Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
116 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
10 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
24 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
5 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
3 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
35 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Analysis of optical loss thresholds in the fusion-based quantum computing architecture (2403.14811v2)

Published 21 Mar 2024 in quant-ph

Abstract: Bell state measurements (BSM) play a significant role in quantum information and quantum computing, in particular, in fusion-based quantum computing (FBQC). The FBQC model is a framework for universal quantum computing provided that we are able to perform entangling measurements, called fusions, on qubits within small entangled resource states. Here we analyse the usage of different linear-optical BSM circuits as fusions in the FBQC schemes and numerically evaluate hardware requirements for fault-tolerance in this framework. We examine and compare the performance of several BSM circuits with varying additional resources and estimate the requirements on losses for every component of the linear-optical realization of fusions under which errors in fusion networks caused by these losses can be corrected. Our results show that fault-tolerant quantum computing in the FBQC model is possible with currently achievable levels of optical losses in an integrated photonic implementation, provided that we can create and detect single photons of the resource states with a total marginal efficiency higher than 0.973.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (55)
  1. Long-distance quantum communication with atomic ensembles and linear optics. Nature, 414(6862):413–418, November 2001.
  2. Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels. Physical Review Letters, 70(13):1895–1899, March 1993.
  3. “event-ready-detectors” bell experiment via entanglement swapping. Physical Review Letters, 71(26):4287–4290, December 1993.
  4. Resource-efficient linear optical quantum computation. Physical Review Letters, 95(1), June 2005.
  5. Measurement-based quantum computation on cluster states. Physical Review A, 68(2), August 2003.
  6. A fault-tolerant one-way quantum computer. Annals of Physics, 321(9):2242–2270, September 2006.
  7. Percolation, renormalization, and quantum computing with nondeterministic gates. Physical Review Letters, 99(13), September 2007.
  8. From three-photon greenberger-horne-zeilinger states to ballistic universal quantum computation. Physical Review Letters, 115(2), July 2015.
  9. Fusion-based quantum computation. Nature Communications, 14(1), February 2023.
  10. A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics. Nature, 409(6816):46–52, January 2001.
  11. Jeremy L. O’Brien. Optical quantum computing. Science, 318(5856):1567–1570, December 2007.
  12. Universal linear optics. Science, 349(6249):711–716, August 2015.
  13. Introduction to Optical Quantum Information Processing. Cambridge University Press, April 2010.
  14. Resource costs for fault-tolerant linear optical quantum computing. Physical Review X, 5(4), October 2015.
  15. Loss-tolerant optical qubits. Physical Review Letters, 95(10), August 2005.
  16. Fundamental building block for all-optical scalable quantum networks. Physical Review A, 100(5), November 2019.
  17. J. Calsamiglia and N. Lütkenhaus. Maximum efficiency of a linear-optical bell-state analyzer. Applied Physics B, 72(1):67–71, January 2001.
  18. Interferometric bell-state analysis. Physical Review A, 53(3):R1209–R1212, March 1996.
  19. Bell measurements for teleportation. Physical Review A, 59(5):3295–3300, May 1999.
  20. W. P. Grice. Arbitrarily complete bell-state measurement using only linear optical elements. Physical Review A, 84(4), October 2011.
  21. Fabian Ewert and Peter van Loock. 3/4343/43 / 4-efficient bell measurement with passive linear optics and unentangled ancillae. Physical Review Letters, 113(14), September 2014.
  22. Mercedes Gimeno-Segovia. Towards practical linear optical quantum computing. Imperial College London, 2015.
  23. Silicon Photonics Design: From Devices to Systems. Cambridge University Press, February 2015.
  24. Low-loss, low-crosstalk waveguide crossing for scalable integrated silicon photonics applications. Optics Express, 28(9):12498, April 2020.
  25. Methods for reliable teleportation. Physical Review A, 59(1):116–125, January 1999.
  26. Clifford manipulations of stabilizer states: A graphical rule book for clifford unitaries and measurements on cluster states, and application to photonic quantum computing, 2023.
  27. Peter W. Shor. Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory. Physical Review A, 52(4):R2493–R2496, October 1995.
  28. Increasing error tolerance in quantum computers with dynamic bias arrangement, 2023.
  29. Classical simulation of photonic linear optics with lost particles. New Journal of Physics, 20(9):092002, September 2018.
  30. Classical simulation of lossy boson sampling using matrix product operators. Physical Review A, 104(2), August 2021.
  31. Aaron Z. Goldberg. Correlations for subsets of particles in symmetric states: what photons are doing within a beam of light when the rest are ignored. Optica Quantum, 2(1):14, January 2024.
  32. V. S. Shchesnovich. Partial indistinguishability theory for multiphoton experiments in multiport devices. Physical Review A, 91(1), January 2015.
  33. Distinguishability and many-particle interference. Physical Review Letters, 118(15), April 2017.
  34. Classical simulability of noisy boson sampling, 2018.
  35. Hardware requirements for realizing a quantum advantage with deterministic single-photon sources, 2023.
  36. Linear optical logical bell state measurements with optimal loss-tolerance threshold. PRX Quantum, 4(4), November 2023.
  37. Errors in heralded circuits for linear optical entanglement generation, 2023.
  38. Hybrid integrated quantum photonic circuits. Nature Photonics, 14(5):285–298, April 2020.
  39. The potential and global outlook of integrated photonics for quantum technologies. Nature Reviews Physics, 4(3):194–208, December 2021.
  40. 2022 roadmap on integrated quantum photonics. Journal of Physics: Photonics, 4(1):012501, January 2022.
  41. 8×8 reconfigurable quantum photonic processor based on silicon nitride waveguides. Optics Express, 27(19):26842, September 2019.
  42. Large-scale error-tolerant programmable interferometer fabricated by femtosecond laser writing. Photonics Research, 12(3):A28, March 2024.
  43. Advances in silica planar lightwave circuits. Journal of Lightwave Technology, 24(12):4763–4789, December 2006.
  44. Programmable Integrated Photonics. Oxford University Press, 2020.
  45. Superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors with 98% system detection efficiency at 1550  nm. Optica, 7(12):1649, November 2020.
  46. A general-purpose single-photon-based quantum computing platform, 2023.
  47. Heralded three-photon entanglement from a single-photon source on a photonic chip, 2023.
  48. Deterministic photon source interfaced with a programmable silicon-nitride integrated circuit. npj Quantum Information, 9(1), September 2023.
  49. Creation of entangled photonic states using linear optics, 2021.
  50. Improved heralded schemes to generate entangled states from single photons. Physical Review A, 102(1), July 2020.
  51. Generating entanglement with linear optics. Physical Review A, 96(4), October 2017.
  52. Compact linear optical scheme for bell state generation. Physical Review Research, 3(4), October 2021.
  53. Programmable heralded linear optical generation of two-qubit states. Physical Review Applied, 20(5), November 2023.
  54. Optimizing graph codes for measurement-based loss tolerance. PRX Quantum, 4(2), May 2023.
  55. Stefan Scheel. Permanents in linear optical networks. 2004.
Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Follow-up Questions

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.