Invariants in Linear Optics

Emmanuel Jeandel; S\'ebastien Draux; Shane Mansfield; Simon Perdrix

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 29 references

Invariants in Linear Optics

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For fixed photon and mode numbers, two photonic states are connected by a linear-optics circuit exactly when a finite set of polynomial invariants agree.

desk verdict The central finite-invariants result is correct and worth knowing, but the paper has several concrete errors in examples and the tensor section that need fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02211 v2 pith:UA4KBG3D submitted 2025-09-02 quant-ph

Sébastien Draux , Simon Perdrix , Emmanuel Jeandel , Shane Mansfield This is my paper

classification quant-ph MSC 13A5015A7281P6881R05

keywords linearopticsinvarianttheoryFockspaceorbitseparationMolienseriesunitarygrouptwo-photonstatespolynomialinvariants

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

This paper asks when two photonic states can be connected by a linear-optics circuit—no post-selection, no measurements, just the unitary action of an m-mode interferometer on a fixed number n of photons. The main result is that, for each fixed pair (n, m), there exists a finite list of polynomials in the state amplitudes and their complex conjugates such that two states are connected if and only if all these polynomials agree. The proof is non-constructive: it combines the Hilbert basis theorem, the complex Stone-Weierstrass theorem, and averaging over the unitary group. The paper then makes the result explicit for small cases, computing the Molien series for one and two photons and giving a complete generating set for two photons: the coefficients of the characteristic polynomial of A†A, equivalently the singular values of the two-photon amplitude matrix. If the claim holds, reachability in linear optics is decidable by evaluating finitely many polynomials, and the open problems shift to finding generators and evaluating them efficiently for larger n.

What carries the argument

The averaging operator f*(α)=∫_{U(m)} f(U.α)dU (Haar integral), which projects any polynomial onto the ring of invariants; the Molien series F(z), whose coefficients count independent invariants by degree and whose denominator reveals generator degrees; and, for two photons, the Takagi factorization A ↔ U^T A U, which identifies orbits with singular values. Tensor contraction invariants fσ pair the n-th tensor power of A with its conjugate and are shown to generate all invariants via Weingarten calculus.

What would settle it

For n=3, m=2, take the candidate invariant set obtained by averaging all phase-invariant monomials up to the degree suggested by the first terms of the Molien series, then search (e.g., by random numerical sampling) for two Fock states in F^3_2 that agree on every candidate invariant yet are not connected by any U∈U(2); such a pair would refute the completeness of that finite set. Conversely, if the theorem is right, no such pair can exist for the true generating set, so the test also validates the computations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Corollary 1: for fixed n and m, there is a finite set of invariant polynomials f1,...,fN such that for any α,β in F^nm, fj(α)=fj(β) for all j if and only if the computation |α> → |β> is possible in LO. In other words, the orbit of a photonic state under the full unitary group U(m) is exactly the common zero set of the differences fj(α)−fj(β), so orbit membership is detected by finitely many polynomial equations. The proof goes through Proposition 2 (finite generation of the invariant ring via Hilbert basis and averaging) and Proposition 3 (orbit separation by invariants via complex Stone-Weierstrass). For n=2, they exhibit the generating set explicitly: the invariants are the coefficients of

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the allowed transformations are exactly the full unitary group acting on modes and that, for fixed photon and mode numbers, the polynomials in the amplitudes and their complex conjugates can tell any two disjoint orbits apart; the latter relies on the complex version of the Stone-Weierstrass theorem.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any fixed n and m, checking whether a computation |α> → |β> is possible reduces to evaluating N polynomials; the decision procedure is finite, though the paper gives no bound on N or on the degrees.
For two-photon states, reachability is equivalent to equality of singular values of the amplitude matrix; the generating invariants are the m coefficients of χ_{A†A}.
The Molien series for n=1 and n=2 are 1/(1−|z|^2) and ∏_{k=1}^m (1−|z|^{2k})^{-1}, giving the number of independent invariants in each degree.
The non-constructive existence means a brute-force Gröbner-basis elimination on the equations β=ρ(U)α plus U†U=I would in principle produce these invariants but is impractical; the averaging/Molien route is the practical path.
For n>2, the exact Molien series and generator sets remain open.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the separation relies on the algebra C[α,ᾱ], the finite invariant test cannot be replaced by holomorphic invariants alone; phase invariance forces the conjugate variables, so any attempt to use only algebraic functions of amplitudes would fail.
The same averaging/Molien machinery could be applied to other compact-group actions on Fock spaces—for example, circuits respecting particle-number subsectors or permutation-invariant circuits—to obtain analogous finite reachability tests.
For n=3, one could compute the first terms of F(z) numerically via the Weyl integral expression in Theorem 5, average suitable phase-invariant monomials, and test orbit separation on random pairs; failure would reveal missing generators earlier than a human proof.
The two-photon result suggests a resource-theoretic reading: the singular values are complete monotones for LO state conversion, which may help quantify the minimal additional resources needed to reach states outside this family.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The central result is real: Corollary 1 gives a finite set of polynomial invariants (in the amplitudes and their conjugates) that decide LO reachability. The proof is a standard application of Hilbert basis plus Stone-Weierstrass plus Haar averaging, and it works. The paper is also honest about the proof being non-constructive and about the n>2 cases being open. The Molien series computation for n=2 (Proposition 5) is the most substantial new piece and it is convincing.

The soft spots are real but not fatal to the main theorem. The tensor section (5.3) has a concrete error: Eq. (13) omits the square-root normalization, so the f_sigma defined there are not invariants of the LO action as written, and Theorem 6 is unsupported as stated. This needs to be fixed; the argument likely survives with the correct normalization, since the relationship between alpha and A is linear, but the text as it stands is wrong. There are also wrong examples: the "invariant" in Section 3.1 (and again in Section 5.4) is not invariant under a beamsplitter, and det(A) is miscomputed there. These are exactly the places a reader will check first, so they need to be corrected before the paper is trusted.

I also want to calibrate expectations: Corollary 1 is a structural result, not an algorithm. The number of invariants and their degrees are not bounded, and for n=2 the classification reduces to the known singular-value criterion via Takagi. So the practical value is modest—the paper is most valuable as a conceptual unification and for the explicit small-case computations.

All in all, a serious referee should be sent in, and the paper should be revisable. The authors should fix the tensor normalization and the bad examples, and probably add a remark that the n=2 invariants match Takagi. I would not cite it in its current form, but once corrected it is citable. For a reading group, it is a reasonable mid-level paper: the main ideas are accessible and the errors are instructive.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies which n-photon, m-mode pure states can be transformed into one another by passive linear optics. It defines polynomial invariants in the state amplitudes and their complex conjugates, proves that for fixed n and m finitely many such invariants decide reachability (Cor. 1), and then develops Molien-series and tensor methods for constructing explicit invariants. The main reachability theorem is proved non-constructively via the Hilbert basis theorem, the complex Stone-Weierstrass theorem, and Haar averaging; the cases n=1 and n=2 are worked out as applications.

Significance. If correct, Corollary 1 is a clean and useful statement: reachability in linear optics is decided by evaluating finitely many polynomial functions of the state coefficients and their conjugates. The proof of this corollary is sound and independent of the explicit invariant computations; it relies on standard invariant theory and the compactness of the unitary group. The Molien-series calculations for n=1 and n=2 are elegant, and the Takagi-factorization benchmark for two photons is a valuable external check. However, several explicit invariants and normalization formulas printed in the paper are incorrect, and these errors affect the advertised exact computations. With those corrected, the paper would be a solid contribution.

major comments (5)

[§2, Eq. (5)] The quantity ∥α∥² = Σ n_i! |α_{n_i}|² is not invariant under the LO action for n>1. For n=m=2, the 50:50 beamsplitter U = 1/√2 [[1,1],[1,-1]] maps |2,0> (α20=1) to (α20,α11,α02) = (1/2,1/√2,1/2); Eq. (5) changes from 2 to 3/2. The true degree-2 invariant is the standard Fock-space norm Σ|α|². This invalidates Proposition 1 and the degree-2 invariant used in §5.2, and therefore the claimed Molien match for n=m=2. Corollary 1 is not affected, but the advertised exact computation is.
[§3.1 and §5.4] The printed invariant f(α)=|α11−4α20α02|² is not invariant. Under U=diag(i,1), α20→−α20, α11→iα11, α02→α02; at α=(1,1,1), f changes from 9 to 17. The correct two-photon invariant is |det A|² = |α20α02 − α11²/4|² with the paper's tensor convention. Consequently the example in §3.1 and the statement det(A†A)=|det(A)|²=|α11−4α20α02|² in §5.4 are wrong, although the Takagi route itself is salvageable with the corrected expression.
[§5.3, Eq. (13)] The tensor coefficients should carry the square-root normalization A_{k1...kn} = α_{n1...nm}/√(binom(n;n_i)); as printed, A = binom^{-1}α is not an isometry and is not compatible with the Fock-space action. With Eq. (13) as written, the contractions in Eq. (16) are not invariants and Theorem 6 is unsupported. This error also makes the claimed identification of Eq. (15) with ∥α∥² incorrect. The theorem may be true after rescaling, but the proof as written does not establish it.
[§3.2, Theorem 2] The Weingarten formula displayed uses the same permutation σ in both the i-delta and the j-delta products. The Collins–Sniady formula requires an independent permutation for the j indices (e.g. δ_{i_k,i'_{σ(k)}} δ_{j_k,j'_{τ(k)}} with a sum over σ,τ). As stated, the theorem gives wrong values (e.g. it fails to recover the standard second-moment integral ∫ U11 U22 \bar U12 \bar U21). The formula is also inconsistent with the one used later in the proof of Theorem 6. This must be corrected before Section 5.3 can be relied upon.
[§5.2] The displayed averaged invariant (|α20|^4)^* = 8/15(6|α02|^4+6|α20|^4+|α11|^4+...) is numerically inconsistent: evaluating at |2,0> (α20=1) gives 16/5, whereas by definition it should be E_U |U11|^8 = 1/5 for m=2. Thus the explicit degree-4 invariant used to match the Molien series is not the correct Haar average. Together with the wrong degree-2 norm, this invalidates the n=m=2 generator computation in §5.2.

minor comments (4)

[§5.1] The relation 'f4f5 = f_1^2 f_2 f_3' has the wrong exponents; with f4=α11² \bar α20 \bar α02 and f5=conjugate, the product equals f1 f2² f3. Also, 'f5=f4' should read 'f5=conjugate of f4'.
[Throughout] The ring written C[α,α] should be C[α,\bar α]. As typeset the conjugate variable is invisible, making Definition 1 and the homogeneity statements ambiguous. Please ensure the bar is visible in the published version.
[Definition 3] The Molien series is defined with z^d z^{d'} using the same formal variable z. Later expressions use |z|^{2d}. Please use two variables or explicitly state that z' is \bar z, otherwise the grading is ambiguous.
[§5.1] The description of the Gröbner-basis elimination is imprecise: the condition is that f(α)−f(β) lies in the eliminated ideal (or reduces to zero modulo the Gröbner basis), not that it 'belongs to the calculated Gröbner basis'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central claim derived from external invariant theory, self-citation not load-bearing.

full rationale

Corollary 1 is derived from standard invariant-theoretic tools applied to the U(m)-action on Fock space: Proposition 2 uses Hilbert's basis theorem plus Haar averaging, and Proposition 3 uses the complex Stone-Weierstrass theorem plus orbit averaging. These are external mathematical results, not inputs fitted or renamed from the paper's own conclusions. No parameter is fitted to data, and no 'prediction' is statistically forced by a prior fit. The only self-citation, [13], appears in a background sentence about two-photon state preparation and plays no role in any proof. The phase-invariant generator lists in Appendix B are computed by Gröbner elimination, and the n=1,2 invariant classifications are benchmarked against the independent singular-value/Takagi criterion (Proposition 7). The potential normalization error in Section 5.3 concerning Eq. (13) is a correctness issue in a secondary tensor construction, not a circular reduction, and it does not affect Corollary 1, which is proved before and independently of Theorem 6. Thus the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its external assumptions, and no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters or entities. It relies on standard invariant theory, Weingarten calculus, Molien's formula, and Takagi's factorization, plus a domain assumption that LO transformations are exactly U(m) acting on fixed photon-number sectors and that observables may be polynomials in amplitudes and their conjugates.

assumptions (9)

domain assumption The full unitary group U(m) acting on m modes via creation operator transformation (Eq. 3) is the exact model of linear-optics circuits acting on states with exactly n photons.
Section 2 defines LO circuits as U(m) transformations of creation operators; this restricts to passive linear optics without measurement, post-selection, or heralding.
domain assumption Polynomial invariants are allowed to depend on both coefficients and their complex conjugates, i.e., the invariant ring is C[α,bar(α)].
Section 3.1 introduces C[α,bar(α)]; complex conjugation is necessary for invariance under phase transformations and for the complex Stone-Weierstrass argument in Proposition 3.
domain assumption States are restricted to the fixed photon-number sector F^nm for given n and m.
Section 2 defines F^nm as the vector space of photonic states with n photons on m modes; the entire analysis is per (n,m).
standard math Hilbert basis theorem: polynomial ideals are finitely generated.
Used in Proposition 2 to obtain a finite generating set of invariants.
standard math Stone-Weierstrass theorem (complex version): continuous functions on compact sets can be approximated by polynomials in z and bar(z).
Used in Proposition 3 to separate disjoint orbits.
standard math Weingarten calculus formula for Haar integrals of products of unitary matrix elements (Theorem 2, from Collins and Sniady).
Used to compute averaged monomials and to prove Theorem 6.
standard math Molien's formula for the generating series of invariants of a compact group action (Theorem 4).
Used in Section 4 to compute the Molien series for n=1 and n=2.
standard math Takagi factorization: every complex symmetric matrix can be diagonalized by a unitary congruence.
Used in Proposition 7 for two-photon states.
standard math Elementary symmetric functions are algebraically independent.
Used in Section 5.4 to show that the coefficients of the characteristic polynomial of A†A are independent generators.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Invariants in Linear Optics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UA4KBG3D

@misc{pith2026250902211,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Invariants in Linear Optics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UA4KBG3D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02211}
}

read the original abstract

Linear optics (LO) prohibits certain transformations. In this paper, we study the conditions for a computation to be possible in LO. We find that there are finitely many polynomials such that each of these polynomials evaluates to the same value on two photonic states if and only if there is a LO circuit transforming one of these states into the other. The proof is non-constructive, so we then focus on methods to find such polynomials.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

Linear optical quantum computing,

P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, “Linear optical quantum computing,”Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 79, no. 1, p. 135–174, Jan. 2007, arXiv:quant-ph/0512071

arXiv 2007
[2]

Photonic quantum computers,

M. AbuGhanem, “Photonic quantum computers,” no. arXiv:2409.08229, Sep. 2024, arXiv:2409.08229 [quant-ph]. [Online]. Available: http: //arxiv.org/abs/2409.08229

arXiv 2024
[3]

A spin-optical quantum computing architecture,

G. d. Gliniasty, P. Hilaire, P.-E. Emeriau, S. C. Wein, A. Salavrakos, and S. Mansfield, “A spin-optical quantum computing architecture,” Quantum, vol. 8, p. 1423, Jul. 2024

work page 2024
[4]

Enhanced fault-tolerance in photonic quantum computing: Floquet code outperforms surface code in tailored architecture,

P. Hilaire, T. Dessertaine, B. Bourdoncle, A. Denys, G. d. Gliniasty, G. Valent ´ ı-Rojas, and S. Mansfield, “Enhanced fault-tolerance in photonic quantum computing: Floquet code outperforms surface code in tailored architecture,” no. arXiv:2410.07065, Oct. 2024, arXiv:2410.07065. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.07065 19

arXiv 2024
[5]

Fusion-based quantum computation,

S. Bartolucci, P. Birchall, H. Bomb ´ ın, H. Cable, C. Dawson, M. Gimeno- Segovia, E. Johnston, K. Kieling, N. Nickerson, M. Pant, F. Pastawski, T. Rudolph, and C. Sparrow, “Fusion-based quantum computation,” Na- ture Communications, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 912, Feb. 2023

work page 2023
[6]

Re- cent progress in quantum photonic chips for quantum communication and internet,

W. Luo, L. Cao, Y. Shi, L. Wan, H. Zhang, S. Li, G. Chen, Y. Li, S. Li, Y. Wang, S. Sun, M. F. Karim, H. Cai, L. C. Kwek, and A. Q. Liu, “Re- cent progress in quantum photonic chips for quantum communication and internet,” Light: Science & Applications , vol. 12, no. 1, p. 175, 2023

work page 2023
[7]

A versatile single- photon-based quantum computing platform,

N. Maring, A. Fyrillas, M. Pont, E. Ivanov, P. Stepanov, N. Margaria, W. Hease, A. Pishchagin, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, I. Sagneset al., “A versatile single- photon-based quantum computing platform,” Nature Photonics , pp. 1–7, 2024

work page 2024
[8]

A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics,

E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, “A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics,” nature, vol. 409, no. 6816, pp. 46–52, 2001

work page 2001

Show all 29 references

[9]

Quantum gates using linear optics and postselection,

E. Knill, “Quantum gates using linear optics and postselection,” Physical Review A, vol. 66, no. 5, p. 052306, 2002

2002
[10]

Efficient toffoli gates using qudits,

T. C. Ralph, K. J. Resch, and A. Gilchrist, “Efficient toffoli gates using qudits,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 75, p. 022313, Feb 2007

2007
[11]

A method to determine which quantum operations can be realized with linear optics with a constructive implementation recipe,

J. C. Garcia-Escartin, V. Gimeno, and J. J. Moyano-Fern´ andez, “A method to determine which quantum operations can be realized with linear optics with a constructive implementation recipe,” Physical Review A , vol. 100, no. 2, p. 022301, Aug. 2019, arXiv:1901.06178 [math-ph, ...

2019 arXiv
[12]

Linear optics quantum computing - con- struction of small networks and asymptotic scaling,

K. Kieling, “Linear optics quantum computing - con- struction of small networks and asymptotic scaling,”
[13]

Simple rules for two-photon state preparation with linear optics,

G. De Gliniasty, P. Bagourd, S. Draux, and B. Bourdoncle, “Simple rules for two-photon state preparation with linear optics,” in2024 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , vol. 1. IEEE, 2024, pp. 706–711

2024
[14]

No-go theorems for photon state transformations in quantum linear optics,

P. V. Parellada, V. Gimeno i Garcia, J. J. Moyano-Fern´ andez, and J. C. Garcia-Escartin, “No-go theorems for photon state transformations in quantum linear optics,” Results in Physics , vol. 54, p. 107108, Nov. 2023

2023
[15]

Sturmfels, Algorithms in Invariant Theory , ser

B. Sturmfels, Algorithms in Invariant Theory , ser. Texts and Monographs in Symbolic Computation. Vienna: Springer, 2008. [Online]. Available: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-211-77417-5 20

2008 doi
[16]

An introduction to invariants and moduli,

S. Mukai and W. M. Oxbury, “An introduction to invariants and moduli,” Sep. 2003. [Online]. Available: https://www. cambridge.org/core/books/an-introduction-to-invariants-and-moduli/ FD47BBB910AA000A98E491D105185928

2003
[17]

Derksen and G

H. Derksen and G. Kemper, Computational Invariant Theory , ser. Ency- clopaedia of Mathematical Sciences. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-662-48422-7

2015 doi
[18]

Dolgachev, Lectures on Invariant Theory , ser

I. Dolgachev, Lectures on Invariant Theory , ser. London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. [Online]. Available: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ lectures-on-invariant-theory/9E1B186438B3F778680C4E7E0BCD3D1A

2003
[19]

M. R. Sepanski, Compact Lie Groups , ser. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. New York, NY: Springer, 2007, vol. 235. [Online]. Available: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-0-387-49158-5

2007 doi
[20]

Integration with respect to the haar measure on unitary, orthogonal and symplectic group,

B. Collins and P. ´Sniady, “Integration with respect to the haar measure on unitary, orthogonal and symplectic group,” Communications in Mathe- matical Physics, vol. 264, no. 3, p. 773–795, Jun. 2006

2006
[21]

Ueber die theorie der algebraischen formen,

D. Hilbert, “Ueber die theorie der algebraischen formen,” Mathematische Annalen, vol. 36, no. 4, p. 473–534, Dec. 1890
[22]

The noether number in invariant theory

D. Wehlau, “The noether number in invariant theory.”
[23]

Polynomial bounds for rings of invariants,

H. Derksen, “Polynomial bounds for rings of invariants,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 129, no. 4, p. 955–963, 2001

2001
[24]

On the castelnuovo-mumford regularity of rings of polynomial invariants,

P. Symonds, “On the castelnuovo-mumford regularity of rings of polynomial invariants,” Annals of Mathematics , vol. 174, no. 1, p. 499–517, 2011

2011
[25]

Molien, ¨Uber die Invarianten der linearen Substitutionsgruppen , ser

T. Molien, ¨Uber die Invarianten der linearen Substitutionsgruppen , ser. Sitzungsberichte der Koenigl. Preussischen Akad. der Wiss. zu Berlin. 1897, 1897
[26]

Invariant polynomials and molien functions,

M. Forger, “Invariant polynomials and molien functions,” Journal of Math- ematical Physics, vol. 39, no. 2, p. 1107–1141, Feb. 1998

1998
[27]

R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. [Online]. Available: https://www.cambridge.org/ core/books/matrix-analysis/9CF2CB491C9E97948B15F AD835EF9A8B

1985
[28]

I. G. Macdonald, Symmetric Functions and Hall Polynomials , second edi- tion ed., ser. Oxford Classic Texts in the Physical Sciences. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, Oct. 2015. 21

2015
[2008]

Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/ paper/Linear-optics-quantum-computing-construction-of-and-Kieling/ 11490cfeb0c2f5efca748d836c2c6f2f025540a3

[Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/ paper/Linear-optics-quantum-computing-construction-of-and-Kieling/ 11490cfeb0c2f5efca748d836c2c6f2f025540a3

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Linear optical quantum computing,

P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, “Linear optical quantum computing,”Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 79, no. 1, p. 135–174, Jan. 2007, arXiv:quant-ph/0512071

arXiv 2007

[2] [2]

Photonic quantum computers,

M. AbuGhanem, “Photonic quantum computers,” no. arXiv:2409.08229, Sep. 2024, arXiv:2409.08229 [quant-ph]. [Online]. Available: http: //arxiv.org/abs/2409.08229

arXiv 2024

[3] [3]

A spin-optical quantum computing architecture,

G. d. Gliniasty, P. Hilaire, P.-E. Emeriau, S. C. Wein, A. Salavrakos, and S. Mansfield, “A spin-optical quantum computing architecture,” Quantum, vol. 8, p. 1423, Jul. 2024

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Enhanced fault-tolerance in photonic quantum computing: Floquet code outperforms surface code in tailored architecture,

P. Hilaire, T. Dessertaine, B. Bourdoncle, A. Denys, G. d. Gliniasty, G. Valent ´ ı-Rojas, and S. Mansfield, “Enhanced fault-tolerance in photonic quantum computing: Floquet code outperforms surface code in tailored architecture,” no. arXiv:2410.07065, Oct. 2024, arXiv:2410.07065. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.07065 19

arXiv 2024

[5] [5]

Fusion-based quantum computation,

S. Bartolucci, P. Birchall, H. Bomb ´ ın, H. Cable, C. Dawson, M. Gimeno- Segovia, E. Johnston, K. Kieling, N. Nickerson, M. Pant, F. Pastawski, T. Rudolph, and C. Sparrow, “Fusion-based quantum computation,” Na- ture Communications, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 912, Feb. 2023

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Re- cent progress in quantum photonic chips for quantum communication and internet,

W. Luo, L. Cao, Y. Shi, L. Wan, H. Zhang, S. Li, G. Chen, Y. Li, S. Li, Y. Wang, S. Sun, M. F. Karim, H. Cai, L. C. Kwek, and A. Q. Liu, “Re- cent progress in quantum photonic chips for quantum communication and internet,” Light: Science & Applications , vol. 12, no. 1, p. 175, 2023

work page 2023

[7] [7]

A versatile single- photon-based quantum computing platform,

N. Maring, A. Fyrillas, M. Pont, E. Ivanov, P. Stepanov, N. Margaria, W. Hease, A. Pishchagin, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, I. Sagneset al., “A versatile single- photon-based quantum computing platform,” Nature Photonics , pp. 1–7, 2024

work page 2024

[8] [8]

A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics,

E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, “A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics,” nature, vol. 409, no. 6816, pp. 46–52, 2001

work page 2001