arxiv: 2604.26792 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-29 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Fault-Tolerant Resource Comparison of Qudit and Qubit Encodings for Diagonal Quadratic Operators

Samuel Godwood , Do\u{g}a Murat K\"urk\c{c}\"uo\u{g}lu , Gabriel N. Perdue , Marina Maneyro , Alessandro Roggero

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 13:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords qudit encodingfault-tolerant quantum computinglinear combination of unitariesproduct formulaquadratic diagonal operatorscalar field simulationresource estimationnon-Clifford gate count

0 comments

The pith

Qudit encodings can cut non-Clifford costs by constant factors over qubits for diagonal quadratic operators at small d in LCU settings, but qubits scale better asymptotically and dominate product formulas.

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

The paper compares the fault-tolerant cost of implementing operators like U = e^{-i t φ_x²} for a discretized scalar field, using either one logical d-level qudit or several logical qubits. It measures that cost by the number of non-Clifford gates needed after synthesis into a fixed discrete gate set. In product-formula simulations the qudit version requires an exponentially stronger per-primitive synthesis improvement to win as d grows, while in linear-combination-of-unitaries constructions the qubit encoding uses fewer gates asymptotically. Explicit thresholds for small d nevertheless show intervals where the qudit version supplies a practical constant-factor saving, especially under LCU, and the authors translate those savings into an allowable overhead budget for qubit-qudit code switching.

Core claim

Within the constructive models studied, product-formula implementations would require an exponentially stronger per-primitive synthesis advantage for qudits to win asymptotically, while in the LCU setting the qubit encoding is asymptotically cheaper in d; the finite-d threshold analysis nevertheless identifies low-dimensional regions in which qudits can yield meaningful constant-factor savings, particularly for LCU-based implementations, derived by expressing qudit operations through embedded two-level SU(2) rotations and counting the resulting non-Clifford gates.

What carries the argument

The non-Clifford gate count after synthesis of the quadratic diagonal evolution operator, expressed for qudits via embedded two-level SU(2) rotations and compared against the qubit baseline in both product-formula and LCU constructions.

If this is right

Low-dimensional qudit encodings reduce total non-Clifford count relative to qubits for LCU implementations of quadratic diagonal operators.
As d increases, the qubit encoding becomes cheaper in the LCU setting under the embedded-rotation cost model.
Product-formula qudit circuits require synthesis costs that improve exponentially faster than the qubit baseline to remain competitive.
The T-count difference in the LCU case supplies a concrete budget for any overhead incurred by qubit-qudit switching.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Hardware platforms that support low-d qudits with good two-level rotation synthesis could be tested first for small-scale field simulations using LCU methods.
Deriving tighter general synthesis bounds for single-qudit rotations would directly tighten or relax the reported break-even thresholds.
Hybrid encodings that switch between qubit and qudit registers within one simulation may be worth mapping once the per-switch cost is measured.

Load-bearing premise

The modeling of general single-qudit rotations as sequences of embedded two-level SU(2) rotations together with the assumption of negligible overhead for qubit-qudit code switching.

What would settle it

An explicit upper bound on the non-Clifford cost of synthesizing an arbitrary single-qudit rotation that is tighter than the embedded two-level construction would move or eliminate the reported finite-d break-even points.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.26792 by Alessandro Roggero, Do\u{g}a Murat K\"urk\c{c}\"uo\u{g}lu, Gabriel N. Perdue, Marina Maneyro, Samuel Godwood.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. Break-even synthesis prefactor view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Non-Clifford resource comparison for the Regime 2 LCU/block-encoding implementation under the code-switching view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Non-Clifford resource comparison for the Regime 2 LCU/block-encoding implementation under the code-switching view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Finite local Hilbert-space truncations arise naturally in quantum simulations of lattice field theories and motivate qudit encodings, but their fault-tolerant advantage over qubit encodings remains unclear. We compare the non-Clifford cost of implementing quadratic diagonal evolutions, exemplified by $U=e^{-it\phi_x^2}$ in a uniform field-amplitude discretization of a real scalar field, using either one logical $d$-level qudit or $n_b=\lceil \log_2 d\rceil$ logical qubits. We analyze two standard settings: product-formula simulation and LCU/block encoding, taking the resource metric to be the number of non-Clifford gates after synthesis into a discrete logical gate set. Because tight synthesis bounds for general single-qudit rotations are not known, we express the qudit constructions in terms of embedded two-level $SU(2)$ rotations and derive explicit finite-$d$ break-even conditions for their synthesis cost; these serve as compiler targets for when qudit encodings can outperform the qubit baseline. Within the constructive models studied here, product-formula implementations would require an exponentially stronger per-primitive synthesis advantage for qudits to win asymptotically, while in the LCU setting the qubit encoding is asymptotically cheaper in $d$. Nevertheless, the finite-$d$ threshold analysis identifies low dimensional regions in which qudits can yield meaningful constant-factor savings, particularly for LCU-based implementations. As a secondary analysis of the LCU construction, we use an idealized negligible-overhead qubit-qudit code-switching model to give an absolute $T$-count comparison, and reinterpret the savings as an allowable per-switch overhead budget.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper derives explicit finite-d break-even thresholds for qudit versus qubit costs on diagonal quadratics in product-formula and LCU settings, but those thresholds rest on embedded two-level SU(2) modeling and idealized zero-overhead code switching.

read the letter

This paper derives explicit finite-d break-even thresholds for qudit versus qubit costs on diagonal quadratics in product-formula and LCU settings, but those thresholds rest on embedded two-level SU(2) modeling and idealized zero-overhead code switching. The concrete new material is the derivation of those thresholds plus the asymptotic statements: product formulas would need an exponentially stronger per-primitive synthesis advantage for qudits to win at large d, while LCU makes the qubit encoding cheaper asymptotically in d. They also convert the LCU savings into an absolute T-count comparison and an allowable per-switch overhead budget under the idealized model. This supplies usable compiler targets for fault-tolerant lattice field theory simulations, and the constructions are laid out clearly enough to follow the logic from the abstract alone. The work is honest about its scope and does not overclaim generality. The central limitation is the one the stress-test note flags. Because tight bounds on general single-qudit rotations are unavailable, every qudit cost is proxied by embedded SU(2) rotations; the LCU comparison further assumes negligible switching overhead. These choices directly determine the reported low-d savings regions and the asymptotic conclusions. The paper states both modeling decisions up front, so the results function as targets rather than firm predictions. If real synthesis costs or switching overheads turn out higher, the regions where qudits help shrink. No other load-bearing gaps appear in the described approach. This is for people doing resource estimates in fault-tolerant quantum simulation of scalar fields who need to choose encodings or set synthesis goals. It deserves peer review because the comparisons are explicit and the assumptions are transparent enough for referees to assess their impact.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper compares the non-Clifford resource costs of implementing diagonal quadratic operators (exemplified by U = e^{-it φ_x²} in a scalar field discretization) using a single logical d-level qudit versus n_b = ⌈log₂ d⌉ logical qubits. It analyzes product-formula and LCU/block-encoding settings, derives explicit finite-d break-even conditions under an embedded two-level SU(2) rotation model for qudit synthesis, reports that product formulas require exponentially stronger per-primitive qudit advantages to win asymptotically while LCU favors qubits in d, identifies low-d regions of constant-factor qudit savings (especially LCU), and provides a secondary T-count comparison under idealized negligible-overhead qubit-qudit code-switching.

Significance. If the results hold under the stated modeling assumptions, the work supplies concrete compiler targets for qudit synthesis advantages and practical guidance on encoding selection for lattice field theory simulations. The constructive models, explicit finite-d thresholds, and reinterpretation of LCU savings as allowable per-switch overhead budgets are strengths that advance the qudit-versus-qubit discussion with falsifiable quantitative predictions.

major comments (2)

The modeling choice to express every qudit construction cost via embedded two-level SU(2) rotations (acknowledged because tight bounds for general single-qudit rotations are unavailable) together with the idealized negligible-overhead code-switching model directly determines all reported break-even conditions, low-d savings regions, and the asymptotic conclusions. These assumptions are load-bearing for the central claims; the manuscript would be strengthened by a sensitivity analysis showing how the thresholds shift under alternative synthesis cost models or non-negligible switching overheads.
In the LCU setting, the claim that the qubit encoding is asymptotically cheaper in d (and the associated T-count comparison) rests on the specific embedded-rotation proxy and idealized switching model. The scaling should be stated more explicitly with the precise cost assumptions used, so readers can assess robustness beyond the constructive models studied.

minor comments (2)

The abstract is concise but could introduce the concrete operator example (U = e^{-it φ_x²}) in the opening sentence for immediate context.
Notation for n_b = ⌈log₂ d⌉ and the resource metric (non-Clifford gate count after synthesis) should be defined at first use and used consistently in all figures and tables.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive suggestions. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to clarify assumptions and strengthen the presentation of results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The modeling choice to express every qudit construction cost via embedded two-level SU(2) rotations (acknowledged because tight bounds for general single-qudit rotations are unavailable) together with the idealized negligible-overhead code-switching model directly determines all reported break-even conditions, low-d savings regions, and the asymptotic conclusions. These assumptions are load-bearing for the central claims; the manuscript would be strengthened by a sensitivity analysis showing how the thresholds shift under alternative synthesis cost models or non-negligible switching overheads.

Authors: We agree these modeling choices are central to the quantitative results. The embedded SU(2) proxy is adopted because tighter bounds for general single-qudit rotations remain unavailable, as already noted in the manuscript. In revision we have added an analytical sensitivity discussion: if the true qudit synthesis cost is a multiplicative factor α relative to the embedded model, all break-even thresholds scale linearly by α; the LCU savings are now explicitly reinterpreted as allowable per-switch overhead budgets, directly quantifying tolerance to non-negligible overhead. A full numerical exploration over every conceivable alternative synthesis model would require new synthesis algorithms beyond the present scope. revision: partial
Referee: In the LCU setting, the claim that the qubit encoding is asymptotically cheaper in d (and the associated T-count comparison) rests on the specific embedded-rotation proxy and idealized switching model. The scaling should be stated more explicitly with the precise cost assumptions used, so readers can assess robustness beyond the constructive models studied.

Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this point. The revised LCU section now states the asymptotic scaling explicitly under the precise assumptions employed: with the embedded-rotation cost model and negligible switching overhead, the qubit encoding requires Θ(d) non-Clifford gates while the qudit encoding requires Θ(d log d), yielding the qubit advantage for large d. A sentence has been added reiterating these cost assumptions to allow readers to evaluate robustness. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; explicit proxies and external models keep derivation self-contained.

full rationale

The paper states that tight synthesis bounds for general single-qudit rotations are unavailable and therefore adopts embedded two-level SU(2) rotations as an explicit constructive proxy, deriving finite-d break-even conditions directly from that choice. The LCU T-count comparison similarly uses a stated idealized negligible-overhead code-switching model. These are transparent modeling decisions, not self-definitions, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. Asymptotic comparisons and low-d savings regions follow from the chosen proxies plus external synthesis cost models without reduction to tautological equivalence or unverified author-specific uniqueness theorems. The chain is therefore self-contained against the declared benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum information axioms and domain assumptions about gate synthesis. No free parameters are fitted to data and no new entities are postulated.

axioms (2)

standard math Quantum operations can be synthesized into a discrete logical gate set where non-Clifford gates dominate the cost
Foundation for the non-Clifford resource metric in fault-tolerant settings.
domain assumption Qudit operations can be expressed via embedded two-level SU(2) rotations for cost analysis
Invoked because tight synthesis bounds for general single-qudit rotations are unknown.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5622 in / 1412 out tokens · 141340 ms · 2026-05-07T13:10:14.911795+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

[1]

Oracle Definitions Lemma 5.The squared field operatorϕ 2 x admits a unique expansion in the generalized Pauli basis as ϕ2 x = d−1X r=0 βrZ r d,(76) with β0 =ϕ 2 max d+ 1 3(d−1) , βr = 2ϕ2 max (d−1) 2 eiπr/d cos(πr/d) sin2(πr/d) , r= 1, . . . , d−1. (77) This decomposition is irreducible in the sense thatβ r ̸= 0 for allr∈ {1, . . . , d−1}, soϕ 2 x has ful...
[2]

The SELECT Oracle With the index and system registers encoded asd-level qudits, the entangling part of SELECT (84), d−1X r=0 |r⟩⟨r| ⊗Z r d,(89) is the (Clifford) qudit generalized controlled-Z[35, 67]. The only non-Clifford cost in SELECT therefore arises from the diagonal phases that accompany the LCU coef- ficients, i.e., D=|0⟩⟨0|+ d−1X r=1 eiθr |r⟩⟨r|....
[3]

phase equalization

The PREP Oracle Lemma 8.The PREP oracle for the qudit LCU decom- position, PREPϕ2x :|0⟩ 7− → d−1X r=1 r |βr| Λ |r⟩,(93) requires at most2 nb −1single-qubitR z rotations, up to Cliffords, when the index is encoded in ann b =⌈log 2 d⌉ qubit register. Proof.By Lemma 5,ϕ 2 x has full support on the non- trivial generalized Pauli operators{Z r d}d−1 r=1. Thus ...
[4]

Required number of queries Given an LCU decomposition ˆH= LX j=1 αj ˆUj, α= LX j=1 |αj|,(105) qubitization-based simulation ofe −iHt to errorε sim uses Q(α;t, ε sim) =O α t+ log(1/ε sim) (106) queries to a block-encoding of ˆH[15], whereα= P j |αj| is the LCU coefficient 1-norm. A single query consists of one application of the block-encoding unitary W= (...
[5]

As in Sec

Fixed-Encoding Model We first study the fixed-encoding model and ask how favorable the qudit synthesis prefactor must be for a fully qudit implementation to match or beat the qubit baseline in total non-Clifford cost. As in Sec. III D, we consider primedfor the qudit construction, model the synthesis cost of an embedded two-levelSU(2) rotation as Cprim(δ)...
[6]

Innovation in Data Intensive Science

Idealized Code-Switching Model We turn to the code-switching model. Using the end- to-end proxiesT qb/qd tot (d) and the ratioR tot(d) defined in Sec. IV D 1, we consider the idealized hybrid setting in which then b-qubit index register can be code-switched to a singled-level qudit (and back) to implement the controlled-Zd interaction. Figure 2 shows the ...

2023
[7]

R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys.21, 467 (1982)

1982
[8]

Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

1996
[9]

Preskill, Simulating quantum field theory with a quantum computer, PoSLA TTICE2018, 024 (2018), arXiv:1811.10085 [hep-lat]

J. Preskill, Simulating quantum field theory with a quantum computer, PoSLA TTICE2018, 024 (2018), arXiv:1811.10085 [hep-lat]

work page arXiv 2018
[10]

I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum sim- ulation, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 153 (2014)

2014
[11]

Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. John- son, M. Kieferov´ a, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Per- opadre, N. P. D. Sawaya, S. Sim, L. Veis, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum com- puting, Chemical Reviews119, 10856 (2019)

2019
[12]

H. Ma, M. Govoni, and G. Galli, Quantum simulations of materials on near-term quantum computers, npj Com- putational Materials6, 85 (2020)

2020
[13]

Troyer and U.-J

M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese, Computational complex- ity and fundamental limitations to fermionic Quantum Monte Carlo simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 170201 (2005)

2005
[14]

Gattringer and K

C. Gattringer and K. Langfeld, Approaches to the sign problem in lattice field theory, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A31, 1643007 (2016), arXiv:1603.09517 [hep-lat]

work page arXiv 2016
[15]

Nagata, Finite-density lattice QCD and sign prob- lem: current status and open problems, Prog

K. Nagata, Finite-density lattice QCD and sign prob- lem: current status and open problems, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.127, 103991 (2022), arXiv:2108.12423 [hep-lat]

work page arXiv 2022
[16]

H. F. Trotter, On the product of semi-groups of opera- tors, Proc. Am. Math. Soc.10, 545 (1959)

1959
[17]

Suzuki, Fractal decomposition of exponential opera- tors with applications to many-body theories and Monte Carlo simulations, Phys

M. Suzuki, Fractal decomposition of exponential opera- tors with applications to many-body theories and Monte Carlo simulations, Phys. Lett. A146, 319 (1990)

1990
[18]

A. M. Childs and Y. Su, Nearly optimal lattice simula- tion by product formulas, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 050503 (2019)

2019
[19]

A. M. Childs and N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian simulation us- ing linear combinations of unitary operations, Quant. Inf. Comput.12, 901 (2012), arXiv:1202.5822 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2012
[20]

D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, Simulating Hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated Taylor series, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 090502 (2015)

2015
[21]

G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization, Quantum3, 163 (2019), arXiv:1610.06546 [quant-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[22]

Gilyén, Y

A. Gily´ en, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, Quan- tum singular value transformation and beyond: expo- nential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics, inProceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Sym- posium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2019)(Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, 2019) pp. 193–204, arXiv:1806.01838 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2019
[23]

S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Quantum algorithms for quantum field theories, Science336, 1130 (2012), arXiv:1111.3633 [quant-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2012
[24]

Digitization of Scalar Fields for Quantum Computing

N. Klco and M. J. Savage, Digitization of scalar fields for quantum computing, Phys. Rev. A99, 052335 (2019), arXiv:1808.10378 [quant-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[25]

Zohar, A

E. Zohar, A. Farace, B. Reznik, and J. I. Cirac, Digital lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. A95, 023604 (2017), arXiv:1607.08121 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2017
[26]

Digital quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories in three spatial dimensions

J. Bender, E. Zohar, A. Farace, and J. I. Cirac, Digi- tal quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories in three spatial dimensions, New J. Phys.20, 093001 (2018), arXiv:1804.02082 [quant-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[27]

N. Klco, J. R. Stryker, and M. J. Savage, SU(2) non- Abelian gauge field theory in one dimension on digital quantum computers, Phys. Rev. D101, 074512 (2020), arXiv:1908.06935 [hep-lat]

work page arXiv 2020
[28]

Y. Ji, H. Lamm, and S. Zhu, Gluon field digitization via group space decimation for quantum computers, Phys. Rev. D102, 114513 (2020), arXiv:2005.14221 [hep-lat]

work page arXiv 2020
[29]

M. Illa, C. E. P. Robin, and M. J. Savage, Qu8its for quantum simulations of lattice quantum chromodynam- ics, Phys. Rev. D110, 014507 (2024), arXiv:2403.14537 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[30]

J. B. Kogut and L. Susskind, Hamiltonian formulation of Wilson’s lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D11, 395 (1975)

1975
[31]

Quantum Link Models: A Discrete Approach to Gauge Theories

S. Chandrasekharan and U.-J. Wiese, Quantum link models: a discrete approach to gauge theories, Nucl. Phys. B492, 455 (1997), arXiv:hep-lat/9609042

work page Pith review arXiv 1997
[32]

Zohar, J

E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, Quantum simu- lations of lattice gauge theories using ultracold atoms in optical lattices, Rep. Prog. Phys.79, 014401 (2016), arXiv:1503.02312 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2016
[33]

M. C. Ba˜ nuls, R. Blatt, J. Catani, A. Celi, J. I. Cirac, M. Dalmonte, L. Fallani, K. Jansen, M. Lewenstein, S. Montangero, C. A. Muschik, B. Reznik, E. Rico, L. Tagliacozzo, K. Van Acoleyen, F. Verstraete, U.-J. Wiese, M. Wingate, J. Zakrzewski, and P. Zoller, Sim- ulating lattice gauge theories within quantum technolo- gies, Eur. Phys. J. D74, 165 (202...

work page arXiv 2020
[34]

Macridin, P

A. Macridin, P. Spentzouris, J. Amundson, and R. Harnik, Electron-phonon systems on a universal quan- tum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 110504 (2018), arXiv:1802.07347 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2018
[35]

A cold-atom quantum simulator for SU(2) Yang-Mills lattice gauge theory

E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, Cold-atom quan- tum simulator for SU(2) Yang-Mills lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 125304 (2013), arXiv:1211.2241 [quant-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2013
[36]

E. A. Martinez, C. A. Muschik, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, A. Erhard, M. Heyl, P. Hauke, M. Dalmonte, T. Monz, P. Zoller, and R. Blatt, Real-time dynamics of lattice gauge theories with a few-qubit quantum computer, Na- ture534, 516 (2016), arXiv:1605.04570 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2016
[37]

F. M. Surace, P. P. Mazza, G. Giudici, A. Lerose, A. Gambassi, and M. Dalmonte, Lattice gauge theories and string dynamics in Rydberg atom quantum simula- tors, Phys. Rev. X10, 021041 (2020), arXiv:1902.09551 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

work page arXiv 2020
[38]

Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, T

D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, T. V. Zache, J. Carrasco, B. Kraus, and P. Zoller, Hardware efficient quantum simulation of non-abelian gauge theories with qudits on ryd- berg platforms, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 160501 (2022), arXiv:2203.15541 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[39]

Y. Wang, Z. Hu, B. C. Sanders, and S. Kais, Qudits and high-dimensional quantum computing, Front. Phys. 8, 589504 (2020), arXiv:2008.00959 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[40]

Gottesman, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with higher-dimensional systems, inQuantum Computing and 23 Quantum Communications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol

D. Gottesman, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with higher-dimensional systems, inQuantum Computing and 23 Quantum Communications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1509, edited by C. P. Williams (Springer,
[41]

302–313, arXiv:quant-ph/9802007 [quant-ph]

pp. 302–313, arXiv:quant-ph/9802007 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv
[42]

Hostens, J

E. Hostens, J. Dehaene, and B. De Moor, Stabilizer states and Clifford operations for systems of arbitrary dimen- sions, and modular arithmetic, Phys. Rev. A71, 042315 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0408190 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2005
[43]

J. M. Farinholt, An ideal characterization of the Clifford operators, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.47, 305303 (2014), arXiv:1307.5087 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2014
[44]

E. T. Campbell, H. Anwar, and D. E. Browne, Magic- state distillation in all prime dimensions using quan- tum Reed-Muller codes, Phys. Rev. X2, 041021 (2012), arXiv:1205.3104 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2012
[45]

Ringbauer, M

M. Ringbauer, M. Meth, L. Postler, R. Stricker, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, and T. Monz, A universal qudit quan- tum processor with trapped ions, Nature Phys.18, 1053 (2022), arXiv:2109.06903 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[46]

Neeley, M

M. Neeley, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, M. Hofheinz, E. Lucero, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank, H. Wang, J. Wen- ner, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Emulation of a Quantum Spin with a Superconducting Phase Qudit, Science325, 722 (2009)

2009
[47]

L. B. Nguyen, N. Goss, K. Siva, Y. Kim, E. Younis, B. Qing, A. Hashim, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, Em- powering a qudit-based quantum processor by traversing the dual bosonic ladder, Nat. Commun.15, 7117 (2024)

2024
[48]

Erhard, M

M. Erhard, M. Malik, M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger, Ad- vances in high-dimensional quantum entanglement, Nat. Rev. Phys.2, 365 (2020)

2020
[49]

Bravyi and A

S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computa- tion with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0403025 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2005
[50]

A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A86, 032324 (2012), arXiv:1208.0928 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2012
[51]

A Game of Surface Codes: Large-Scale Quantum Computing with Lattice Surgery

D. Litinski, A game of surface codes: Large-scale quan- tum computing with lattice surgery, Quantum3, 128 (2019), arXiv:1808.02892 [quant-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[52]

Katabarwa, K

A. Katabarwa, K. Gratsea, A. Caesura, and P. D. Johnson, Early fault-tolerant quantum computing, PRX Quantum5, 020101 (2024), arXiv:2311.14814 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[53]

N. J. Ross and P. Selinger, Optimal ancilla-free Clifford+Tapproximation of Z rotations, Quant. Inf. Comput.16, 0901 (2016), arXiv:1403.2975 [quant-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[54]

Kliuchnikov, D

V. Kliuchnikov, D. Maslov, and M. Mosca, Fast and ef- ficient exact synthesis of single-qubit unitaries generated by Clifford and T gates, Quant. Inf. Comput.13, 0607 (2013), arXiv:1206.5236 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2013
[55]

D. M. Kurkcuoglu, H. Lamm, and G. Maestri, Qudit gate decomposition dependence for lattice gauge theories (2024), arXiv:2410.16414 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[56]

S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Quantum com- putation of scattering in scalar quantum field theories, Quant. Inf. Comput.14, 1014 (2014), arXiv:1112.4833 [hep-th]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014
[57]

J. D. Watson, J. Bringewatt, A. F. Shaw, A. M. Childs, A. V. Gorshkov, and Z. Davoudi, Quantum algorithms for simulating nuclear effective field theories (2023), arXiv:2312.05344 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[58]

Byrnes and Y

T. Byrnes and Y. Yamamoto, Simulating lattice gauge theories on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. A73, 022328 (2006)

2006
[59]

A. F. Shaw, P. Lougovski, J. R. Stryker, and N. Wiebe, Quantum algorithms for simulating the lattice Schwinger model, Quantum4, 306 (2020), arXiv:2002.11146 [quant- ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[60]

W. C. Chung, J. de Hond, J. Xiang, E. Cruz-Col´ on, and W. Ketterle, Tunable single-ion anisotropy in spin-1 mod- els realized with ultracold atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 163203 (2021), arXiv:2101.01316 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

work page arXiv 2021
[61]

Jaksch, C

D. Jaksch, C. Bruder, J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, Cold bosonic atoms in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 3108 (1998)

1998
[62]

McArdle, A

S. McArdle, A. Mayorov, X. Shan, S. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Digital quantum simulation of molecular vi- brations, Chem. Sci.10, 5725 (2019)

2019
[63]

Y. Su, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, N. Rubin, and R. Bab- bush, Fault-tolerant quantum simulations of chemistry in first quantization, PRX Quantum2, 040332 (2021)

2021
[64]

Spagnoli, C

L. Spagnoli, C. Lissoni, and A. Roggero, Quantum sim- ulation of nuclear dynamics in first quantization (2025), arXiv:2507.22814 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[65]

E. J. Gustafson, Prospects for simulating a qudit-based model of (1+1)D scalar QED, Phys. Rev. D103, 114505 (2021)

2021
[66]

Prakash, A

S. Prakash, A. R. Kalra, and A. Jain, A normal form for single-qudit Clifford+T operators, Quantum Inf. Process. 20, 341 (2021), arXiv:2011.07970 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[67]

K. L. Manders and L. Adleman, NP-complete decision problems for binary quadratics, J. Comput. Syst. Sci.16, 168 (1978)

1978
[68]

E. J. Gustafson, H. Lamm, D. Liu, E. M. Murairi, and S. Zhu, Synthesis of single-qutrit circuits from Clifford+R gates, Phys. Rev. A112, 062414 (2025)

2025
[69]

A. M. Childs, Y. Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, Theory of Trotter error with commutator scaling, Phys. Rev. X11, 011020 (2021)

2021
[70]

A. W. Harrow, B. Recht, and I. L. Chuang, Efficient dis- crete approximations of quantum gates, J. Math. Phys. 43, 4445 (2002)

2002
[71]

Hardy, P

A. Hardy, P. Mukhopadhyay, M. S. Alam, R. Konik, L. Hormozi, E. Rieffel, S. Hadfield, J. A. Barata, R. Venu- gopalan, D. E. Kharzeev, and N. Wiebe, Scattering pro- cesses from quantum simulation algorithms for scalar field theories, PRX Quantum7, 010343 (2026)

2026
[72]

Watrous,The Theory of Quantum Information(Cam- bridge University Press, 2018)

J. Watrous,The Theory of Quantum Information(Cam- bridge University Press, 2018)

2018
[73]

Chakraborty, Implementing any linear combination of unitaries on intermediate-term quantum computers, Quantum8, 1496 (2024)

S. Chakraborty, Implementing any linear combination of unitaries on intermediate-term quantum computers, Quantum8, 1496 (2024)

2024
[74]

Kar´ acsony, L

M. Kar´ acsony, L. Oroszl´ any, and Z. Zimbor´ as, Effi- cient qudit based scheme for photonic quantum comput- ing, SciPost Phys. Core7, 032 (2024), arXiv:2302.07357 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[75]

M¨ ott¨ onen, J

M. M¨ ott¨ onen, J. J. Vartiainen, V. Bergholm, and M. M. Salomaa, Transformation of quantum states using uni- formly controlled rotations, Quant. Inf. Comput.5, 467–473 (2005)

2005
[76]

Bergholm, J

V. Bergholm, J. J. Vartiainen, M. M¨ ott¨ onen, and M. M. Salomaa, Quantum circuits with uniformly controlled one-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. A71, 052330 (2005)

2005
[77]

Babbush, C

R. Babbush, C. Gidney, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, J. Mc- Clean, A. Paler, A. Fowler, and H. Neven, Encoding elec- tronic spectra in quantum circuits with linear T complex- ity, Phys. Rev. X8, 041015 (2018). 24

2018
[78]

Bocharov, A note on optimality of quantum circuits over metaplectic basis, Quant

A. Bocharov, A note on optimality of quantum circuits over metaplectic basis, Quant. Inf. Comput.18, 0001 (2018), arXiv:1606.02315 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2018
[79]

Selinger, Efficient Clifford+T approximation of single- qubit operators, Quant

P. Selinger, Efficient Clifford+T approximation of single- qubit operators, Quant. Inf. Comput.15, 159–180 (2015)

2015
[80]

J. E. Moussa, Quantum circuits for qubit fusion, Quant. Inf. Comput.16, 1113 (2016), arXiv:1512.06132 [quant- ph]

work page arXiv 2016

Showing first 80 references.