pairs are assembled into a macronode RHG lattice with static linear optics; a dictionary protocol converts physical homodyne outcomes into effective canonical-lattice measurements, and decoded syndromes are processed by a minimum-weight perfect-matching decoder. The target cat amplitude for breeding is set by the spacing formula $\alpha_b = \xi 2^{(M-3)/2}$, which the adaptive protocol adjusts for each PhANTM output.

What would settle it

Re-run the published Monte Carlo chain from PhANTM through adaptive breeding without the 95%-fidelity filter and without zero-outcome post-selection, then count the fraction of GKP states that land in the correctable region at 13 dB; a true success probability well below 90% or a threshold above 13.5 dB would refute the central claim. A complementary experimental check is to demonstrate 13 dB squeezing from an integrated on-chip source, which has not yet been reported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a switchless, all-passive continuous-variable architecture can cross the fault-tolerance threshold with 12 to 13 dB of Gaussian cluster squeezing. The authors report fault-tolerance thresholds, expressed as cluster squeezing, of 12.1, 12.7, and 13.0 dB for 20, 15, and 10 rounds of their photon-counting-assisted node-teleportation (PhANTM) method; at 13 dB and 20 PhANTM steps, 91% of generated sensor states fall in the correctable region. They further report that replacing the vacuum mode in GKP-based error correction with an optimized cat state makes magic states distillable with GKP resources at roughly 13 dB effective squeezing, with a Monte Carlo success rate of 4.8% rather than 0.3%. The logical layer is constructed as a macronode RHG lattice assembled from GKP Bell pairs with static linear optics, and the logical error rates come from full end-to-end simulations that feed distributions of GKP squeezing from the generation pipeline into a surface-code decoder.

Load-bearing premise

The reported numbers depend on keeping only simulated cat states with fitted fidelity above 95% and post-selecting every homodyne outcome to zero; if the rejected tail is sizeable or nonzero outcomes degrade the cats, the yield and thresholds shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the threshold claim is right, fault-tolerant photonic computation no longer needs fast photonic switches or quantum memories; adaptivity reduces to setting local-oscillator phases and tracking corrections in software.
  • Low photon-number resolution (up to about 10 photons) suffices for cat generation, so high-bandwidth room-temperature detectors become viable instead of cryogenic detectors resolving 40 to 100 photons.
  • At 13 dB cluster squeezing with 20 PhANTM steps, roughly 91% of generated sensor states land above the fault-tolerance threshold, so qubit factories can operate at near-unity yield.
  • The 12 to 13 dB cluster-squeezing requirement sits below the 15 dB demonstrated in free space but above the ~8.3 dB shown on chip, making on-chip squeezing rather than detector resolution the pacing requirement.
  • Because the magic-state protocol works with GKP resource states at roughly 13 dB effective squeezing, universal non-Clifford gates become accessible without the ~20 dB GKP squeezing that vacuum-based magic-state preparation demands.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: if the 95%-fidelity filter and zero-outcome post-selection are removed, the authors' own deferred analysis suggests nonzero homodyne outcomes mainly unbalance the cat amplitudes; whether feedforward displacement restores the quoted >90% yield is not tested in this paper.
  • Inference: the p/q squeezing imbalance produced by breeding points toward biased or asymmetric decoders that could lower the required cluster squeezing below 12 dB, an optimization the paper leaves open.
  • Inference: the paper's loss analysis implies the practical loss budget is dominated by the PhANTM cat-generation stage, since sub-1% propagation loss already erodes Wigner negativity there, whereas breeding and QEC tolerate a few percent loss before thresholds shift notably.
  • Inference: if integrated sources reach ~12 dB only at higher pump powers or with added loss, the next constraint may be feedforward timing, because active displacements must complete within one temporal-mode spacing; the paper does not quantify clock-rate limits.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an end-to-end continuous-variable photonic fault-tolerant architecture built from passive components: PhANTM generates squeezed cat states on dual-rail quantum wires; an adaptive breeding protocol converts them to GKP sensor states; a CV-QEC protocol acting on cat states produces magic states; and a macronode RHG lattice with GKP qubits is decoded with minimum-weight perfect matching. The authors report cluster-squeezing thresholds of 12.1, 12.7, and 13 dB for 20, 15, and 10 PhANTM steps, GKP generation probabilities above 90% (Table 1), and a magic-state success rate of 4.8% at 13 dB. They also benchmark a balanced-GKP squeezing threshold of 10.2 dB, consistent with prior macronode work [27].

Significance. If the headline yields and thresholds hold, the architecture would be significant: it removes active switches from the qubit-generation path, requires only low photon-number resolution (up to about 10 photons), and operates at squeezing levels below the 15 dB demonstrated in free space while exceeding the 8.3 dB demonstrated on-chip. The end-to-end simulation structure, with realistic GKP squeezing distributions fed into QEC decoding, is a useful step beyond idealized fixed-squeezing analyses. The paper's external anchor (10.2 dB balanced threshold) and its loss analysis lend credibility. The main caveat is that the headline probabilities and thresholds are computed conditioned on unquantified post-selections in the PhANTM pipeline (Appendix 11.3), so the unconditional claims are not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix 11.3 / Sec. 8.2 / Table 1] The end-to-end yields and thresholds rest on two post-selections in the PhANTM Monte Carlo: only output states with fitted fidelity greater than 95% are retained, and every homodyne outcome is post-selected to zero. The discarded fraction and the probability of the zero-outcome conditioning event are not reported. Since these filtered cat states feed adaptive breeding (Sec. 5) and the threshold pipeline (Sec. 8.2), the 0.91 success rate in Table 1 and the 12.1/12.7/13 dB thresholds are conditional success probabilities, not unconditional end-to-end yields. Exact-zero homodyne outcomes form a measure-zero set for a continuous variable; the authors defer nonzero-outcome effects to ref. [55], but the abstract's claim of qubit production 'with probabilities above 90%' requires the unconditional per-attempt probability. Please report the discarded fraction and the zero-outcome probability, or repeat the simulation with the full homodyne distribution and displacement corrections.
  2. [Sec. 6 / Fig. 10] The magic-state success rate of 0.048 and the factor-of-10 improvement over vacuum input inherit the same conditioning: the deterministic CV-QEC curves in Fig. 8 are computed with post-selection on zero quadrature outcomes, and the Monte Carlo uses PhANTM cats after the greater-than-95% fidelity filter. The text states that the zero-outcome post-selection 'slightly' underestimates output squeezing [54], but the size of the effect on the success rate is not quantified for the cat-input protocol. Please report the unconditional success probability, or at least the probabilities of the conditioning events, so the 4.8% claim can be compared fairly with other magic-state protocols.
  3. [Appendix 11.8 / Sec. 8.2] The QEC simulation samples noise from only the diagonal elements of Σout after symplectic propagation, ignoring correlations between modes introduced by the macronode beamsplitter network and the dictionary corrections. The manuscript does not quantify the impact of this approximation on the threshold. Because this approximation is used in the end-to-end threshold simulations, please either justify that the off-diagonal terms are negligible for the threshold, or sample from the full covariance matrix.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix 11.3 / Fig. 14] The text states that 1000 trials are run for the PhANTM Monte Carlo, while the Fig. 14 caption says 500 iterations for each dataset; please reconcile the sample sizes.
  2. [Sec. 3 / Sec. 4] The architecture is described as 'fully-passive' and 'switchless', but Sec. 4 requires active displacements between repeated PhANTM steps. Please clarify that 'switchless' refers to the absence of optical switches on the quantum modes, not the absence of all active feedforward elements.
  3. [Sec. 8.1 / Fig. 12] The model assumes that GKP effective squeezing values are Gaussian-distributed across modes with standard deviation σd. Since the yield-above-threshold calculation is sensitive to the tails of this distribution, please include a goodness-of-fit comparison or overlay the simulated histograms from adaptive breeding.
  4. [References] In ref. [55], the author list contains 'Pfister Pfister'; this should be corrected to 'Olivier Pfister'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the 12–13 dB threshold and >90% yields are forward-simulated outputs with an external 10.2 dB anchor; the App. 11.3 post-selection is a conditionality, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

No load-bearing step in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs. The claimed 12–13 dB cluster-squeezing threshold is obtained by a forward pipeline: PhANTM Monte Carlo outputs (App. 11.2–11.3) feed adaptive breeding (Alg. 1), whose GKP effective-squeezing distributions are then used as inputs to an RHG-lattice logical simulation decoded with pyMatching (Sec. 8.2, App. 11.8). The threshold is the crossing of the logical error rate as a function of cluster squeezing, and the balanced-quadrature limit reproduces an external result: 'With balanced squeezing in each quadrature we recover a threshold of 10.2 dB, which is inline with similar error models [27].' This external anchor shows the logical error model is not tuned to produce the headline numbers. The 'probabilities above 90%' are likewise defined as the fraction of the simulated GKP squeezing distribution lying in the correctable region of Fig. 12(a), a forward summary statistic rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The only author-overlapping citation with a structural role is [55] (PhANTM, co-authored by M. Eaton); it is prior peer-reviewed work whose stated assumptions do not include the present FT-threshold or yield claims, so under the review rules it counts as independent support, not circularity. A real caveat, explicitly asserted in App. 11.3, is that 'only states with a fidelity greater than 95% are retained' and 'we post-select homodyne measurements at 0.' This makes the headline 0.91/table yields and the 12–13 dB thresholds conditional on an unreported filter fraction and on zero-outcome conditioning; if the discarded fraction is large or nonzero homodyne results degrade cat quality, the unconditional numbers shift. That is a validity/conditionality limitation, located in the simulation pipeline, not a circular reduction: the outputs are not defined in terms of the claims, nor is any parameter fitted to the target quantity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central simulation chain rests on eight unproved background premises, most of which are standard CVQC modeling assumptions. The most fragile are the unquantified fidelity filter in PhANTM, the zero-homodyne post-selection, the Gaussian squeezing distribution, and the assumed 12 to 13 dB on-chip squeezing capability, which is 4 to 5 dB above current on-chip demonstrations. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • Number of PhANTM steps = 20, 15, 10
    Chosen sweep values; the required cluster squeezing threshold changes from 12.1 to 13 dB as this number decreases (Sec. 8.2).
  • Photon subtraction attempts per time step = 8
    Set to keep photon numbers per PNR detector at or below 10, matching the low-PNR detector requirement (Sec. 4, Fig. 15).
  • Beamsplitter reflectivity gradient for photon subtraction = not specified in text; angles in Fig. 15 legend
    Tuned so the photon count distribution across the 8 PNR detectors is roughly uniform and no detector sees more than 10 photons (Sec. 11.4); directly shapes cat amplitude statistics.
  • Lower bound on cat squeezing r_lb = 0.5 (4.34 dB)
    Cats with squeezing below this value are replaced by momentum-squeezed states during adaptive breeding (Sec. 8.2); affects GKP yield and quadrature balance.
  • Number of breeding rounds M = 3
    Chosen for the threshold simulations; more rounds increase squeezing in one quadrature at the cost of more input cats (Sec. 8.2).
  • Target input cat amplitude for magic state CV-QEC = approximately 5.1 (optimal range 4.9 to 5.5)
    Chosen so the magic state infidelity falls below the 14.7% distillation threshold at 13 dB GKP squeezing (Sec. 6, Fig. 8); the Monte Carlo success rate depends on PhANTM cats centered near this value.
  • Fidelity retention threshold in PhANTM simulation = 0.95
    Output cat states with fitted fidelity below 95% are discarded before adaptive breeding (Sec. 11.3); the discarded fraction is not reported.
  • Fock truncation dimension = 60
    Numerical cutoff for QuTiP density matrix simulations (Sec. 11.3); could truncate high-photon contributions.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Standard CV quantum optics toolkit: squeezing, beamsplitters, homodyne detection, and PNR measurements as described in [33, 34, 42, 43].
    The architecture is built from these operations; no new physics is postulated.
  • domain assumption PhANTM produces cat states with the statistics simulated in [55] and reproduced here.
    The GKP threshold simulations consume cat amplitude, squeezing, and parity distributions from PhANTM Monte Carlo (Sec. 4 and Sec. 11.3); [55] is a prior paper by co-author Eaton.
  • domain assumption The Gaussian displacement error channel E(ρ, Δ) of Eq. (1) models the noise of realistic GKP states in the macronode lattice.
    This phenomenological model from [27, 84, 85, 28] underlies all QEC threshold results (Sec. 8.1).
  • domain assumption The macronode dictionary protocol from [27] maps physical measurements to canonical RHG lattice measurements without unmodeled noise.
    The simulation post-processes macronode measurements using this dictionary (Sec. 11.6).
  • ad hoc to paper Bred GKP and sensor states are adequately characterized by the fitted cat parameters (amplitude, squeezing, parity) when propagated through adaptive breeding.
    The simulation samples fitted cat parameters rather than propagating full density matrices through the breeding network (Sec. 11.3, Sec. 5).
  • ad hoc to paper GKP effective squeezing values are approximately Gaussian-distributed across modes in the QEC simulation.
    Sec. 8.1 samples squeezing variance for each mode from a normal distribution with standard deviation σ_d before sampling noisy homodyne values.
  • domain assumption Active feedforward displacements based on homodyne results are error-free and fast enough relative to the temporal mode spacing.
    Sec. 4 states 'Active displacements are needed...' and requires their timescale to be shorter than the time delay between successive temporal modes; the effect of nonzero homodyne outcomes on cat quality is deferred to [55].
  • domain assumption On-chip cluster squeezing of 12 to 13 dB can be achieved with low loss.
    Sec. 9 notes current on-chip squeezing is 8.3 dB [91] while free space reaches 15 dB [90]; the architecture requires 12 to 13 dB on-chip, which is not yet demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of End-to-end switchless architecture for fault-tolerant photonic quantum computing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XY64FPRJ

@misc{pith2026241212680,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: End-to-end switchless architecture for fault-tolerant photonic quantum computing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XY64FPRJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12680}
}
read the original abstract

Photonics represents one of the most promising approaches to large-scale quantum computation with millions of qubits and billions of gates, owing to the potential for room-temperature operation, high clock speeds, miniaturization of photonic circuits, and repeatable fabrication processes in commercial photonic foundries. We present an end-to-end architecture for fault-tolerant continuous variable (CV) quantum computation using only passive on-chip components that can produce photonic qubits above the fault tolerance threshold with probabilities above 90%, and encodes logical qubits using physical qubits sampled from a distribution around the fault tolerance threshold. By requiring only low photon number resolution, the architecture enables the use of high-bandwidth photodetectors in CV quantum computing. Simulations of our qubit generation and logical encoding processes show a Gaussian cluster squeezing threshold of 12 dB to 13 dB. Additionally, we present a novel magic state generation protocol which requires only 13 dB of cluster squeezing to produce magic states with an order of magnitude higher probability than existing approaches, opening up the path to universal fault-tolerant quantum computation at less than 13 dB of cluster squeezing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12680 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Wigner functions of squeezed cat state, GKP zero qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Conceptual overview of the creation of GKP states, magic states, MBQC-based lattices, and QEC to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Chip design of GKP generator to create multiple cat states in parallel from a time-frequency encoded [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cluster preparation for PhANTM application and parallel dual-rails. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: such that a single application of the circuit at τi produces an output cat with the same orien￾tation as the input cat, allowing repeated appli￾cations of PhANTM at τi+1 and later timesteps. Note that there are two homodyne measurements applied in a unit round of PhANT…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mean αc as a function of cluster squeezing. Each color corresponds to a given number of PhANTM steps. The means are estimated from 500 Monte Carlo iterations of PhANTM. Details of these simulation are given in Appendix. The plot shows the positive correla￾tion of αc wi…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: magic state infidelity as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Magic state generation protocol. Double lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Histograms of fidelities obtained from Monte [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) RHG unit cells. Primal unit cell shown with blue qubits on faces and red qubits on edges. Products [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (a) 2D threshold plot for independent noise in the GKP quadratures, in terms of decibel squeezing, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Fault-tolerant threshold for cluster squeezing for a range of PhANTM step numbers. Bottom panels show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Results of PhANTM simulations (500 iterations for each dataset). Corrected alpha ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Histogram of photons detected for each of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Cluster engineering for squeezing gate application. Stage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Illustration of the dictionary protocol for the macronode RHG lattice. a) Each node in the RHG lattice is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: a) Effective squeezing in p (square) and q (circle) quadratures as a function of 1 − ηhd for different cat state squeezing values. Only one type of squeezing is shown for the p-quadrature, as for the other squeezing values the curves overlap with the one already on th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation with static linear op- tics

    Ilan Tzitrin, Takaya Matsuura, Rafael N Alexander, Guillaume Dauphinais, J Eli Bourassa, Krishna K Sabapathy, Nicolas C Menicucci, and Ish Dhand. “Fault-tolerant quantum computation with static linear op- tics”. PRX Quantum2, 040353 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [55]

    Measurement-based generation and preservation of cat and grid states within a continuous-variable cluster state

    Miller Eaton, Carlos González-Arciniegas, Rafael N. Alexander, Nicolas C. Menicucci, and Pfister Pfister. “Measurement-based generation and preservation of cat and grid states within a continuous-variable cluster state”. Quantum 6, 769 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [54]

    Generating grid states from schrödinger-cat states without postselection

    Daniel J. Weigand and Barbara M. Terhal. “Generating grid states from schrödinger-cat states without postselection”. Phys. Rev. A 97, 022341 (2018). Accepted in Quantum 2025-07-01, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0. 22

    work page 2018

  4. [1]

    Simulating physics with computers

    Richard P. Feynman. “Simulating physics with computers”. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 21, 467–488 (1982)

    1982

  5. [2]

    Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond

    John Preskill. “Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond”. Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  6. [3]

    Demonstration of a small programmable quantum computer with atomic qubits

    S. Debnath, N. M. Linke, C. Figgatt, K. A. Landsman, K. Wright, and C. Monroe. “Demonstration of a small programmable quantum computer with atomic qubits”. Na- ture 536, 63–66 (2016)

    2016

  7. [4]

    Hardware-efficient variational quan- tum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets

    Abhinav Kandala, Antonio Mezzacapo, Kristan Temme, Maika Takita, Markus Brink, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gam- betta. “Hardware-efficient variational quan- tum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets”. Nature 549, 242– 246 (2017)

    2017

  8. [5]

    Quantum computing with neutral atoms

    Loïc Henriet, Lucas Beguin, Adrien Sig- noles, Thierry Lahaye, Antoine Browaeys, Georges-Olivier Reymond, and Christophe Jurczak. “Quantum computing with neutral atoms”. Quantum 4, 327 (2020)

    2020

Show all 97 references
  1. [6]

    Scalable Quan- tum Simulation of Molecular Energies

    P.J.J. O’Malley, R. Babbush, I.D. Kivlichan, J. Romero, J.R. McClean, R. Barends, J. Kelly, P. Roushan, A. Tranter, N. Ding, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A.G. Fowler, E. Jeffrey, E. Lucero, A. Megrant, J.Y. Mutus, M. Nee- ley, C. Neill, C. Quintana, ...

    2016

  2. [7]

    Fault-tolerant resource estimate for quan- tum chemical simulations: Case study on Li- ion battery electrolyte molecules

    Isaac H Kim, Ye-Hua Liu, Sam Pallister, WilliamPol, SamRoberts, andEunseokLee. “Fault-tolerant resource estimate for quan- tum chemical simulations: Case study on Li- ion battery electrolyte molecules”. Physical Review Research 4, 023019 (2022)

    2022

  3. [8]

    How to factor 2048 bit rsa integers in 8 hours us- ing 20 million noisy qubits

    Craig Gidney and Martin Ekerå. “How to factor 2048 bit rsa integers in 8 hours us- ing 20 million noisy qubits”. Quantum 5, 433 (2021)

    2021

  4. [9]

    How to compute a 256-bit ellipticcurveprivatekeywithonly50million toffoli gates

    Daniel Litinski. “How to compute a 256-bit ellipticcurveprivatekeywithonly50million toffoli gates” (2023)

    2023

  5. [10]

    Quantum En- tanglement between Optical and Microwave Photonic Qubits

    Srujan Meesala, David Lake, Steven Wood, Piero Chiappina, Changchun Zhong, An- drew D. Beyer, Matthew D. Shaw, Liang Jiang, and Oskar Painter. “Quantum En- tanglement between Optical and Microwave Photonic Qubits”. Physical Review X 14, 031055 (2024)

    2024

  6. [11]

    Quantum computing with atomic qubits and Rydberg interactions: progress and challenges

    M. Saffman. “Quantum computing with atomic qubits and Rydberg interactions: progress and challenges”. Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49, 202001 (2016)

    2016

  7. [12]

    Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits

    PieterKok, W.J.Munro, KaeNemoto, T.C. Ralph, Jonathan P. Dowling, and G. J. Mil- burn. “Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits”. Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 135–174 (2007)

    2007

  8. [13]

    Switch networks for photonic fusion-based quantum computing

    Sara Bartolucci, Patrick Birchall, Damien Bonneau, Hugo Cable, Mercedes Gimeno- Accepted in Quantum 2025-07-01, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0. 20 Segovia, Konrad Kieling, Naomi Nickerson, Terry Rudolph, and Chris Sparrow. “Switch networks for photonic fusion...

    2021 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Quantum computation over continuous variables

    Seth Lloyd and Samuel L. Braunstein. “Quantum computation over continuous variables”. Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 1784 (1999)

    1999

  10. [15]

    Modes and states in quantum optics

    C. Fabre and N. Treps. “Modes and states in quantum optics”. Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 035005 (2020)

    2020

  11. [16]

    Gaussian quantum information

    Christian Weedbrook, Stefano Pirandola, Raúl García-Patrón, Nicolas J. Cerf, Tim- othy C. Ralph, Jeffrey H. Shapiro, and Seth Lloyd. “Gaussian quantum information”. Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 621–669 (2012)

    2012

  12. [17]

    Fault-tolerant measurement-based quantum computing with continuous-variable cluster states

    Nicolas C. Menicucci. “Fault-tolerant measurement-based quantum computing with continuous-variable cluster states”. Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 120504 (2014)

    2014

  13. [18]

    Generation of time- domain-multiplexed two-dimensional cluster state

    Warit Asavanant, Yu Shiozawa, Shota Yokoyama, Baramee Charoensombuta- mon, Hiroki Emura, Rafael N. Alexander, Shuntaro Takeda, Jun-ichi Yoshikawa, Nicolas C. Menicucci, Hidehiro Yonezawa, and Akira Furusawa. “Generation of time- domain-multiplexed two-dimensional cluster state...

    2019

  14. [19]

    Universal quantum computa- tion with continuous-variable cluster states

    N. C. Menicucci, P. van Loock, M. Gu, C. Weedbrook, T. C. Ralph, and M. A. Nielsen. “Universal quantum computa- tion with continuous-variable cluster states”. Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 110501 (2006)

    2006

  15. [20]

    Encoding a qubit in an oscillator

    Daniel Gottesman, Alexei Kitaev, and John Preskill. “Encoding a qubit in an oscillator”. Phys. Rev. A64, 012310 (2001)

    2001

  16. [21]

    Bosonic quantum error correction codes in supercon- ducting quantum circuits

    Weizhou Cai, Yuwei Ma, Weiting Wang, Chang-Ling Zou, and Luyan Sun. “Bosonic quantum error correction codes in supercon- ducting quantum circuits”. Fundamental Re- search 1, 50–67 (2021)

    2021

  17. [22]

    Autonomous quantum error correc- tion and fault-tolerant quantum computa- tion with squeezed cat qubits

    Qian Xu, Guo Zheng, Yu-Xin Wang, Pe- ter Zoller, Aashish A. Clerk, and Liang Jiang. “Autonomous quantum error correc- tion and fault-tolerant quantum computa- tion with squeezed cat qubits”. npj Quantum Information 9, 1–11 (2023)

    2023

  18. [23]

    Limitations of quantum com- puting with Gaussian cluster states

    M. Ohliger. “Limitations of quantum com- puting with Gaussian cluster states”. Physi- cal Review A82 (2010)

    2010

  19. [24]

    Univer- sal quantum computation with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas

    Sergey Bravyi and Alexei Kitaev. “Univer- sal quantum computation with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas”. Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005)

    2005

  20. [25]

    All-gaussian uni- versality and fault tolerance with the gottesman-kitaev-preskill code

    Ben Q Baragiola, Giacomo Pantaleoni, Rafael N Alexander, Angela Karanjai, and Nicolas C Menicucci. “All-gaussian uni- versality and fault tolerance with the gottesman-kitaev-preskill code”. Physical re- view letters 123, 200502 (2019)

    2019

  21. [26]

    Blueprint for a Scalable Photonic Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computer

    J. Eli Bourassa, Rafael N. Alexander, Michael Vasmer, Ashlesha Patil, Ilan Tz- itrin, Takaya Matsuura, Daiqin Su, Ben Q. Baragiola, Saikat Guha, Guillaume Dauphi- nais, Krishna K. Sabapathy, Nicolas C. Menicucci, and Ish Dhand. “Blueprint for a Scalable Photonic Fault-Tolerant...

    2021

  22. [28]

    Fault- tolerant continuous-variable measurement- based quantum computation architecture

    Mikkel V Larsen, Christopher Chamber- land, Kyungjoo Noh, Jonas S Neergaard- Nielsen, and Ulrik L Andersen. “Fault- tolerant continuous-variable measurement- based quantum computation architecture”. PRX Quantum 2, 030325 (2021)

    2021

  23. [29]

    A manufacturable plat- form for photonic quantum computing

    PsiQuantum Team. “A manufacturable plat- form for photonic quantum computing”. Na- ture 641, 1–3 (2025)

    2025

  24. [30]

    Large- inductance superconducting microstrip pho- ton detector enabling 10 photon-number res- olution

    L. D. Kong, T. Z. Zhang, X. Y. Liu, H. Li, Z. Wang, X. M. Xie, and L. X. You. “Large- inductance superconducting microstrip pho- ton detector enabling 10 photon-number res- olution”. Adv. Photonics6, 016004 (2024)

    2024

  25. [31]

    Photon-number-resolving segmented detectors based on single-photon avalanche-photodiodes

    R Nehra, C. H. Chang, Q. Yu, A Beling, and O Pfister. “Photon-number-resolving segmented detectors based on single-photon avalanche-photodiodes”. Optics Express 28, 3660 (2020)

    2020

  26. [32]

    Squeezed states of light and their applications in laser interferome- ters

    Roman Schnabel. “Squeezed states of light and their applications in laser interferome- ters”. Physics Reports 684, 1–51 (2017)

    2017

  27. [33]

    Continuous-variable quan- tum computing in the quantum optical frequency comb

    Olivier Pfister. “Continuous-variable quan- tum computing in the quantum optical frequency comb”. Journal of Physics B: Accepted in Quantum 2025-07-01, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0. 21 Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics53, 012001 (2019)

    2019

  28. [34]

    Cluster-state quantum computation

    Michael A Nielsen. “Cluster-state quantum computation”. Reports on Mathematical Physics 57, 147–161 (2006)

    2006

  29. [35]

    A one- way quantum computer

    R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel. “A one- way quantum computer”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188 (2001)

    2001

  30. [36]

    The optical frequency comb as a one- way quantum computer

    S. T. Flammia, N. C. Menicucci, and O. Pfis- ter. “The optical frequency comb as a one- way quantum computer”. J. Phys. B, 42, 114009 (2009)

    2009

  31. [37]

    Temporal-mode continuous-variable cluster states using lin- ear optics

    Nicolas C. Menicucci. “Temporal-mode continuous-variable cluster states using lin- ear optics”. Phys. Rev. A83, 062314 (2011)

    2011

  32. [38]

    Building gaussian cluster states by linear optics

    Peter van Loock, Christian Weedbrook, and Mile Gu. “Building gaussian cluster states by linear optics”. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 76, 032321 (2007)

    2007

  33. [39]

    Streamlined quantum computing with macronode cluster states

    Blayney W Walshe, Rafael N Alexander, Nicolas C Menicucci, and Ben Q Baragi- ola. “Streamlined quantum computing with macronode cluster states”. Physical Review A 104, 062427 (2021)

    2021

  34. [40]

    Flexible quantum circuits using scalable continuous-variable cluster states

    Rafael N. Alexander and Nicolas C. Menicucci. “Flexible quantum circuits using scalable continuous-variable cluster states”. Phys. Rev. A93, 062326 (2016)

    2016

  35. [41]

    Broad- band amplitude squeezing in a periodically poled KTiOPO4 waveguide

    M. Pysher, R. Bloomer, C. M. Kaleva, T. D. Roberts, P. Battle, and O. Pfister. “Broad- band amplitude squeezing in a periodically poled KTiOPO4 waveguide”. Opt. Lett.34, 256 (2009)

    2009

  36. [42]

    Quantum computing with continuous-variable clusters

    Mile Gu, Christian Weedbrook, Nicolas C. Menicucci, Timothy C. Ralph, and Peter van Loock. “Quantum computing with continuous-variable clusters”. Phys. Rev. A 79, 062318 (2009)

    2009

  37. [43]

    Ultracompact generation of continuous-variable cluster states

    N. C. Menicucci, S. T. Flammia, H. Zaidi, and O. Pfister. “Ultracompact generation of continuous-variable cluster states”. Phys. Rev. A 76, 010302(R) (2007)

    2007

  38. [44]

    Continuous-variable optical quantum- state tomography

    A. I. Lvovsky and M. G. Raymer. “Continuous-variable optical quantum- state tomography”. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 299–332 (2009)

    2009

  39. [45]

    Efficient classical simulation of continuous variable quantum information processes

    Stephen D. Bartlett, Barry C. Sanders, Samuel L. Braunstein, and Kae Nemoto. “Efficient classical simulation of continuous variable quantum information processes”. Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 097904 (2002)

    2002

  40. [46]

    Gen- erating optical schrodinger kittens for quan- tum information processing

    Alexei Ourjoumtsev, Rosa Tualle-Brouri, Julien Laurat, and Philippe Grangier. “Gen- erating optical schrodinger kittens for quan- tum information processing”. Science 312, 83–86 (2006)

    2006

  41. [47]

    Plug-and-play genera- tion of non-gaussian states of light at a tele- com wavelength

    Mohamed F Melalkia, Tecla Gabbrielli, An- toine Petitjean, Léandre Brunel, Alessandro Zavatta, Sébastien Tanzilli, Jean Etesse, and Virginia D’Auria. “Plug-and-play genera- tion of non-gaussian states of light at a tele- com wavelength”. Optics Express30, 45195– 45201 (2022)

    2022

  42. [48]

    Quantum error correc- tion using squeezed schrödinger cat states

    David S. Schlegel, Fabrizio Minganti, and Vincenzo Savona. “Quantum error correc- tion using squeezed schrödinger cat states”. Phys. Rev. A106, 022431 (2022)

    2022

  43. [49]

    Progress towards practical qubit compu- tation using approximate gottesman-kitaev- preskill codes

    Ilan Tzitrin, J Eli Bourassa, Nicolas C Menicucci, and Krishna Kumar Sabapathy. “Progress towards practical qubit compu- tation using approximate gottesman-kitaev- preskill codes”. Physical Review A 101, 032315 (2020)

    2020

  44. [50]

    Phase-space methods for representing, manipulating, and correcting gottesman-kitaev-preskill qubits

    Lucas J Mensen, Ben Q Baragiola, and Nico- las C Menicucci. “Phase-space methods for representing, manipulating, and correcting gottesman-kitaev-preskill qubits”. Physical Review A 104, 022408 (2021)

    2021

  45. [51]

    Quan- tum error correction with the gottesman- kitaev-preskill code

    Arne L Grimsmo and Shruti Puri. “Quan- tum error correction with the gottesman- kitaev-preskill code”. PRX Quantum 2, 020101 (2021)

    2021

  46. [52]

    Continuous-variable gate tele- portationandbosonic-codeerrorcorrection

    Blayney W Walshe, Ben Q Baragiola, Rafael N Alexander, and Nicolas C Menicucci. “Continuous-variable gate tele- portationandbosonic-codeerrorcorrection”. Physical Review A102, 062411 (2020)

    2020

  47. [53]

    Equivalence of approximate gottesman-kitaev-preskill codes

    Takaya Matsuura, Hayata Yamasaki, and Masato Koashi. “Equivalence of approximate gottesman-kitaev-preskill codes”. Physical Review A 102, 032408 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    A fault-tolerant one-way quantum com- puter

    R Raussendorf, J Harrington, and K Goyal. “A fault-tolerant one-way quantum com- puter”. Ann. Phys. (NY) 321, 2242– 2270 (2006)

    2006

  49. [57]

    Generation of flying logical qubits using generalized photon subtraction with adap- tive gaussian operations

    Kan Takase, Fumiya Hanamura, Hironari Nagayoshi, J. Eli Bourassa, Rafael N. Alexander, Akito Kawasaki, Warit Asa- vanant, Mamoru Endo, and Akira Furusawa. “Generation of flying logical qubits using generalized photon subtraction with adap- tive gaussian operations”. Phys. Rev....

    2024

  50. [58]

    Noise analysis of single-mode gaussian op- erations using continuous-variable cluster states

    Rafael N. Alexander, Seiji C. Armstrong, Ryuji Ukai, and Nicolas C. Menicucci. “Noise analysis of single-mode gaussian op- erations using continuous-variable cluster states”. Phys. Rev. A90, 062324 (2014)

    2014

  51. [59]

    One-way quan- tum computing with arbitrarily large time- frequency continuous-variable cluster states from a single optical parametric oscillator

    Rafael N. Alexander, Pei Wang, Niran- jan Sridhar, Moran Chen, Olivier Pfister, and Nicolas C. Menicucci. “One-way quan- tum computing with arbitrarily large time- frequency continuous-variable cluster states from a single optical parametric oscillator”. Phys. Rev. A94, 032327 (2016)

    2016

  52. [60]

    High-yield, wafer-scale fabrication of ultralow-loss, dispersion-engineered sili- con nitride photonic circuits

    Junqiu Liu, Guanhao Huang, Rui Ning Wang, Jijun He, Arslan S. Raja, Tianyi Liu, Nils J. Engelsen, and Tobias J. Kip- penberg. “High-yield, wafer-scale fabrication of ultralow-loss, dispersion-engineered sili- con nitride photonic circuits”. Nature Com- munications 12, 2236 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    Lattice surgery on the raussendorf lattice

    Daniel Herr, Alexandru Paler, Simon J De- vitt, and Franco Nori. “Lattice surgery on the raussendorf lattice”. Quantum Science and Technology3, 035011 (2018)

    2018

  54. [62]

    Machine learning for effi- cient generation of universal photonic quan- tum computing resources

    Amanuel Anteneh, Léandre Brunel, and Olivier Pfister. “Machine learning for effi- cient generation of universal photonic quan- tum computing resources”. Optica Quantum 2, 296–302 (2024)

    2024

  55. [63]

    De- terministic preparation of optical squeezed cat and gottesman-kitaev-preskill states

    Matthew S. Winnel, Joshua J. Guanzon, Deepesh Singh, and Timothy C. Ralph. “De- terministic preparation of optical squeezed cat and gottesman-kitaev-preskill states”. Phys. Rev. Lett132, 230602 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    Deterministic Generation of Large Fock States

    M. Uria, P. Solano, and C. Hermann- Avigliano. “Deterministic Generation of Large Fock States”. Physical Review Letters 125, 093603 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    Measurement- based quantum computation with cluster states

    Robert Raussendorf. “Measurement- based quantum computation with cluster states”. PhD thesis. Ludwig–Maximilians– Universität München. (2003)

    2003

  58. [66]

    Measurement-based non- gaussian quantum state engineering

    M. Eaton. “Measurement-based non- gaussian quantum state engineering”. PhD thesis. University of Virginia. (2022)

    2022

  59. [67]

    Superconduct- ing transition edge sensors for quantum op- tics

    Thomas Gerrits, Adriana Lita, Brice Calkins, and Sae Woo Nam. “Superconduct- ing transition edge sensors for quantum op- tics”. In Superconducting devices in quan- tum optics. Pages 31–60. Springer (2016)

    2016

  60. [68]

    Seeding gaussian boson samplers with single photons for en- hanced state generation

    Valerio Crescimanna, Aaron Z. Goldberg, and Khabat Heshami. “Seeding gaussian boson samplers with single photons for en- hanced state generation”. Phys. Rev. A109, 023717 (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

    QuTiP 2: A Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum sys- tems

    J.R. Johansson, P.D. Nation, and Franco Nori. “QuTiP 2: A Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum sys- tems”. Computer Physics Communications 184, 1234–1240 (2013)

    2013

  62. [70]

    Strawberry Fields: A Software Platform for Photonic Quantum Computing

    Nathan Killoran, Josh Izaac, Nicolás Que- sada, Ville Bergholm, Matthew Amy, and Christian Weedbrook. “Strawberry Fields: A Software Platform for Photonic Quantum Computing”. Quantum 3, 129 (2019)

    2019

  63. [71]

    Vacuum provides quan- tum advantage to otherwise simulatable architectures

    Cameron Calcluth, Alessandro Ferraro, and Giulia Ferrini. “Vacuum provides quan- tum advantage to otherwise simulatable architectures”. Physical Review A 107, 062414 (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    Magic state distillation: Not as costly as you think

    Daniel Litinski. “Magic state distillation: Not as costly as you think”. Quantum 3, 205 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    Biased gottesman-kitaev- preskill repetition code

    Matthew P Stafford and Nicolas C Menicucci. “Biased gottesman-kitaev- preskill repetition code”. Physical Review A 108, 052428 (2023)

    2023

  66. [74]

    Finite Rate Accepted in Quantum 2025-07-01, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0. 23 QLDPC-GKP Coding Scheme that Sur- passes the CSS Hamming Bound

    Nithin Raveendran, Narayanan Ren- gaswamy, Filip Rozpędek, Ankur Raina, Liang Jiang, and Bane Vasić. “Finite Rate Accepted in Quantum 2025-07-01, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0. 23 QLDPC-GKP Coding Scheme that Sur- passes the CSS Hamming Bound”. Quantum 6, 767 (2022)

    2022

  67. [75]

    Quantum error cor- rection with the color-gottesman-kitaev- preskill code

    Jiaxuan Zhang, Jian Zhao, Yu-Chun Wu, and Guo-Ping Guo. “Quantum error cor- rection with the color-gottesman-kitaev- preskill code”. Physical Review A 104, 062434 (2021)

    2021

  68. [76]

    Surface code quan- tum computing with error rates over 1%

    David S Wang, Austin G Fowler, and Lloyd CL Hollenberg. “Surface code quan- tum computing with error rates over 1%”. Physical Review A83, 020302 (2011)

    2011

  69. [77]

    A game of surface codes: Large-scale quantum computing with lattice surgery

    Daniel Litinski. “A game of surface codes: Large-scale quantum computing with lattice surgery”. Quantum 3, 128 (2019)

    2019

  70. [78]

    Foliated quantum error- correcting codes

    A Bolt, G Duclos-Cianci, D Poulin, and TM Stace. “Foliated quantum error- correcting codes”. Physical review letters 117, 070501 (2016)

    2016

  71. [79]

    Topological fault-tolerance in cluster state quantum computation

    Robert Raussendorf, Jim Harrington, and Kovid Goyal. “Topological fault-tolerance in cluster state quantum computation”. New Journal of Physics9, 199 (2007)

    2007

  72. [80]

    Resilient quantum com- putation

    Emanuel Knill, Raymond Laflamme, and Wojciech H Zurek. “Resilient quantum com- putation”. Science 279, 342–345 (1998)

    1998

  73. [81]

    Flexi- ble layout of surface code computations us- ing autoccz states

    Craig Gidney and Austin G Fowler. “Flexi- ble layout of surface code computations us- ing autoccz states” (2019)

    2019

  74. [82]

    Linear- optical quantum computation with arbitrary error-correcting codes

    Blayney W. Walshe, Ben Q. Baragiola, Hugo Ferretti, José Gefaell, Michael Vasmer, Ryohei Weil, Takaya Matsuura, Thomas Jaeken, Giacomo Pantaleoni, Zhihua Han, Timo Hillmann, Nicolas C. Menicucci, Ilan Tzitrin, and Rafael N. Alexander. “Linear- optical quantum computation with ...

    2025

  75. [83]

    Demon- stration of a quantum nondemolition sum gate

    Jun-ichi Yoshikawa, Yoshichika Miwa, Alexander Huck, Ulrik L. Andersen, Peter van Loock, and Akira Furusawa. “Demon- stration of a quantum nondemolition sum gate”. Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 250501 (2008)

    2008

  76. [84]

    High- threshold fault-tolerant quantum computa- tion with analog quantum error correction

    Kosuke Fukui, Akihisa Tomita, Atsushi Okamoto, and Keisuke Fujii. “High- threshold fault-tolerant quantum computa- tion with analog quantum error correction”. Phys. Rev. X8, 021054 (2018)

    2018

  77. [85]

    All-optical long-distance quantum communication with gottesman- kitaev-preskill qubits

    Kosuke Fukui, Rafael N Alexander, and Pe- ter van Loock. “All-optical long-distance quantum communication with gottesman- kitaev-preskill qubits”. Physical Review Re- search 3, 033118 (2021)

    2021

  78. [86]

    Fault-tolerant bosonic quantum er- ror correction with the surface–gottesman- kitaev-preskill code

    Kyungjoo Noh and Christopher Chamber- land. “Fault-tolerant bosonic quantum er- ror correction with the surface–gottesman- kitaev-preskill code”. Physical Review A 101, 012316 (2020)

    2020

  79. [87]

    Sparse blossom: correcting a million errors per core second with minimum-weight match- ing

    Oscar Higgott and Craig Gidney. “Sparse blossom: correcting a million errors per core second with minimum-weight match- ing”. Quantum 9, 1600 (2025)

    2025

  80. [88]

    Fault-tolerant magic state prepa- ration with flag qubits

    Christopher Chamberland and Andrew W Cross. “Fault-tolerant magic state prepa- ration with flag qubits”. Quantum 3, 143 (2019)

    2019

  81. [89]

    High-thresholdfault-tolerant quantum computation with the gottesman- kitaev-preskill qubit under noise in an op- tical setup

    KosukeFukui. “High-thresholdfault-tolerant quantum computation with the gottesman- kitaev-preskill qubit under noise in an op- tical setup”. Physical Review A 107, 052414 (2023)

    2023

  82. [90]

    Detection of 15 dB squeezed states of light and their application for the absolute cali- bration of photoelectric quantum efficiency

    Henning Vahlbruch, Moritz Mehmet, Karsten Danzmann, and Roman Schnabel. “Detection of 15 dB squeezed states of light and their application for the absolute cali- bration of photoelectric quantum efficiency”. Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 110801 (2016)

    2016

  83. [91]

    Over-8-db squeezed light generation by a broadband waveguide optical parametric amplifier to- ward fault-tolerant ultra-fast quantum com- puters

    Takahiro Kashiwazaki, Taichi Yamashima, Koji Enbutsu, Takushi Kazama, Asuka In- oue, Kosuke Fukui, Mamoru Endo, Takeshi Umeki, and Akira Furusawa. “Over-8-db squeezed light generation by a broadband waveguide optical parametric amplifier to- ward fault-tolerant ultra-fast quan...

    2023

  84. [92]

    Resolution of 100 photons and quantum generation of unbiased random numbers

    M Eaton, A Hossameldin, R Birrittella, P Alsing, C Gerry, H Dong, C Cuevas, and Olivier Pfister. “Resolution of 100 photons and quantum generation of unbiased random numbers”. Nat. Phot.17, 106–111 (2022)

    2022

  85. [93]

    Photon-number-resolving segmented detectors based on single-photon avalanche- photodiodes

    Rajveer Nehra, Chun-Hung Chang, Qian- huan Yu, Andreas Beling, and Olivier Pfis- ter. “Photon-number-resolving segmented detectors based on single-photon avalanche- photodiodes”. Optics Express 28, 3660– 3675 (2020). Accepted in Quantum 2025-07-01, click title to verify. Publi...

    2020

  86. [94]

    High-threshold quantum computing by fus- ing one-dimensional cluster states

    Stefano Paesani and Benjamin J Brown. “High-threshold quantum computing by fus- ing one-dimensional cluster states”. Physical Review Letters 131, 120603 (2023)

    2023

  87. [95]

    From the bloch sphere to phase space representations with the gottesman-kitaev- preskill encoding

    L. García-Álvarez, A. Ferraro, and G. Fer- rini. “From the bloch sphere to phase space representations with the gottesman-kitaev- preskill encoding”. International Sympo- sium on Mathematics, Quantum Theory, and Cryptography. Mathematics for Indus- try33 (2020). 11 Appendix 11...

    2020

  88. [96]

    Subsequently we introduce the squeezing param- eterr′ such thatS(r′) = S(ln(g))S(r3)

    The weighting of the CZ gate can utilize eigq2q3 = S†(ln(g))eiq2q3S†(ln(g)) [55]. Subsequently we introduce the squeezing param- eterr′ such thatS(r′) = S(ln(g))S(r3). Further- more since theCZ gates commute, the circuit be- Accepted in Quantum 2025-07-01, click title to verif...

    2025

  89. [97]

    inner decoder

    Thenumberofphotonssubtractedateachsub- traction event is determined stochastically, based on the density matrix of the state that is about to undergo photons subtraction [55]. The stochas- tic nature of the photon subtraction results in a random cat state size and squeezing af...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.