Universal programmable waveguide arrays

Akram Youssry; Alberto Peruzzo

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Universal programmable waveguide arrays

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cascaded programmable waveguide arrays can implement any unitary transformation, with error vanishing as the number of sections grows.

desk verdict First constructive universality proof for cascaded PWAs with strictly positive couplings, sound on existence but the practical-constraints claim is unsupported because the LLL recurrence length is never bounded. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12610 v1 pith:XBRBRDI2 submitted 2024-11-19 quant-ph physics.optics

Akram Youssry , Alberto Peruzzo This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phphysics.optics MSC 81P6881P45 PACS 42.50.Ex42.82.Et

keywords universalunitarydecompositionprogrammablewaveguidearraysTrotterizationquantumrecurrencetheoremLLLalgorithmintegratedphotonicscontrol

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

The paper claims that a programmable waveguide array—a chain of evanescently coupled optical waveguides whose couplings and propagation constants are electrically tunable—can be made universal for quantum information processing, even though its Hamiltonian is always tridiagonal and has strictly positive entries. The central result, Theorem 1, states that for dimension $d>2$ any unitary in $\mathrm{SU}(d)$ can be approximated by cascading $K=4\tilde{K}N$ sections, with error $O(\tilde{K}/N)$ that vanishes as the Trotter number $N$ grows, and that for $d=2$ any gate is exact with at most four sections. The proof works around the physical constraints by decomposing the target unitary into adjacent two-mode operations, synthesizing each operation from four sections, and using Trotterization plus a number-theoretic recurrence to emulate forbidden operations such as negative-time evolution and decoupling of neighboring waveguides. Numerical optimization on a realistic lithium-niobate model reaches infidelities near $10^{-5}$ with only a few sections, whereas a single-section array is shown to be inherently limited to a tridiagonal form. If correct, this establishes cascaded waveguide arrays as a scalable photonic platform for arbitrary unitary synthesis, relevant to quantum simulation, machine learning, and signal processing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cascaded programmable waveguide array with Hamiltonian $H=\sum_m\beta_m|m\rangle\langle m|+\sum_m C_{m,m+1}(|m\rangle\langle m+1|+|m+1\rangle\langle m|)$, $\beta_m>0$, $C_{m,m+1}>0$. The argument runs on three tools: the Reck-type decomposition of any $\mathrm{SU}(d)$ matrix into adjacent two-level unitaries; an exact four-section synthesis of each $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ block; and the Lie-Trotter formula $e^{A+B}=\lim_{N\to\infty}(e^{A/N}e^{B/N})^N$, which lets the cascade emulate a block-diagonal Hamiltonian even though the physical waveguides are continuously coupled. The final ingredient is the quantum recurrence theorem, applied through the LLL algorithm, which finds an integer $q$ such that evolution under the fixed uniform Hamiltonian $B_k$ for length $\tilde{L}=q-L/N$ reproduces $e^{iB_kL/N}$, effectively turning backward time into forward time. This last step is what makes the whole construction compatible with strictly positive couplings.

What would settle it

A concrete check: for one fixed dimension and one fixed Trotter number, run the LLL algorithm on the eigenvalues $\lambda_j=-2\cos(j\pi/(d+1))$ of the uniform section to find the integer $q$ and the resulting length $\tilde{L}=q-L/N$. If that length exceeds any reasonable chip scale while the error is still above the Trotter bound, the proof's practical-constraints claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors' central claim is Theorem 1: for $d>2$, an arbitrary $U\in\mathrm{SU}(d)$ can be decomposed into $K=4\tilde{K}N$ cascaded sections, where $\tilde{K}=\frac{1}{6}(2d^3-3d^2+d)$, each section described by a tridiagonal Hamiltonian with strictly positive matrix elements, and the approximation error satisfies $\|U-V\|=O(\tilde{K}/N)$. For $d=2$, the decomposition is exact with at most four sections. The construction is a four-step algorithm: decompose $U$ into adjacent two-mode unitaries (with permutations making them adjacent); implement each two-mode unitary exactly as a product of four constrained sections; approximate the required block-diagonal $d\times d$ Hamiltonian by Trotterizing alternating sections $A_k$ and $B_k$; and replace the implicit backward-time evolution of $B_k$ by forward-time evolution over a length $\tilde{L}=q-L/N$ chosen by the LLL algorithm so that $e^{-iB_k\tilde{L}}\approx e^{iB_kL/N}$. The physical parameters of the $B_k$ sections are independent of the target unitary and can be fixed at design time.

Load-bearing premise

The proof requires that one fixed section of the chip, run for a suitably long length, can mimic the inverse-time evolution of another short section, and it does not bound how long that length must be.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any $d$-dimensional unitary, including the discrete Fourier transform, clock, and shift gates, can be implemented with error $O(d^3/N)$, so arbitrary precision is reachable by increasing the Trotter number $N$.
For qubits ($d=2$), every $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ gate is realized exactly with at most four sections, and any phase-shift gate with at most three.
A single-section PWA is intrinsically limited: to first order its unitary is tridiagonal, so no material or geometry change can lift the performance ceiling.
The $B_k$ sections of the cascade can be designed once, independent of the target unitary, leaving only the $A_k$ sections to be compiled per gate.
The numerical experiments show infidelities around $10^{-5}$ with far fewer sections than the theorem's $O(d^3N)$ bound, suggesting practical implementations need only a modest cascade.

Reading between the lines

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

The proof's unquantified recurrence length $\tilde{L}$ is the main resource cost; if a tighter analysis shows $\tilde{L}$ grows steeply with $d$ or $1/\epsilon$, the architecture remains universal but may lose its practical advantage over Mach-Zehnder meshes.
The same Trotter-plus-recurrence trick could be adapted to other platforms with always-on nearest-neighbor couplings and positivity constraints, such as coupled superconducting qubits or trapped-ion chains, as a way to decouple subspaces without physically switching off interactions.
The numerical observation that a handful of sections (e.g., 5 for $d=5$) already reaches infidelity $\sim10^{-5}$ suggests the true worst-case section count may scale much more gently than $\tilde{K}N$, which would be a testable conjecture.
Because the $B_k$ design is unitary-independent, one could pre-characterize and calibrate those sections once per chip, turning the remaining compile problem into a smaller search over $A_k$ parameters.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 headline: this is the first constructive universality proof for cascaded programmable waveguide arrays with strictly positive couplings, and the existence proof is sound. What it does not do is support the "practical constraints" wording in the abstract.

The construction is standard in the right way: Reck decomposition into adjacent two-mode blocks, exact SU(2) synthesis in four sections, Trotterization with alternating A/B sections, and LLL-based recurrence to replace backward evolution. The error bound O(Ktilde/N) is plausible and the supplemental error analysis is coherent. The numerical optimization with realistic lithium niobate parameters is a plus, and the authors are honest that optimized designs use far fewer sections than the theorem.

Three soft spots. First, the section count in Theorem 1 is off by a factor of two: each Trotter step needs both A and B sections, so the construction uses 8 Ktilde N sections, not 4 Ktilde N. The asymptotic error scaling survives, but the statement as written is wrong. Second, the phase-gate exception says r=0 when it should be r=1; the supplement has it right. Minor.

The third is bigger. Step 4 never bounds the recurrence length Ltilde = q - L/N. Standard Dirichlet/LLL bounds give q = O(epsilon^{-d}) up to constants, and their epsilon is ~1/N^2, so Ltilde can scale like N^{2d}. That does not break existence—finite q works for any epsilon—but it does break "practical constraints" as far as the proof goes. The numerical optimization bypasses the recurrence and directly optimizes over a bounded number of short sections, so it does not fix this. The abstract overstates what the theorem establishes.

Citation pattern is fine; I do not see circularity. The self-citations are to relevant prior experimental work by the same group.

Bottom line: this deserves a serious referee and will likely survive revision. The referee should ask for the q/Ltilde analysis, or for the abstract and discussion to be reworded to say "existence" rather than "practical constraints." I would cite it if I worked in this area, and it is a good reading-group case of a proof whose existence part is right but whose resource claim is unsubstantiated.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a constructive framework for implementing arbitrary unitary transformations with cascaded programmable waveguide arrays (PWAs), whose Hamiltonians are tridiagonal with strictly positive propagation constants and couplings. The central result is Theorem 1: for d>2, any U in SU(d) can be approximated by K=4 Ktilde N cascaded sections with error O(Ktilde/N), where Ktilde ~ d^3, and for d=2 exactly with at most 4 sections. The proof combines a Reck-type decomposition into adjacent-mode two-level unitaries, an exact 4-section decomposition of each 2x2 unitary, a Lie-Trotter step that decouples the two active modes using alternating A and B sections, and an LLL-based quantum recurrence step that replaces backward evolution under B by a long forward section. The paper also introduces a numerical voltage-optimization method for a lithium-niobate PWA model and reports infidelities for DFT, clock, shift, and Haar-random unitaries using far fewer sections than the theorem requires.

Significance. If the theorem and its resource claims are correct, the paper would establish PWAs as a universal platform for arbitrary unitary transformations despite the physical constraints of positive, nearest-neighbor-only couplings. The constructive proof is a strength: it is explicit, builds on standard results (Reck, Lie-Trotter, LLL, quantum recurrence), and provides Hamiltonian parameters in Table I. The numerical section is also a useful design tool and demonstrates that optimized cascades can outperform single-section devices in practice. However, the practical-constraints claim in the abstract is not supported by the proof because the recurrence length is left unbounded, and several smaller technical errors affect the statement and proof of Theorem 1.

major comments (4)

[Step 4, Eqs. (19)-(25), and Supplementary Note 4] The LLL/recurrence step proves the existence of q but never bounds q or the resulting section length \tilde L = q - L/N. Standard simultaneous Diophantine approximation gives q = O(epsilon^{-d}), and with the paper's choice epsilon = O(L^2/(d N^2)) this implies \tilde L = O(N^{2d}) up to constants. Since the B section is repeated N times per two-mode stage and there are O(d^3) stages, the constructive total device length scales as O(d^3 N^{2d+1}), i.e. O((1/delta)^{2d+1}) for error delta ~ 1/N. This does not support the abstract's claim of implementation 'within practical constraints' or the Discussion's scalability claim. Please either provide a quantitative bound on \tilde L and compare it with realistic device lengths, or substantially weaken the practical-constraints claim to a pure existence statement.
[Theorem 1 and Step 3] Theorem 1 states K = 4\tilde K N sections, but each Trotter factor in Eq. (14) uses two physical sections, A_k and B_k, with B_k implemented by the long recurrence section in Step 4. The construction therefore uses 8\tilde K N physical sections, not 4\tilde K N. The asymptotic error O(\tilde K/N) is unaffected, but the exact section count in the theorem and the sentence 'K = 4\tilde K N cascaded sections' must be corrected.
[Step 2 and Supplementary Note 3] The phase-shift exception is misstated. In the parameterization of Eq. (9), r=1 gives the diagonal phase-shift gate, whereas r=0 gives the symmetric beamsplitter with zero diagonal entries. The main text says a phase-shift R_z(xi) corresponds to r=0 and uses three sections, but Supplementary Note 3 correctly identifies it as r=1. Please reconcile the main text with the supplementary derivation.
[Supplementary Note 4, Eqs. (71)-(78)] The diagonal error matrix used to convert the LLL approximation error into a Hamiltonian perturbation is dimensionally inconsistent. To obtain the stated bound ||E|| <= 2 pi j_1 d N epsilon / L and the final choice epsilon <= L^2/(2 pi j_1 d N^2), the matrix in Eq. (71) should be Delta = sum_j (2 pi j_1 Delta_j N/L)|j><j|, not sum_j (2 pi j_1 Delta_j/N) L |j><j|. As written, Eq. (84) does not follow from Eq. (83). This is a fixable typo, but it appears in the load-bearing error estimate and should be corrected.

minor comments (5)

[Step 3, main text] The text 'can be chose arbitrarily' should read 'can be chosen arbitrarily', and 'the the 2x2 parameters' has a duplicated article.
[Supplementary Note 1] The Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) uses N-1 as the upper sum limit even though the array dimension is d; this clashes with the use of N as the Trotter number in the main text.
[Figure 3 caption] The phrase 'black color in the the phase shift plots' contains a typo and should be 'black color in the phase-shift plots'.
[After Eq. (25)] The statement that all parameters are independent of the unitary being decomposed should explicitly note that q is independent of the target unitary but depends on d and N; as written, it could be misread as independence from d and N as well.
[Discussion] The comparison with Refs. [20] and [21] would be clearer with one sentence explaining the specific mathematical gap that the present proof fills relative to those constructions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the universality proof is a constructive chain built from external Reck decomposition, Trotter–Suzuki bounds, and LLL Diophantine approximation; the numerical results are an independent optimization, not a prediction forced by the theorem.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not assume its target. Step 1 invokes the external Reck et al. decomposition to reduce SU(d) to adjacent two-mode unitaries. Step 2 gives an explicit four-section construction for each SU(2) block and verifies the Hamiltonian parameters from the unitary parameters; this is a direct construction, not a fit. Step 3 uses the standard Lie–Trotter formula, cited to Hatano–Suzuki and Suzuki, to approximate A−B by alternating sections with error O(L^2/N). Step 4 uses the LLL algorithm and the exact eigenvalues of the uniform Toeplitz Hamiltonian to choose a recurrence length Ltilde = q − L/N; the approximation e^{-iB Ltilde} ≈ e^{iB L/N} is justified by eigenvalue arithmetic, not assumed. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed a prediction: the numerical section optimizes voltages directly against the target unitary and is presented as a design method rather than as a test of Theorem 1. Self-citations (e.g., refs. 17–19 and 22) provide platform parameters and prior experimental context, but none is load-bearing in the proof. The manuscript itself flags that engineering a device from Theorem 1's specifications can be challenging, and the proof leaves Ltilde unbounded; this is an unquantified resource-cost or correctness gap, not circularity. The central claim therefore does not reduce to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proof is constructive and imports standard tools: Reck decomposition, Lie-Trotter formula, LLL, Toeplitz eigenvalues, and the quantum recurrence theorem. The non-standard inputs are the physical domain assumptions of the PWA model. No free parameters are fitted to the target data; the free integers only enforce positivity and tuning range.

free parameters (4)

Free integers k1..k4, l2 (Table I)
Chosen by hand to make each section's beta_m and C positive and within tuning range; they do not affect the target unitary but are part of the construction.
Recurrence integers j1, j2 and precision epsilon (Step 4)
j1,j2 in Z+ set Ctilde0=2*pi*j1 and betatilde0=(2*pi/q)*j2; epsilon is chosen small enough to keep recurrence error below Trotter error. These are free design choices, not fitted to data.
Base values betatilde0, Ctilde0 (B_k section)
Positive constants in B_k; arbitrary in principle, fixed before compilation. They determine the recurrence spectrum via eqs. 23-24.
Trotter number N
Convergence parameter controlling error; chosen according to desired precision. Not fitted to data.

assumptions (7)

standard math Lie-Trotter formula and its error bound O(L^2/N)
Used in Step 3 (eq. 14) and Supplementary Note 4 to approximate e^{-i(A-B)L} by alternating sections.
standard math Reck-Zeilinger-Bernstein-Bertani decomposition of any unitary into 2-level unitaries
Used in Step 1 and Supplementary Note 2 to reduce an arbitrary SU(d) matrix to adjacent two-mode gates.
standard math LLL algorithm for simultaneous Diophantine approximation
Used in Step 4 to find the recurrence length Ltilde; cited as [27].
domain assumption Quantum recurrence theorem for finite-dimensional unitary evolution
Used in Step 4 (eq. 19) to replace e^{-iB L/N} by e^{-iB Ltilde} with controlled error; the paper assumes such Ltilde exists and is LLL-computable.
domain assumption PWA Hamiltonian model with independently programmable beta_m and C_{m,m+1} via electrodes
Eqs. (1)-(3); the entire proof is built on this control model and on the strict positivity constraints.
domain assumption Lossless coherent propagation described by unitary evolution e^{-iHL}
Eq. (4); absorption, scattering, and fabrication disorder are not included in the theoretical model.
standard math Eigenvalues of the uniform tridiagonal Toeplitz Hamiltonian B_k are lambda_j = -2 cos(j*pi/(d+1))
Used in Step 4 (eq. 21) as input to the LLL approximation; cited from [28].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Universal programmable waveguide arrays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XBRBRDI2

@misc{pith2026241112610,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Universal programmable waveguide arrays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XBRBRDI2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12610}
}

read the original abstract

Implementing arbitrary unitary transformations is crucial for applications in quantum computing, signal processing, and machine learning. Unitaries govern quantum state evolution, enabling reversible transformations critical in quantum tasks like cryptography and simulation and playing key roles in classical domains such as dimensionality reduction and signal compression. Integrated optical waveguide arrays have emerged as a promising platform for these transformations, offering scalability for both quantum and classical systems. However, scalable and efficient methods for implementing arbitrary unitaries remain challenging. Here, we present a theoretical framework for realizing arbitrary unitary matrices through programmable waveguide arrays (PWAs). We provide a mathematical proof demonstrating that cascaded PWAs can implement any unitary matrix within practical constraints, along with a numerical optimization method for customized PWA designs. Our results establish PWAs as a universal and scalable architecture for quantum photonic computing, effectively bridging quantum and classical applications, and positioning PWAs as an enabling technology for advancements in quantum simulation, machine learning, secure communication, and signal processing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12610 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[1]

P. W. Shor, Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factor- ization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer, SIAM Journal on Computing 26, 1484 (1997)

work page 1997
[2]

C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing, in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing (1984) pp. 175–179

work page 1984
[3]

Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

1996
[4]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2000)

2000
[5]

A. V. Oppenheim, R. W. Schafer, and J. R. Buck, Discrete-Time Signal Processing (Prentice Hall, 1999)

work page 1999
[6]

Arjovsky, A

M. Arjovsky, A. Shah, and Y. Bengio, Unitary evolution recurrent neural networks, in Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning (2016)

work page 2016
[7]

A. J. Paulraj, R. Nabar, and D. Gore, Introduction to Space-Time Wireless Communications (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2003)

work page 2003
[8]

Bogaerts, D

W. Bogaerts, D. P´ erez, J. Capmany, D. A. Miller, J. Poon, D. Englund, F. Morichetti, and A. Melloni, Programmable photonic circuits, Nature 586, 207 (2020)

work page 2020

Show all 43 references

[10]

Carolan, C

J. Carolan, C. Harrold, C. Sparrow, E. Mart´ ın-L´ opez, N. J. Russell, J. W. Silverstone, P. J. Shadbolt, N. Matsuda, M. Oguma, M. Itoh, G. D. Marshall, D. J. Thomson, J. L. O’Brien, J. C. F. Matthews, and A. Laing, Universal linear optics, Science 349, 711 (2015)

2015
[11]

Aaronson and A

S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, The computational com- plexity of linear optics, in Proceedings of the forty-third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (2011) pp. 333–342

2011
[12]

Peruzzo, M

A. Peruzzo, M. Lobino, J. C. F. Matthews, N. Matsuda, A. Politi, K. Poulios, X. Zhou, Y. Lahini, N. Ismail, K. W¨ orhoff,et al. , Quantum walks of correlated photons, Science 329, 1500 (2010)

2010
[13]

Lahini, G

Y. Lahini, G. R. Steinbrecher, A. D. Bookatz, and D. Englund, Quantum logic using correlated one- dimensional quantum walks, npj Quantum Information 4, 10.1038/s41534-017-0050-2 (2018)

2018 doi
[14]

R. J. Chapman, S. H¨ ausler, G. Finco, F. Kaufmann, and R. Grange, Quantum logical controlled-not gate in a lithium niobate-on-insulator photonic quantum walk, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9, 10.1088/2058-9565/ad0a48 (2023)

2023 doi
[15]

Weimann, R

S. Weimann, R. Keil, M. C. Tichy, M. Gr¨ afe, R. Heilmann, S. Nolte, and A. Szameit, Implementation of quantum and classical discrete fractional fourier transforms, Nature Communications 7, 11027 (2016)

2016
[16]

Ozawa, H

T. Ozawa, H. M. Price, A. Amo, N. Goldman, M. Hafezi, L. Lu, M. C. Rechtsman, D. Schuster, J. Simon, O. Zilber- berg, and I. Carusotto, Topological photonics, Reviews of Modern Physics 91, 015006 (2019)

2019
[17]

Youssry, Y

A. Youssry, Y. Yang, R. J. Chapman, B. Haylock, F. Lenzini, M. Lobino, and A. Peruzzo, Experimental graybox quantum system identification and control, npj Quantum Information 10, 10.1038/s41534-023-00795-5 (2024)

2024 doi
[18]

Y. Yang, R. J. Chapman, B. Haylock, F. Lenzini, Y. N. Joglekar, M. Lobino, and A. Peruzzo, Programmable high- dimensional hamiltonian in a photonic waveguide array, Nature Communications 15, 50 (2024)

2024
[19]

Youssry, R

A. Youssry, R. J. Chapman, A. Peruzzo, C. Ferrie, and 9 M. Tomamichel, Modeling and control of a reconfigurable photonic circuit using deep learning, Quantum Science and Technology 5, 025001 (2020)

2020
[20]

Saygin, I

M. Saygin, I. Kondratyev, I. Dyakonov, S. Mironov, S. Straupe, and S. Kulik, Robust architecture for pro- grammable universal unitaries, Physical Review Letters 124, 10.1103/physrevlett.124.010501 (2020)

2020 doi
[21]

N. N. Skryabin, I. V. Dyakonov, M. Y. Saygin, and S. P. Kulik, Waveguide-lattice-based architecture for multichan- nel optical transformations, Optics Express 29, 26058 (2021), 2103.02664

2021 arXiv
[22]

Y. Yang, R. J. Chapman, A. Youssry, B. Hay- lock, F. Lenzini, M. Lobino, and A. Peruzzo, Pro- grammable quantum circuits in a large-scale pho- tonic waveguide array, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13654 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13654 (2024)

2024 doi arXiv
[23]

Lifante, Coupled mode theory: Waveguide gratings, in Integrated Photonics: Fundamentals (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2003) Chap

G. Lifante, Coupled mode theory: Waveguide gratings, in Integrated Photonics: Fundamentals (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2003) Chap. 4, pp. 98–135

2003
[24]

Krantz, M

P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, and W. D. Oliver, A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits, Applied Physics Reviews 6, 10.1063/1.5089550 (2019)

2019 doi
[25]

Hatano and M

N. Hatano and M. Suzuki, Finding exponential prod- uct formulas of higher orders, in Quantum Annealing and Other Optimization Methods , edited by A. Das and B. K. Chakrabarti (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005) pp. 37–68

2005
[26]

M. Suzuki, Generalized trotter’s formula and systematic approximants of exponential operators and inner deriva- tions with applications to many-body problems, Commu- nications in Mathematical Physics 51, 183–190 (1976)

1976
[27]

A. K. Lenstra, H. W. Lenstra, and L. Lov´ asz, Factoring polynomials with rational coefficients, Mathematische Annalen 261, 515–534 (1982)

1982
[28]

Fujii, K

K. Fujii, K. Higashida, R. Kato, and Y. Wada, N level system with rwa and analytical solutions revisited, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0307066 10.48550/arXiv.quant- ph/0307066 (2003)

2003 doi arXiv
[29]

Youssry, G

A. Youssry, G. A. Paz-Silva, and C. Ferrie, Character- ization and control of open quantum systems beyond quantum noise spectroscopy, npj Quantum Information 6, 1 (2020)

2020
[30]

Youssry, G

A. Youssry, G. A. Paz-Silva, and C. Ferrie, Noise detection with spectator qubits and quantum feature engineering, New Journal of Physics 25, 073004 (2023)

2023
[31]

Youssry and H

A. Youssry and H. I. Nurdin, Multi-axis control of a qubit in the presence of unknown non-Markovian quantum noise, Quantum Science and Technology 8, 015018 (2023), 2208.03058

2023 arXiv
[32]

A. F. Fouad, A. Youssry, A. El-Rafei, and S. Hammad, Model-free distortion canceling and control of quantum devices, Quantum Science and Technology 10, 015002 (2024)

2024
[33]

Perrier, D

E. Perrier, D. Tao, and C. Ferrie, Quantum geometric machine learning for quantum circuits and control, New Journal of Physics 22, 103056 (2020)

2020
[34]

C. M. Dawson and M. A. Nielsen, The solovay-kitaev algorithm, Quantum Information & Computation 6, 81 (2006)

2006
[35]

Bouland and T

A. Bouland and T. Giurgica-Tiron, Efficient univer- sal quantum compilation: An inverse-free solovay- kitaev algorithm, arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.02040 10.48550/arXiv.2112.02040 (2021)

2021 doi arXiv
[36]

Sawicki, Universality of beamsplitters, arXiv preprint arXiv:1507.08255 10.48550/arXiv.1507.08255 (2015)

A. Sawicki, Universality of beamsplitters, arXiv preprint arXiv:1507.08255 10.48550/arXiv.1507.08255 (2015)

2015 doi arXiv
[37]

Sawicki and K

A. Sawicki and K. Karnas, Universality of single-qudit gates, Annales Henri Poincar´ e18, 3515–3552 (2017)

2017
[38]

Mattioli and A

L. Mattioli and A. Sawicki, On the universality and mem- bership problems for quantum gates, Journal of Mathe- matical Physics 64, 10.1063/5.0106615 (2023)

2023 doi
[39]

Banchi, D

L. Banchi, D. Burgarth, and M. J. Kastoryano, Driven quantum dynamics: Will it blend?, Physical Review X 7, 10.1103/physrevx.7.041015 (2017)

2017 doi
[40]

J. Lee, C. Arenz, H. Rabitz, and B. Russell, Dependence of the quantum speed limit on system size and control complexity, New Journal of Physics 20, 063002 (2018)

2018
[41]

Burgarth, J

D. Burgarth, J. Borggaard, and Z. Zimbor´ as, Quantum distance to uncontrollability and quantum speed limits, Physical Review A 105, 10.1103/physreva.105.042402 (2022). SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS for Universal programmable waveguide arrays Akram Youssry 1 and Alberto Peruzzo 1, 2...

2022 arXiv
[42]

R. A. Bertlmann and P. Krammer, Bloch vectors for qudits, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 41, 235303 (2008)

2008
[43]

M. Reck, A. Zeilinger, H. J. Bernstein, and P. Bertani, Experimental realization of any discrete unitary operator, Physical Review Letters 73, 58–61 (1994)

1994
[44]

Hatano and M

N. Hatano and M. Suzuki, Finding exponential product formulas of higher orders, in Quantum Annealing and Other Optimization Methods , edited by A. Das and B. K. Chakrabarti (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005) pp. 37–68

2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

P. W. Shor, Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factor- ization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer, SIAM Journal on Computing 26, 1484 (1997)

work page 1997

[2] [2]

C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing, in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing (1984) pp. 175–179

work page 1984

[3] [3]

Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

1996

[4] [4]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2000)

2000

[5] [5]

A. V. Oppenheim, R. W. Schafer, and J. R. Buck, Discrete-Time Signal Processing (Prentice Hall, 1999)

work page 1999

[6] [6]

Arjovsky, A

M. Arjovsky, A. Shah, and Y. Bengio, Unitary evolution recurrent neural networks, in Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning (2016)

work page 2016

[7] [7]

A. J. Paulraj, R. Nabar, and D. Gore, Introduction to Space-Time Wireless Communications (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2003)

work page 2003

[8] [8]

Bogaerts, D

W. Bogaerts, D. P´ erez, J. Capmany, D. A. Miller, J. Poon, D. Englund, F. Morichetti, and A. Melloni, Programmable photonic circuits, Nature 586, 207 (2020)

work page 2020