pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.26088 · v1 · pith:GDN2QXH6new · submitted 2026-06-24 · 🪐 quant-ph

Simulating Universal Quantum Gate Sets on Photonic OAM Qubits: Single-Qubit and Multi-Qubit Operations via Spatial Light Modulator Phase Holography

Saleha Maqsood , Muhammad Kamran , Tahir Malik This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 19:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords orbital angular momentumspatial light modulatorquantum gatesphotonic qubitsgate fidelityLaguerre-Gaussian beamsnoise modelBell state
0
0 comments X

The pith

A datasheet-derived noise model predicts universal quantum gates on photonic OAM qubits achieve fidelities of 0.9914–0.9936 via SLM phase holography.

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

The paper simulates the full universal single-qubit gate set consisting of X, Y, Z, S, T and H along with the two-qubit gates CNOT, CZ and SWAP on orbital-angular-momentum qubits encoded in Laguerre-Gaussian beams. It applies realistic phase patterns on a 512 by 512 grid representing the HOLOEYE LC 2012 spatial light modulator and folds in a three-channel noise model taken directly from the device datasheet. The resulting fidelities lie between 0.9914 and 0.9936, with phase gates performing best and fork-grating gates limited by twisted-nematic noise; a Bell-state preparation circuit reaches 0.9914 fidelity after two successive SLM interactions. This hardware-grounded calculation matters because it supplies a concrete performance forecast for reconfigurable photonic quantum processors without requiring parameter tuning.

Core claim

The complete universal single-qubit gate set {X, Y, Z, S, T, H} and two-qubit entangling gates {CNOT, CZ, SWAP} are simulated on photonic OAM qubits using SLM phase holography on a 512 × 512 computational grid, yielding predicted gate fidelities in the range F = 0.9914–0.9936 when a three-channel noise model (8-bit quantisation, TN electronic/thermal noise, phase-wrap clipping) that totals 92.4 mrad is applied; Bell-state preparation via the H-CNOT sequence reaches F(Φ+) = 0.9914 after two SLM interactions, and the wavelength window 450–532 nm is identified as optimal.

What carries the argument

Phase holography patterns on the transmissive SLM, specifically fork gratings that impart OAM shifts and pure phase masks that impart rotations, applied to Laguerre-Gaussian beams, together with the three-channel noise model taken from the manufacturer datasheet.

If this is right

  • Fork-grating gates are limited primarily by TN noise while phase gates suffer zero phase-wrap clipping error and therefore reach higher fidelity.
  • The H-CNOT sequence prepares the Bell state Φ+ with fidelity 0.9914 after exactly two SLM interactions.
  • Operation is optimal in the 450–532 nm wavelength band for this device.
  • The simulated fidelities lie within the 78 %–99.6 % range reported in six prior experimental studies.
  • The same SLM platform can therefore be used for both single-qubit rotations and two-qubit entanglement without hardware reconfiguration.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the patterns are software-defined, the same hardware could in principle execute arbitrary quantum circuits by loading successive holograms, provided crosstalk between successive operations remains low.
  • Extending the simulation to three or more qubits would test whether cumulative noise remains tolerable or whether higher-resolution SLMs become necessary.
  • Direct comparison of the predicted noise spectrum with measured intensity and phase statistics on the physical device would confirm or refute the model’s predictive power.
  • Integration of these SLM gates with existing single-photon sources and detectors could yield a compact, reconfigurable testbed for small-scale photonic quantum algorithms.

Load-bearing premise

The three-channel noise model taken directly from the HOLOEYE LC 2012 datasheet without free-parameter fitting accurately captures the real device's behavior for OAM phase holography.

What would settle it

An experimental measurement of gate fidelity on the actual HOLOEYE LC 2012 SLM using OAM-encoded qubits that falls substantially outside the predicted interval 0.9914–0.9936 would falsify the claim that the datasheet noise model is sufficient.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.26088 by Muhammad Kamran, Saleha Maqsood, Tahir Malik.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Proposed simulation framework pipeline for SLM-based quantum gate operations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: M1 - Single-qubit gate fidelity. Blue: ideal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: M1 - Pauli-X gate (representative fork-grating gate). Top row: Input intensity (Gaussian |0⟩), in￾put phase, ideal SLM mask, ideal output (donut |1⟩). Bottom row: LC 2012 output, output phase, hardware mask, phase error map. The spiral phase error (bottom￾right) is the diagnostic signature of OAM mode conver￾sion under LC 2012 hardware noise. F = 0.9914. 3.2 M2: Wavelength Dependence The LC 2012 phase stro… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: visualises the three circuit steps as in￾tensity and phase profiles. Step 0 shows a single 3-ring donut (ℓ = −3). After H(q0) in Step 1, two distinct ring patterns coexist, representing the equal OAM superposition within Qubit 0. After CNOT in Step 2, the ℓ = −1 component is trans￾ferred to ℓ = +3, producing the Bell state. The non-local correlation between ℓ = −3 (Qubit 0 Intensity Step 0: j00 ® ` = ¡3 Ph… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Two-qubit CNOT gate in four-mode OAM encoding (simulation). Qubit 0 (control), Qubit 1 (tar￾get). Top row: Input / ideal output / LC 2012 out￾put / LC 2012 mask (intensity). Bottom row: Corre￾sponding phase panels. The conditional OAM remap￾ping ℓ=−1 ↔ ℓ=+3 is visible as a ring-size exchange in the output columns. F = 0.9915. ℓ = +3 simultaneously. All three gates achieve F = 0.9915 in simulation [PITH_FU… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: OAM amplitude spectrum |cℓ| for all three two-qubit gates under the LC 2012 noise model. Blue bars: input amplitudes. Gold bars: LC 2012 output amplitudes. CNOT: ℓ=−1 ↔ ℓ=+3 exchange. CZ: all amplitudes preserved (phase-only). SWAP: ℓ=−3 ↔ ℓ=+1 and ℓ=−1 ↔ ℓ=+3 exchanges confirmed. output spectrum shows amplitudes transferred from ℓ = −1 to ℓ = +3 (and vice versa) with ℓ = −3 and ℓ = +1 unchanged. For CZ, a… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: M7 and M2 combined. Left: Fidelity bench￾mark of this simulation (gold) against six published ex￾perimental papers (blue). This work (99.1–99.4%) oc￾cupies the upper end of the published range (78%– 99.6%). Right: Wavelength dependence (M2) of first￾order diffraction efficiency η and predicted gate fidelity Fpred for the LC 2012. Performance degrades critically at λ ≥ 633 nm; operation at 450–532 nm is st… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Spatial light modulators (SLMs) have emerged as reconfigurable platforms for photonic quantum information processing, offering software-defined control over the orbital angular momentum (OAM) of light encoded in Laguerre-Gaussian (LG) beams. This paper presents a comprehensive simulation and hardware-grounded fidelity analysis of quantum gate operations implemented on the HOLOEYE LC 2012 transmissive SLM. A realistic three-channel noise model comprising 8-bit quantisation noise, twisted-nematic (TN) electronic and thermal noise, and phase-wrap clipping error is obtained from the manufacturer's datasheet without free-parameter fitting, yielding a total noise of $\sigma_{\text{total}} = 92.4\text{mrad}$. The complete universal single-qubit gate set $\{X, Y, Z, S, T, H\}$ and two-qubit entangling gates $\{\text{CNOT}, \text{CZ}, \text{SWAP}\}$ are simulated on a $512 \times 512$ computational grid. Results show that predicted gate fidelity are in the range of $F = 0.9914\text{--}0.9936$, with fork grating gates limited primarily by TN noise and phase gates achieving higher fidelity owing to zero phase-wrap clipping error. In addition, Bell state preparation via the H-CNOT circuit achieves $F(\Phi^+) = 0.9914$ after two SLM interactions. We benchmark our obtained results against six published experimental studies spanning the 78%--99.6% fidelity range. Finally, a wavelength-dependent analysis identifies 450--532 nm operation as the optimal regime for this device.

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.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript simulates the universal single-qubit gate set {X, Y, Z, S, T, H} and two-qubit entangling gates {CNOT, CZ, SWAP} on photonic OAM qubits encoded in LG modes, implemented via phase holograms on a HOLOEYE LC 2012 transmissive SLM. A three-channel noise model (8-bit quantization, TN electronic/thermal, phase-wrap clipping) with total σ_total = 92.4 mrad is taken directly from the manufacturer datasheet without free-parameter fitting and propagated through 512 × 512 grid simulations, yielding predicted gate fidelities F = 0.9914–0.9936. Fork-grating gates are limited by TN noise while phase gates achieve higher fidelity due to zero clipping error; Bell-state preparation via H-CNOT reaches F(Φ+) = 0.9914. Results are benchmarked against six experimental studies and a wavelength-dependent analysis identifies 450–532 nm as optimal.

Significance. If the datasheet noise model is representative of actual OAM hologram performance, the work supplies a concrete, parameter-free benchmark for SLM-based photonic OAM quantum gates, quantifying the fidelity ceiling set by each noise channel and identifying an optimal operating wavelength. The absence of fitted parameters and the explicit decomposition of noise sources are strengths that allow direct comparison with future device measurements.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / noise model] Abstract and noise-model section: the headline fidelities F = 0.9914–0.9936 are obtained by propagating a fixed three-channel noise model whose total σ_total = 92.4 mrad is taken verbatim from the HOLOEYE LC 2012 datasheet. No on-device calibration, spatial mapping, or wavelength-specific measurement of phase error for fork or blazed gratings is reported; any systematic deviation between datasheet statistics and real-device behavior for OAM holography therefore scales every reported fidelity number directly.
  2. [Simulation methodology] Simulation section: grid convergence, LG-mode truncation order, and the precise numerical method used to generate the phase holograms (fork-grating vs. blazed-grating encoding) are not quantified. These choices directly affect the overlap integrals that enter the fidelity calculation and must be shown to be converged before the quoted F values can be treated as robust predictions.
  3. [Bell-state preparation] Results section (Bell-state paragraph): the reported F(Φ+) = 0.9914 after two successive SLM interactions assumes independent noise realizations on each hologram. The manuscript does not examine whether spatial correlations or residual beam-profile mismatch between the two interactions would alter this number.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states “predicted gate fidelity are” (plural subject, singular verb); correct to “fidelities are”.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions should explicitly state the computational grid size, the LG mode indices used, and the exact noise-channel contributions plotted.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which help clarify the scope and limitations of our simulation study. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / noise model] Abstract and noise-model section: the headline fidelities F = 0.9914–0.9936 are obtained by propagating a fixed three-channel noise model whose total σ_total = 92.4 mrad is taken verbatim from the HOLOEYE LC 2012 datasheet. No on-device calibration, spatial mapping, or wavelength-specific measurement of phase error for fork or blazed gratings is reported; any systematic deviation between datasheet statistics and real-device behavior for OAM holography therefore scales every reported fidelity number directly.

    Authors: The manuscript deliberately uses only datasheet values without fitting to supply a parameter-free benchmark, as stated in the abstract and methods. This enables direct future comparison with experiments. We will add an explicit statement in the noise-model section noting that any systematic deviation from the datasheet values would scale the reported fidelities proportionally. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Simulation methodology] Simulation section: grid convergence, LG-mode truncation order, and the precise numerical method used to generate the phase holograms (fork-grating vs. blazed-grating encoding) are not quantified. These choices directly affect the overlap integrals that enter the fidelity calculation and must be shown to be converged before the quoted F values can be treated as robust predictions.

    Authors: We agree that convergence details are required. The revised manuscript will include an appendix or subsection reporting grid-size convergence tests confirming 512×512 sufficiency, LG truncation (radial index p ≤ 10), and the standard numerical implementation of fork-grating and blazed-grating holograms. These additions will demonstrate stability of the fidelity results. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Bell-state preparation] Results section (Bell-state paragraph): the reported F(Φ+) = 0.9914 after two successive SLM interactions assumes independent noise realizations on each hologram. The manuscript does not examine whether spatial correlations or residual beam-profile mismatch between the two interactions would alter this number.

    Authors: The independent-noise assumption follows directly from the datasheet model in the absence of device-specific correlation data. We will add a clarifying sentence in the results section stating this assumption and noting that spatial correlations or beam mismatch, if present, could modify the value but cannot be quantified without additional experimental characterization beyond the current simulation scope. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: fidelities computed from fixed external datasheet noise model on independent grid simulation

full rationale

The paper takes a fixed three-channel noise model (quantization + TN + clipping) with σ_total = 92.4 mrad directly from the HOLOEYE LC 2012 datasheet, applies it without any free-parameter fitting or adjustment to the 512×512 grid simulation of the gate holograms, and reports the resulting fidelities. No step equates a fitted parameter to a prediction, renames a known result, or relies on a self-citation chain for the central claim; the derivation chain is self-contained against the external benchmark values.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claim rests on the external validity of the HOLOEYE LC 2012 datasheet noise values and on the assumption that the 512×512 grid plus LG beam truncation faithfully represent physical OAM mode evolution under the simulated holograms.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Manufacturer datasheet values for 8-bit quantisation, TN noise, and phase-wrap clipping accurately describe the physical SLM without additional device-specific calibration.
    Invoked when combining the three noise channels into σ_total = 92.4 mrad and when claiming the model is obtained without free-parameter fitting.
  • domain assumption The 512×512 computational grid and chosen LG mode basis truncation are sufficient to capture all relevant diffraction and phase errors for the simulated gates.
    Required for the fidelity numbers to be taken as representative of the physical device.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5849 in / 1518 out tokens · 34439 ms · 2026-06-25T19:31:10.141897+00:00 · methodology

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

42 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Universal linear optics

    J. Carolan et al. “Universal linear optics”. Science349, 711–716 (2015)

    2015

  2. [2]

    Orbital an- gular momentum of light and the transfor- mation of Laguerre-Gaussian laser modes

    L. Allen, M. W. Beijersbergen, R. J. C. Spreeuw, and J. P. Woerdman. “Orbital an- gular momentum of light and the transfor- mation of Laguerre-Gaussian laser modes”. Phys. Rev. A45, 8185–8189 (1992)

    1992

  3. [3]

    Orbital angular momentum of photons and the entanglement of Laguerre- Gaussian modes

    M. Krenn, M. Malik, M. Erhard, and A. Zeilinger. “Orbital angular momentum of photons and the entanglement of Laguerre- Gaussian modes”. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 375, 20150442 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    Management of the angular momentum of light: preparation of pho- tons in multidimensional vector states of an- gular momentum

    G. Molina-Terriza, J. P. Torres, and L. Torner. “Management of the angular momentum of light: preparation of pho- tons in multidimensional vector states of an- gular momentum”. Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 013601 (2001)

    2001

  5. [5]

    Simultaneous multichan- nel free-space optical communications using a single transmitter and receiver and or- bitalangularmomentummultiplexing

    K. Pang et al. “Simultaneous multichan- nel free-space optical communications using a single transmitter and receiver and or- bitalangularmomentummultiplexing”. Opt. Lett.43, 3889–3892 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    Propagation-invariant high-dimensional orbital angular momentum states

    L.-W. Mao, D.-S. Ding, C. Rosales-Guzmán, and Z.-H. Zhu. “Propagation-invariant high-dimensional orbital angular momentum states”. J. Opt.24, 044004 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Holographic gen- eration of complex fields with spatial light modulators: application to quantum key dis- tribution

    M. T. Gruneisen, W. A. Miller, R. C. Dy- male, and A. M. Sweiti. “Holographic gen- eration of complex fields with spatial light modulators: application to quantum key dis- tribution”. Appl. Opt.47, A32–A42 (2008)

    2008

  8. [8]

    Free-space information transfer using light beams carrying orbital angular momentum

    G. Gibson et al. “Free-space information transfer using light beams carrying orbital angular momentum”. Opt. Express12, 5448–5456 (2004)

    2004

  9. [9]

    Quantitative orbital angular momentum measurement of perfect vortex beams

    J. Pinnell, V. Rodríguez-Fajardo, and A. Forbes. “Quantitative orbital angular momentum measurement of perfect vortex beams”. Opt. Lett.44, 2736–2739 (2019)

    2019

  10. [10]

    Self-healing high-dimensional quantum key distribution using hybrid spin- orbit Bessel states

    I. Nape, E. Otte, A. Vallés, C. Rosales- Guzmán, F. Cardano, C. Denz, and A. Forbes. “Self-healing high-dimensional quantum key distribution using hybrid spin- orbit Bessel states”. Opt. Express26, 26946– 26960 (2018)

    2018

  11. [11]

    Spatial light modulators for atomic quantum com- puting (SMAQ)

    Fraunhofer IPMS SMAQ Project. “Spatial light modulators for atomic quantum com- puting (SMAQ)”. Technical report. Fraun- hofer Institute for Photonic Microsystems- Dresden, Germany (2025). url:https:// www.ipms.fraunhofer.de

    2025

  12. [12]

    Orbital angular momentum: origins, behavior, and applications

    A. M. Yao and M. J. Padgett. “Orbital angular momentum: origins, behavior, and applications”. Adv. Opt. Photon.3, 161– 204 (2011)

    2011

  13. [13]

    Quantum computer networks with the orbital angular momentum of light

    J. C. Garcia-Escartin and P. Chamorro- Posada. “Quantum computer networks with the orbital angular momentum of light”. Phys. Rev. A86, 032334 (2012)

    2012

  14. [14]

    High-dimensional single-photon quantum gates: concepts and experiments

    A. Babazadeh et al. “High-dimensional single-photon quantum gates: concepts and experiments”. Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 180510 (2017)

    2017

  15. [15]

    Arbitrary unitaries in orbital an- gular momentum of single photons

    J. Kysela. “Arbitrary unitaries in orbital an- gular momentum of single photons”. EPJ Quantum Technol.9, 22 (2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    High-dimensional Quantum Fourier Transform of twisted light

    J. Kysela. “High-dimensional Quantum Fourier Transform of twisted light”. Phys. Rev. A104, 012413 (2021)

    2021

  17. [17]

    Continuous-variable quantum computation 16 with spatial degrees of freedom of photons

    D. S. Tasca, R. M. Gomes, F. Toscano, P. H. Souto Ribeiro, and S. P. Walborn. “Continuous-variable quantum computation 16 with spatial degrees of freedom of photons”. Phys. Rev. A83, 052325 (2011)

    2011

  18. [18]

    Quantuminformationtrans- fer from spin to orbital angular momen- tum of photons

    E.Nagalietal. “Quantuminformationtrans- fer from spin to orbital angular momen- tum of photons”. Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 013601 (2009)

    2009

  19. [19]

    Laguerre-Gaussian mode sorter

    N. K. Fontaine et al. “Laguerre-Gaussian mode sorter”. Nature Commun.10, 1865 (2019)

    2019

  20. [20]

    Implementingone-photonthree-qubitquan- tum gates using spatial light modulators

    A. F. Abouraddy, G. Di Giuseppe, T. M. Yarnall, M. C. Teich, and B. E. A. Saleh. “Implementingone-photonthree-qubitquan- tum gates using spatial light modulators”. Phys. Rev. A86, 050303(R) (2012)

    2012

  21. [21]

    Single- photon three-qubit quantum logic using spa- tial light modulators

    K. H. Kagalwala, G. Di Giuseppe, A. F. Abouraddy, and B. E. A. Saleh. “Single- photon three-qubit quantum logic using spa- tial light modulators”. Nature Commun.8, 739 (2017)

    2017

  22. [22]

    High-dimensional quantum gates using full-field spatial modes of photons

    F. Brandt, M. Hiekkämäki, F. Bouchard, M.Huber, andR.Fickler. “High-dimensional quantum gates using full-field spatial modes of photons”. Optica7, 98–107 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    A versatile device for implementing the optical quantum gates in multiple degrees of freedom

    H. Ke, S. Fang, and W. Zhang. “A versatile device for implementing the optical quantum gates in multiple degrees of freedom”. Opt. Laser Technol.169, 110137 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    Multi-qubit entanglement and algorithms on a neutral- atom quantum computer

    T. M. Graham, M. Kwon, B. Grinkemeyer, Z. Marra, X. Jiang, M. T. Lichtman, Y. Sun, M. Ebert, and M. Saffman. “Multi-qubit entanglement and algorithms on a neutral- atom quantum computer”. Nature604, 457– 462 (2022)

    2022

  25. [25]

    Mapping twisted light into and out of a photonic chip

    Y. Chen et al. “Mapping twisted light into and out of a photonic chip”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 233602 (2018)

    2018

  26. [26]

    Ultracom- pact 3D integrated photonic chip for high- fidelity high-dimensional quantum gates

    K. Wang, D. Lyu, C. Cai, T. Fu, J. Wang, Q. Wang, J. Liu, and J. Wang. “Ultracom- pact 3D integrated photonic chip for high- fidelity high-dimensional quantum gates”. Sci. Adv.11, eadv5718 (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    Ultrahigh-fidelity spatial- mode photonic quantum gates via diffractive deep neural networks

    Q. Wang et al. “Ultrahigh-fidelity spatial- mode photonic quantum gates via diffractive deep neural networks”. Light: Sci. Appl.13, 10 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    Transverse mode-encoded quantum gate on a Silicon photonic chip

    L.-T. Feng, M. Zhang, X. Xiong, D. Liu, Y.- J. Cheng, F.-M. Jing, X.-Z. Qi, Y. Chen, D.- Y. He, G.-P. Guo, G.-C. Guo, D.-X. Dai, and X.-F. Ren. “Transverse mode-encoded quantum gate on a Silicon photonic chip”. Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 060501 (2022)

    2022

  29. [29]

    Quantum states generation and manipulation in a programmable Silicon- photonic four-qubit system with high- fidelity and purity

    J.-M. Lee, J. Park, J. Bang, Y.-I. Sohn, A. Baldazzi, M. Sanna, S. Azzini, and L. Pavesi. “Quantum states generation and manipulation in a programmable Silicon- photonic four-qubit system with high- fidelity and purity”. APL Photonics9, 076110 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    Heralded high-dimensional photon–photon quantum gate

    Z.-F. Liu, Z.-C. Ren, P. Wan, W.-Z. Zhu, Z.-M. Cheng, J. Wang, Y.-P. Shi, H.-B. Xi, M. Huber, N. Friis, X. Gao, X.-L. Wang, and H.-T. Wang. “Heralded high-dimensional photon–photon quantum gate”. Nature Pho- ton.20, 460–467 (2026)

    2026

  31. [31]

    Simple framework for systematic high-fidelity gate operations

    M. Rimbach-Russ, S. G. J. Philips, X. Xue, and L. M. K. Vandersypen. “Simple framework for systematic high-fidelity gate operations”. Quantum Sci. Technol.8, 045025 (2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    High-fidelity integrated quantum photonics via programmatic re- routing

    J. Mower et al. “High-fidelity integrated quantum photonics via programmatic re- routing”. Phys. Rev. A92, 032322 (2015)

    2015

  33. [33]

    Free-space quan- tum key distribution by rotation-invariant twisted photons

    G. Vallone et al. “Free-space quan- tum key distribution by rotation-invariant twisted photons”. Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 060503 (2014)

    2014

  34. [34]

    High-dimensional quantum cryptography with twisted light

    M. Mirhosseini et al. “High-dimensional quantum cryptography with twisted light”. New J. Phys.17, 033033 (2015)

    2015

  35. [35]

    Reversible optical memory for twisted photons

    L. Veissier et al. “Reversible optical memory for twisted photons”. Opt. Lett.38, 712– 714 (2013)

    2013

  36. [36]

    Long-lived orbital angular mo- mentum memory for photonic qubit in cold atoms

    Y. Ye et al. “Long-lived orbital angular mo- mentum memory for photonic qubit in cold atoms”. Phys.Rev.Lett.129, 193601(2022)

    2022

  37. [37]

    LC 2012 spatial light modulator (transmissive) – datasheet

    HOLOEYE Photonics AG. “LC 2012 spatial light modulator (transmissive) – datasheet”. [Online]. Available:https://holoeye.com/ lc-2012-spatial-light-modulator/(2023)

    2012

  38. [38]

    Photonic quantum information pro- cessing: a review

    F. Flamini, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciar- rino. “Photonic quantum information pro- cessing: a review”. Rep. Prog. Phys.82, 016001 (2019)

    2019

  39. [39]

    Preparing arbitrary pure states of spatial qudits with a single phase-only spa- tial light modulator

    M. A. Solís-Prosser, A. Arias, J. J. M. Varga, L. Rebón, S. Ledesma, C. Iemmi, and L. Neves. “Preparing arbitrary pure states of spatial qudits with a single phase-only spa- tial light modulator”. Opt. Lett.38, 4762– 4765 (2013)

    2013

  40. [40]

    Quantum storage of or- bital angular momentum entanglement in an 17 atomic ensemble

    D.-S. Ding et al. “Quantum storage of or- bital angular momentum entanglement in an 17 atomic ensemble”. Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 050502 (2015)

    2015

  41. [41]

    Remote transport of high-dimensional orbital an- gular momentum states and ghost images via spatial-mode-engineered frequency con- version

    X. Qiu, H. Guo, and L. Chen. “Remote transport of high-dimensional orbital an- gular momentum states and ghost images via spatial-mode-engineered frequency con- version”. Nature Commun.14, 8244 (2023)

    2023

  42. [42]

    Quan- tum computation and quantum informa- tion

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang. “Quan- tum computation and quantum informa- tion”. Cambridge Univ. Press. Cambridge, U.K. (2010). 10th anniversary edition. 18 A Simulation Notebooks Three Jupyter notebooks implement the complete simulation framework. All code is written in Python 3.10 (NumPy, Matplotlib). The LC 2012 hardware parameters are defined in a s...

    2010