Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 47 references

With foreknowledge of its input, a photonic qudit gate can apply a controlled phase flip to an arbitrary subset of spatial modes in a single entangling step at success probability 1/8.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 03:21 UTC pith:6DHSVWQV

load-bearing objection The paper has a real idea — multi-level CZ gates for qudit circuit compression — but the state-independent scheme that carries the main scaling claim breaks for multiple trigger modes, and the fix is required before the central result can stand. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2602.08394 v3 pith:6DHSVWQV submitted 2026-02-09 quant-ph

Efficient circuit compression by multiqudit entangling gates in linear optical quantum computation

Apurav Tehri , Jaskaran Singh This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881V80 PACS 03.67.Lx42.50.Ex
keywords qudit circuit compressionmulti-level control-Z gatelinear optical quantum computingselective mode routerBell state measurementphotonic quditsspatial modesentangling gates
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper aims to show that a photonic qudit gate can apply a controlled phase flip on an arbitrarily chosen subset of spatial modes—a multi-level control-Z gate—using only passive linear optics, postselection, and Bell measurements. This matters because qudit circuit compression, which packs several qubits onto one photon, stalls when only some encoded qubits are meant to control a non-local gate: stripping r controls currently doubles the gate count per control, producing O(2^{r1+r2}) entangling operations. The paper proposes two constructions: one state-dependent scheme uses a single entangling step at constant success probability 1/8, and a state-independent scheme reaches O(2^{r1}+2^{r2}) non-local gates, exponentially better than the prior bound. If correct, this behavior closes a known scalability bottleneck and also raises the baseline two-level CZ success probability from 1/9 to 1/8.

Core claim

Central claim: the multi-level control-Z gate, which flips the phase of every two-qudit basis state whose first mode lies in a chosen trigger set C1 and whose second lies in C2, can be built with passive linear optics for arbitrary trigger sets. The first scheme couples each input qudit to an ancilla through a selective mode router (a partial swap) and postselects on one photon per output port; with input-dependent unitaries and a Bell measurement it produces the desired gate up to local corrections at probability 1/8, for any qudit dimension, but only when the input is known. The second scheme removes that requirement by using qubit ancillas and a sequence of two-level CZ gates, each with o

What carries the argument

Selective mode router (SMR): a passive linear-optical device whose action swaps two photons when both input modes are trigger modes, bunches them when exactly one is a trigger, and passes them unchanged otherwise. This partial swap is the flag: it turns "which mode of the qudit is occupied" into a binary ancilla label without measuring the input. Input-dependent unitaries O1 and O2 then compress the ancilla to a qubit, and a Bell-state measurement on the two ancillas converts the labels into the phase pattern of UMCZ. The state-independent variant uses a single-trigger two-level CZ gate as a primitive, iterated over all k1+k2 trigger modes to flag the input state without knowing it.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a passive linear-optics circuit can realize the selective mode router's exact partial-swap action of Eq. (14) with the stated postselection behavior, and that, in the state-dependent scheme, ancilla states |ξi> can be prepared from complete a priori knowledge of the input state.

What would settle it

Build the SMR of Fig. 4 with d=4 and test its action: send trigger-mode photons |ci> and |tj> into the two input ports and check that they emerge swapped in two separate output ports; then check that a trigger/non-trigger pair bunches into one port. Any measured success rate or mode-dependent loss deviating from the predicted behavior—or an inability to realize the partial swap with linear elements alone—would refute the central premise. For the full gate, a two-qudit experiment with |C1|=|C2|=2 should reproduce UMCZ on all four trigger pairs at overall 1/8 success.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For qudit circuit compression, removing r1 and r2 control qubits from a non-local gate now costs O(2^{r1}+2^{r2}) probabilistic two-level CZ gates rather than O(2^{r1+r2}).
  • A two-level CZ gate in linear optics, the standard building block, succeeds with probability 1/8 instead of 1/9—a 12.5% relative improvement.
  • The state-dependent scheme implements an arbitrary multi-level CZ gate with a single entangling step at probability 1/8 independent of qudit dimension, provided the input state is known a priori.
  • The state-independent scheme achieves the same operation for arbitrary inputs at success probability (1/2)(1/8)^{k1+k2}, at the cost of 2(2^{r1}+2^{r2}) ancilla qubits.
  • In the four-qubit quantum full-adder example, the state-dependent realization reduces the dominant non-local operation to one gate at 1/8 success, versus two CZ gates at (1/9)^2 in standard compression.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One testable extension the paper leaves implicit: the state-dependent ancilla preparation only requires amplitudes on the trigger sets, so a hybrid scheme that learns or guesses those amplitudes from a small number of copies might extend the 1/8 success regime beyond fully known inputs.
  • If the SMR behavior of Eq. (14) is verified, the same partial-swap-then-Bell-measure pattern could transfer to any platform with controllable two-body swaps, suggesting a general flag-then-phase recipe for multi-controlled gates.
  • The two schemes sit at opposite ends of a resource trade-off—complete state knowledge buys a single gate at 1/8, while no knowledge costs an exponential number of gates. Whether intermediate levels of partial knowledge interpolate between these extremes is a natural open question not addressed here.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two linear-optical implementations of a multi-level control-Z gate UMCZ between two spatial-mode qudits, acting on arbitrary trigger sets C1 and C2. The first scheme is state-dependent: it uses selective mode routers (SMRs), ancilla states that mirror the input amplitudes, local unitaries O1,O2, and a Bell measurement, and is claimed to succeed with probability 1/8 independent of the qudit dimension. The second scheme removes the state dependence by synthesizing the required input-ancilla entanglement through a sequence of two-level CZ gates (one per trigger mode), giving a gate count O(2^{r1}+2^{r2}) and a success probability (1/2)(1/8)^{2^{r1}+2^{r2}} for removing r1,r2 controls. The authors apply the schemes to qudit circuit compression and illustrate them on a quantum full adder.

Significance. If the construction is correct, the claimed scaling improvement from O(2^{r1+r2}) to O(2^{r1}+2^{r2}) non-local gates is a useful step for qudit-based LOQC compression. The paper is self-contained and does not rely on fitted parameters or circular reasoning; the appendix algebra is detailed and checkable. The improved 1/8 success probability for the two-level CZ primitive (compared with the cited 1/9) is a notable byproduct, although for k1,k2>1 the first scheme is explicitly not a proper gate. The central issue is the definition of the BSM correction unitaries in Eq. (27), which as written makes the state-independent claim invalid. The error is local and fixable, but it currently undermines the main result.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eqs. (26)-(27) and 'State-independent approach'] The correction unitaries are defined as U1 = 1 - 2|ξ1><ξ1|_1 and U2 = 1 - 2|ξ2><ξ2|_2, where |ξ_i> depend on the input amplitudes β_m, γ_n via Eq. (5). Grouping the Bell-state terms in Eq. (25) shows that the |φ-> coefficient is S00 + S01 - S10 + S11, which equals (1 - 2 Σ_{m∈C1} |m><m|_1) UMCZ|ψ>, not (1 - 2|ξ1><ξ1|_1) UMCZ|ψ>. Similarly, the other corrections are projectors onto the trigger subspaces. As written, the non-|φ+> BSM outcomes require input-dependent unitaries that cannot be implemented in the state-independent scheme, so the claimed O(2^{r1}+2^{r2}) realization is not a valid quantum gate. Replacing Eq. (27) with U1 = 1 - 2Σ_{m∈C1}|m><m|_1 and U2 = 1 - 2Σ_{n∈C2}|n><n|_2 restores the argument; this is a load-bearing correction.
  2. [Eq. (5) and the state-dependent derivation] The ancilla states |ξ_i> are defined with a factor 1/√P_i, so for an input with P_i = 0 (no amplitude on the trigger set) the state is undefined. The claimed 1/8-success realization therefore does not apply to all inputs, even known ones. Since UMCZ is the identity on such inputs, the authors should state how P_i = 0 is handled (e.g., by detecting that the gate is unnecessary and skipping the postselected procedure). The derivation also assumes a product input |ψ>_12; this is acknowledged in the text, but the limitation should be stated in the abstract/conclusion because it restricts the applicability of the first scheme.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (21)] In the last line, the sum over n uses C1 in the first term; it should be C2 for consistency.
  2. [Eq. (17) and surrounding text] The postselected joint state is written without an explicit normalization constant. Adding the normalization would make the later probability statements easier to verify.
  3. [SMR physical realization, Fig. 4] The selective mode router is described only schematically via Mach-Zehnder interferometers. The mapping between the ancilla modes {0,...,k} and the input trigger modes {c_i} should be spelled out, since the abstract SMR action (14) requires a nontrivial mode routing. I do not see an obstruction, but the physical equivalence should be explicit.
  4. [Conclusions] The second paragraph of the Conclusions contains a stray citation '[16-25]' that appears to be a leftover and should be removed.
  5. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract's phrase 'single non-local entangling gate' for the 1/8-success scheme should be qualified as 'state-dependent' throughout, since the scheme is not a proper gate for k1,k2>1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: derivations are self-contained given standard LOQC primitives; the state-independent scheme's input-dependent corrections are a correctness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper explicitly defines UMCZ in Eq. (2) as the target operation and openly states that the first scheme is state-dependent ('a priori knowledge about the initial quantum states ... is required to prepare the ancilla qudits'). Thus using input amplitudes in Eq. (5) is an admitted assumption, not a hidden prediction. The state-independent scheme builds the resource state from fixed two-level CZ gates (Eqs. (9), (28)-(31)), and the O(2^{r1}+2^{r2}) gate count follows simply from counting trigger modes, not from fitting. Success probabilities are computed from the SMR and BSM post-selection statistics. The serious concern is that the final feedforward corrections U1,U2 in Eq. (27) are defined through |ξ1>,|ξ2> from Eq. (5), i.e., through the unknown input amplitudes, so the state-independent protocol as written cannot implement those corrections without prior knowledge of the input. This is an implementability/correctness flaw in the state-independent claim, but it is not a circular derivation: no conclusion is assumed in the premises, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and there are no load-bearing self-citations. The circularity score is therefore low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the physical realizability of the SMR partial swap, the ability to prepare state-dependent ancillas |ξ_i> and implement O_i, and the assumption of product inputs with nonzero trigger support. No numerical parameters are fitted; the trigger sets C1, C2 are user-defined.

axioms (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The selective mode router (SMR) can be realized by passive linear optics with the postselected action in Eq. (14), including the mode-permutation that swaps trigger labels between input and ancilla.
    The appendix gives a schematic (Fig. 4) with Mach-Zehnder interferometers, but the full unitary mapping and success probability 1/2 per SMR are asserted rather than derived from the MZI parameters; this underpins the 1/8 success probability.
  • ad hoc to paper The ancilla states |ξ_i> in Eq. (5) can be prepared and the unitaries O_i in Eq. (18) can be implemented deterministically using Reck/Clements multiport interferometers, given a priori knowledge of the input state.
    The scheme depends on these state-dependent operations; for k_i>1 the transformation O_i maps the specific superposition |ξ_i> to |1>, which requires knowing the input amplitudes β_{c_i}.
  • domain assumption The two input qudits to the gate are in a product state |ψ>_12=|ψ'>_1⊗|ψ''>_2 and have nonzero support on the trigger modes (P1,P2>0).
    Eq. (3) defines the input as a product state; the ancilla state |ξ_i> is normalized by P_i, so P_i=0 is undefined. This is not stated as a restriction.
  • domain assumption Standard linear-optical BSM can identify only two of four Bell states, contributing a factor 1/2 to the success probability; feedforward corrections U1,U2 restore the desired operation.
    Cited to [44-46]; used in both schemes.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19212 in / 41084 out tokens · 422433 ms · 2026-08-03T03:21:39.050900+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Linear optical quantum computation (LOQC) offers a promising platform for scalable quantum information processing, but its scalability is fundamentally constrained by the probabilistic nature of non-local entangling gates. Qudit circuit compression schemes mitigate this issue by encoding multiple qubits onto qudits. However, these schemes become inefficient when only a subset of the encoded qubits is required to participate in the non-local entangling gate, leading to an exponential increase in the number of non-local gates. In this Letter, we address this bottleneck by demonstrating the existence of multi-level control-Z (CZ) gates for qudits encoded in multiple spatial modes in LOQC. Unlike conventional two-level CZ gates, which act only on a single pair of modes, multi-level CZ gates impart a conditional phase shift for an arbitrarily chosen subset of the spatial modes. We present two explicit linear optical schemes that realize such operations, illustrating a fundamental trade-off between prior information about the input quantum state and the physical resources required. The first scheme is realized with a constant success probability of $1/8$ independent of the qudit dimension using a single non-local entangling gate, at the cost of state dependence, which is significantly better than the current success probability of $1/9$. Our second scheme provides a fully state independent realization reducing the number of non-local gates to $\mathcal{O}(2^{r_1}+2^{r_2})$ as compared to the existing bound of $\mathcal{O}(2^{r_1+r_2})$ where $r_1$ and $r_2$ are the number of qubits to be removed as control in the qudits. The success probability of the realization is $\frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{1}{8}\right)^{2^{r_1}+2^{r_2}}$. When combined with qudit circuit compression schemes, our results improve upon a key scalability limitation and significantly improve the efficiency of LOQC architectures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.08394 by Apurav Tehri, Jaskaran Singh.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. A schematic description of a qudit compression scheme. Here the blue wires represent the encoding of qubits onto [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Schematic of the state dependent multi-level CZ gate. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Schematic of the state independent multi-level CZ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Linear optical realization of SMR. The two input ports [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) A schematic of the QFA circuit using (b) currently available non-local CZ gates, (c) our proposed state-independent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Adami and N

    C. Adami and N. J. Cerf, Quantum computation with lin- ear optics, inQuantum Computing and Quantum Com- munications, edited by C. P. Williams (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1999) pp. 391–401

    1999

  2. [2]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics, Nature 409, 46 (2001)

    2001

  3. [3]

    Raussendorf and H

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

    2001

  4. [4]

    trigger modes can be chosen)

    Depending on the outcomes, the local unitariesU 1 andU 2 are then implemented, finally realizing the desired operation. trigger modes can be chosen). We begin by elucidating the action of the multi-level entangling gate on two photons, each having access to d= 2 g spatial modes which can jointly encode two qu- dits. Let us also define the set of indices c...

  5. [5]

    J. L. O’Brien, G. J. Pryde, A. G. White, T. C. Ralph, and D. Branning, Demonstration of an all-optical quantum controlled-NOT gate, Nature426, 264 (2003)

    2003

  6. [6]

    Walther, K

    P. Walther, K. J. Resch, T. Rudolph, E. Schenck, H. We- infurter, V. Vedral, M. Aspelmeyer, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental one-way quantum computing, Nature434, 169 (2005)

    2005

  7. [7]

    P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits, Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 135 (2007)

    2007

  8. [8]

    H. J. Briegel, D. E. Browne, W. D¨ ur, R. Raussendorf, and M. Van den Nest, Measurement-based quantum compu- tation, Nat. Phys.5, 19 (2009)

    2009

  9. [9]

    Aaronson and A

    S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, The Computational Com- plexity of Linear Optics, Theory of Computing9, 143 (2013)

    2013

  10. [10]

    H. Wang, J. Qin, X. Ding, M.-C. Chen, S. Chen, X. You, Y.-M. He, X. Jiang, L. You, Z. Wang, C. Schneider, J. J. Renema, S. H¨ ofling, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Boson sampling with 20 input photons and a 60-mode interfer- ometer in a 10 14-dimensional hilbert space, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 250503 (2019)

    2019

  11. [11]

    J. Wang, F. Sciarrino, A. Laing, and M. G. Thompson, Integrated photonic quantum technologies, Nat. Photon- ics14, 273 (2020)

    2020

  12. [12]

    Sengupta, S

    K. Sengupta, S. Dinesh, K. M. Shafi, S. Asokan, and C. Chandrashekar, Experimental realization of universal quantum gates and a six-qubit entangled state using a photonic quantum walk, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 024012 (2025)

    2025

  13. [13]

    Romero and G

    J. Romero and G. Milburn, Photonic quantum comput- ing, arXiv (2024), arXiv:2404.03367 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    M. V. Larsen, J. E. Bourassa, S. Kocsis, J. F. Tasker, R. S. Chadwick, C. Gonz´ alez-Arciniegas, J. Hastrup, C. E. Lopetegui-Gonz´ alez, F. M. Miatto, A. Motamedi, R. Noro, G. Roeland, R. Baby, H. Chen, P. Contu, I. Di Luch, C. Drago, M. Giesbrecht, T. Grainge, I. Krasnokutska, M. Menotti, B. Morrison, C. Puviraj, 6 K. Rezaei Shad, B. Hussain, J. McMahon,...

    2025

  15. [15]

    J. E. Bourassa, R. N. Alexander, M. Vasmer, A. Patil, I. Tzitrin, T. Matsuura, D. Su, B. Q. Baragiola, S. Guha, G. Dauphinais, K. K. Sabapathy, N. C. Menicucci, and I. Dhand, Blueprint for a Scalable Photonic Fault- Tolerant Quantum Computer, Quantum5, 392 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    team, A manufacturable platform for photonic quan- tum computing, Nature641, 876 (2025)

    P. team, A manufacturable platform for photonic quan- tum computing, Nature641, 876 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Pavlidis and E

    A. Pavlidis and E. Floratos, Quantum-fourier-transform- based quantum arithmetic with qudits, Phys. Rev. A 103, 032417 (2021)

    2021

  18. [18]

    Meng, W.-Q

    Z. Meng, W.-Q. Liu, B.-W. Song, X.-Y. Wang, A.-N. Zhang, and Z.-Q. Yin, Experimental realization of high- dimensional quantum gates with ultrahigh fidelity and efficiency, Phys. Rev. A109, 022612 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    Y. Chi, J. Huang, Z. Zhang, J. Mao, Z. Zhou, X. Chen, C. Zhai, J. Bao, T. Dai, H. Yuan, M. Zhang, D. Dai, B. Tang, Y. Yang, Z. Li, Y. Ding, L. K. Oxenløwe, M. G. Thompson, J. L. O’Brien, and Y. Li, A programmable qudit-based quantum processor, Nat. Commun.13, 1166 (2022)

    2022

  20. [20]

    Imany, J

    P. Imany, J. A. Jaramillo-Villegas, M. S. Alshaykh, J. M. Lukens, O. D. Odele, A. J. Moore, D. E. Leaird, M. Qi, and A. M. Weiner, High-dimensional optical quantum logic in large operational spaces, npj Quantum Informa- tion5, 59 (2019)

    2019

  21. [21]

    B. P. Lanyon, M. Barbieri, M. P. Almeida, T. Jennewein, T. C. Ralph, K. J. Resch, G. J. Pryde, J. L. O’Brien, A. Gilchrist, and A. G. White, Simplifying quantum logic using higher-dimensional Hilbert spaces, Nature Physics 5, 134 (2009)

    2009

  22. [22]

    X.-M. Hu, Y. Guo, B.-H. Liu, Y.-F. Huang, C.- F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Beating the channel ca- pacity limit for superdense coding with entangled ququarts, Science Advances4, eaat9304 (2018), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.aat9304

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.aat9304 2018

  23. [23]

    Zhang, L

    Y. Zhang, L. Feng, X. Xu, X. Hang, J. Gao, X. Jin, and J. Wang, Engineering two-photon high-dimensional states through quantum interference, Light: Science & Applications6, e17014 (2017)

    2017

  24. [24]

    Liu, H.-R

    W.-Q. Liu, H.-R. Wei, and L.-C. Kwek, Low-cost Fredkin gate with auxiliary space, Phys. Rev. Appl.14, 054057 (2020)

    2020

  25. [25]

    Fan, X.-S

    Z.-G. Fan, X.-S. Deng, Q.-L. Tan, and F.-F. Du, Linear- optics-based high-dimensional quantum gate with qudits, Opt. Lett.50, 5771 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Malik, M

    M. Malik, M. Erhard, M. Huber, M. Krenn, R. Fickler, and A. Zeilinger, Multi-photon entanglement in high di- mensions, Nature Photonics10, 248–252 (2016)

    2016

  27. [27]

    M. Reck, A. Zeilinger, H. J. Bernstein, and P. Bertani, Experimental realization of any discrete unitary opera- tor, Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 58 (1994)

    1994

  28. [28]

    W. R. Clements, P. C. Humphreys, B. J. Metcalf, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walmsley, Optimal design for uni- versal multiport interferometers, Optica3, 1460 (2016)

    2016

  29. [29]

    Paesani, J

    S. Paesani, J. F. F. Bulmer, A. E. Jones, R. Santagati, and A. Laing, Scheme for universal high-dimensional quantum computation with linear optics, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 230504 (2021)

    2021

  30. [30]

    Meng, Deterministic linear-optical quantum control gates utilizing path and polarization degrees of freedom, Phys

    H. Meng, Deterministic linear-optical quantum control gates utilizing path and polarization degrees of freedom, Phys. Rev. A105, 032607 (2022)

    2022

  31. [31]

    Y. Kwon, A. Baldazzi, L. Pavesi, and B.-S. Choi, Quan- tum circuit mapping for universal and scalable comput- ing in mzi-based integrated photonics, Opt. Express32, 12852 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    F. M. Miatto, M. V. Larsen, J. E. Bourassa, S. Kocsis, J. F. Tasker, R. S. Chadwick, C. Gonz´ alez-Arciniegas, J. Hastrup, C. E. Lopetegui-Gonz´ alez, F. M. Mi- atto, A. Motamedi, R. Noro, G. Roeland, R. Baby, H. Chen, P. Contu, I. Di Luch, C. Drago, M. Giesbrecht, T. Grainge, I. Krasnokutska, M. Menotti, B. Morrison, C. Puviraj, K. Rezaei Shad, B. Hussai...

    2024

  33. [33]

    Ant´ on, J

    C. Ant´ on, J. C. Loredo, G. Coppola, H. Ollivier, N. Vig- gianiello, A. Harouri, N. Somaschi, A. Crespi, I. Sagnes, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, L. Lanco, R. Osellame, F. Sciarrino, and P. Senellart, Interfacing scalable photonic platforms: solid-state based multi-photon interference in a recon- figurable glass chip, Optica6, 1471 (2019)

    2019

  34. [34]

    T. C. Ralph, N. K. Langford, T. B. Bell, and A. G. White, Linear optical controlled-not gate in the coincidence ba- sis, Phys. Rev. A65, 062324 (2002)

    2002

  35. [35]

    X. Gao, P. Appel, N. Friis, M. Ringbauer, and M. Hu- ber, On the role of entanglement in qudit-based circuit compression, Quantum7, 1141 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Lysaght, T

    L. Lysaght, T. Goubault, P. Sinnott, S. Mansfield, and P.-E. Emeriau, Quantum circuit compression using qubit logic on qudits, arXiv (2024), arXiv:2411.03878 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    A. S. Nikolaeva, E. O. Kiktenko, and A. K. Fedorov, Effi- cient realization of quantum algorithms with qudits, EPJ Quantum Technol.11, 43 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    E. O. Kiktenko, A. S. Nikolaeva, and A. K. Fedorov, Colloquium: Qudits for decomposing multiqubit gates and realizing quantum algorithms, Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 021003 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    A. S. Nikolaeva, I. V. Zalivako, A. S. Borisenko, N. V. Semenin, K. P. Galstyan, A. E. Korolkov, E. O. Kik- tenko, K. Y. Khabarova, I. A. Semerikov, A. K. Fedorov, and N. N. Kolachevsky, Scalable improvement of the gen- eralized toffoli gate realization using trapped-ion-based qutrits, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 060601 (2025)

    2025

  40. [40]

    B. P. Lanyon, M. Barbieri, M. P. Almeida, T. Jennewein, T. C. Ralph, K. J. Resch, G. J. Pryde, J. L. O’Brien, A. Gilchrist, and A. G. White, Simplifying quantum logic using higher-dimensional hilbert spaces, Nature Physics 5, 134–140 (2008)

    2008

  41. [41]

    E. T. Campbell, Enhanced fault-tolerant quantum com- puting ind-level systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 230501 (2014)

    2014

  42. [42]

    F. H. E. Watson, E. T. Campbell, H. Anwar, and D. E. Browne, Qudit color codes and gauge color codes in all spatial dimensions, Phys. Rev. A92, 022312 (2015)

    2015

  43. [43]

    E. O. Kiktenko, A. S. Nikolaeva, P. Xu, G. V. Shlyap- nikov, and A. K. Fedorov, Scalable quantum computing with qudits on a graph, Phys. Rev. A101, 022304 (2020)

    2020

  44. [44]

    Y. Wang, Z. Hu, B. Sanders, and S. Kais, Qudits and high-dimensional quantum computing, Frontiers in Physics8(2020). 7

    2020

  45. [45]

    W. P. Grice, Arbitrarily complete Bell-state measure- ment using only linear optical elements, Phys. Rev. A 84, 042331 (2011)

    2011

  46. [46]

    Paviˇ ci´ c, Near-deterministic discrimination of all Bell states with linear optics, Phys

    M. Paviˇ ci´ c, Near-deterministic discrimination of all Bell states with linear optics, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 080403 (2011)

    2011

  47. [47]

    S. Wein, K. Heshami, C. A. Fuchs, H. Krovi, Z. Dutton, W. Tittel, and C. Simon, Efficiency of an enhanced lin- ear optical Bell-state measurement scheme with realistic imperfections, Phys. Rev. A94, 032332 (2016). Appendix Selective mode routers FIG. 4. Linear optical realization of SMR. The two input portsAandBare fed the input qudit (represented by soli...

    2016