Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 63 references

Using Reinforcement Learning to Guide Graph State Generation for Photonic Quantum Computers

T0 review · 5 major / 6 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 A single reinforcement-learning agent can choose emitter sequences that cut photonic graph-state generation time by up to 57.5 percent.

desk verdict A promising RL/GNN approach to emitter-based photonic graph-state generation, but the headline reductions rest on a 100-random-order baseline and some train/test leakage. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01038 v1 pith:S4LRGUCB submitted 2024-12-02 quant-ph

Yingheng Li , Yue Dai , Aditya Pawar , Rongchao Dong , Jun Yang , Youtao Zhang , Xulong Tang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Lx42.50.Ex
keywords photonicquantumcomputinggraphstatesemittersreinforcementlearningneuralnetworksmeasurement-basedcomputationcompilation
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 argues that the order of operations used to build a photonic graph state from quantum emitters can be chosen by a reinforcement-learning agent that jointly optimizes all three metrics known to affect fidelity: generation time, number of emitters, and number of CZ gates. Earlier work, the Stabilizer Solver, only minimized emitter count and had to search over $V!$ emission orders. RLGS trains a GNN-based Q-network once on small graph states, then applies it to unseen graphs of up to 1200 photons. Compared with the baseline, the paper reports average generation-time reductions of 31.1%, 49.6%, and 57.5% for small, medium, and large graph states, with emitter reductions of 13.9%, 16.7%, and 17.5% and CZ-gate reductions of 37.7%, 53.4%, and 57.8%. If these proxy-metric gains translate through the paper's error model, RLGS would directly improve the fidelity of measurement-based photonic computation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the backward graph-operation model: six deterministic operations (Emitter Swap, Type-I/II/III absorption, Reversed CZ, and Type-III reversed CZ) that each remove a photon or edge and map to concrete quantum gates, so any action sequence is a valid generation sequence. On top of it, RLGS trains a deep Q-network with two GIN layers followed by three MLP layers, experience replay, a target network, and epsilon-greedy exploration. The reward is $-\mathrm{add}(T_{gen})$ for ordinary actions and $-\mathrm{add}(T_{gen}) - \alpha T_{CZ}$ for Emitter Swap, with $\alpha$ a user-set trade-off parameter. The receptive field (default $W = 0.5V$) restricts each decision to the closest $W$ photons, cutting inference complexity to $O((V+E)W)$ versus $O(V! \cdot V^4)$ for the baseline.

What would settle it

Simulate or run the RLGS-selected and Stabilizer-Solver-selected sequences on an emitter platform with a full error model including decoherence, CZ gate errors, and photon loss in delay lines, then measure the actual fidelity or entanglement visibility of the generated graph states; if sequences with larger $T_{gen}$, $N_e$, or $N_{CZ}$ achieve equal or better fidelity, the paper's central claim that minimizing these proxies improves fidelity is falsified. A cheaper check is to sweep alpha and confirm that measured fidelity tracks the reward direction predicted by the paper's error model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a generation sequence for an emitter-based photonic graph state can be treated as a Markov decision process over six backward graph operations, and that a deep Q-network with a graph-neural-network encoder can learn a policy whose choices dominate those of the only prior solver. RLGS operates backward: starting from the target graph, it removes photons and edges using Emitter Swap, three absorption types, and reversed CZ operations, then reverses the sequence into forward gates. The reward penalizes added generation time, and penalizes Emitter Swap with a fraction of CZ-gate time, under the lemma that CZ count is proportional to emitter count for fixed photon and edge counts. At inference, a receptive field of half the photon count limits the action space. The paper's reported result is that this single trained network reduces $T_{gen}$ by 31.1% to 57.5%, $N_e$ by 13.9% to 17.5%, and $N_{CZ}$ by 37.7% to 57.8% on average across six benchmark applications, with reductions growing with graph size and with the baseline failing at 1200 photons while RLGS still succeeds.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the three proxy metrics—generation time, emitter count, and CZ-gate count—capture the errors that dominate real graph-state fidelity, so the reward function's weighted combination tracks fidelity; if other errors dominate or the user-set alpha mismatches the hardware, smaller metrics need not mean a better graph state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single offline-trained Q-network replaces per-graph exhaustive search: RLGS infers generation sequences for unseen benchmarks without retraining, and the paper reports robust results across all 20 three-benchmark training combinations.
  • The method scales to graph states where the baseline breaks down: the Stabilizer Solver finds no valid sequence at 1200 photons, while RLGS returns one for every tested size.
  • Reduction ratios grow with graph size, from 31.1% to 57.5% for generation time, so the advantage compounds as the search space grows factorially.
  • The alpha knob gives users a fidelity trade-off: alpha = 0.1 favors speed with generation-time reductions up to 75.5% at the cost of more emitters, while alpha = 1.0 favors fewer emitters and CZ gates.
  • A half-size receptive field preserves nearly all quality while making inference 1.45 times faster, and a 0.05V field gives a 13 times speedup at a measured quality cost.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the reported gains are on proxy metrics, not measured fidelity; translating them into guaranteed fidelity improvement requires validating the paper's decoherence and CZ-error model on the target hardware, since a misweighted alpha could in principle pick a sequence that scores better on all three proxies yet is no better in actual error.
  • Editorial inference: because the action set is hardware-agnostic and the reward weights are parameters, the same trained framework could be adapted to other emitter platforms by retraining or reweighting alpha, which would test whether the learned policy transfers across technologies.
  • Editorial inference: the baseline comparison uses the best of 100 random emission orders rather than exhaustive search; on small graphs, an exhaustive Stabilizer Solver comparison would establish how much of the reported gap is due to RLGS versus a weak baseline.
  • Editorial inference: RLGS optimizes only the generation stage and explicitly leaves measurement-stage photon loss aside; combining it with measurement-loss-aware compilation could compound fidelity gains, but the combined effect is an open question.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes RLGS, a reinforcement-learning framework combined with graph neural networks, to construct emitter-based photonic graph-state generation sequences. RLGS selects among six graph operations in a backward search, with a reward function that penalizes generation time and, through an emitter-swap penalty, also targets the number of emitters and CZ gates. The authors train a single Q-network on small benchmarks and evaluate it on 18 graph states from six quantum applications, reporting average reductions in generation time of 31.1%, 49.6%, and 57.5% for small, medium, and large graphs, with corresponding reductions in emitter count and CZ gates, compared to a Stabilizer Solver baseline.

Significance. If the quantitative claims were supported, RLGS would be a valuable compilation technique: the graph-operation formulation avoids the O(V!·V^4) exhaustive search, the receptive-field mechanism gives a practical O((V+E)·W) inference procedure, and the trained Q-network is intended to generalize across graph sizes and applications. The paper also makes a useful contribution by explicitly modeling three fidelity-relevant metrics rather than emitter count alone. However, the current evaluation does not establish the headline reductions: the baseline is only 100 random emission orders, three training graphs appear in the test set, the 1200-photon result converts a baseline failure into a 100% reduction, and the reward is never validated against the paper's own fidelity model. These issues affect the central claim and prevent the results from being accepted as reported.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 6.1.2] The baseline is not the exhaustive Stabilizer Solver described in Section 4.1. It is the Stabilizer Solver run on 100 random emission orders with the best result selected. For hwea-6 (V=26), 100 samples out of 26! orders is negligible, and for larger graphs such as qft-14 (V=235) the coverage is even smaller. Because the Stabilizer Solver minimizes only N_e for a fixed emission order and does not optimize T_gen or N_CZ, the T_gen and N_CZ values from the baseline are essentially arbitrary for the sampled orders. The reported reductions of 31.1%/49.6%/57.5% in T_gen and 37.7%/53.4%/57.8% in N_CZ are therefore likely inflated by baseline weakness. I ask the authors to compare against exhaustive search on small graphs where feasible and to report absolute metric values, not only reduction ratios.
  2. [Section 6.1.4 / Section 6.2] The Q-network is trained on hwea-6, hc-6, and qft-5, and then evaluated on all 18 benchmarks in Table 1, including those same three training graphs. The small-size averages in Fig. 7 are therefore partially in-sample. Section 6.5 repeats this issue: each of the 20 training combinations evaluates on the three graphs used in that combination. The claim of generalization to unseen graph states requires a held-out evaluation that excludes training graphs, or at least an explicit separation of in-sample and out-of-sample results.
  3. [Section 6.4] Setting the reduction ratios to 1 for 1200-photon graphs because the baseline "fails to find a solution" is not a valid metric comparison. A baseline that cannot produce a valid sequence within its sampling budget should be reported as a failure rate, not as a 100% reduction. This is especially problematic because the baseline uses only 100 random emission orders; its failure at large sizes is expected and says little about the quality of RLGS sequences. Please report baseline success rates and, if possible, use a baseline that completes on these graph sizes.
  4. [Section 5.1.3 / Lemma 5.1] The reward function applies an Emitter-Swap penalty based on the claim in Lemma 5.1 that N_CZ is proportional to N_e. The lemma's derivation assumes that the average number of edges removed per absorption (β) and per CZ gate (γ) are constants, but these averages depend on the actual operation sequence, so the proportionality is not established. More importantly, the reward is never connected to the fidelity model of Section 3: no experiment reports F = exp(-N_e·T_gen/T_2)·σ_CZ^{N_CZ} or the photon-loss probability. Since the paper motivates all three metrics through execution fidelity, the reader cannot determine whether the reported metric reductions improve fidelity. Please add a fidelity comparison using the Section 3 model, or clearly state that fidelity is not claimed.
  5. [Section 6.1.2] The description of the baseline says it reports the generation sequence that yields the "best result (in terms of the three metrics)," but no selection criterion is specified. If the baseline is selected, for example, by minimal T_gen, then its N_e and N_CZ values need not be representative of the baseline method. Please specify the exact selection rule (e.g., lexicographic minimization of the three metrics in a fixed order) and report the distribution of baseline metrics over the 100 random orders.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract / Section 1] The phrase "Reinforcement Larning-guided Graph State generation" should be corrected to "Reinforcement Learning-guided Graph State generation".
  2. [Section 6.3.2, Fig. 9] The y-axis label "Relative Values and Time Improvement" is ambiguous; please define whether higher values are better and specify the units for the time improvement.
  3. [Section 6.4] The five graph state sizes of 400, 600, 800, 1000, and 1200 photons are not associated with any graph family or generation procedure; without this information the scalability results cannot be reproduced.
  4. [Section 6.1.3] The paper lists gate times and coherence parameters but does not state whether T_gen includes only quantum gate times or also emission and measurement overheads; please clarify the exact calculation of T_gen.
  5. [Table 1] The column headers "V E Graph state size" should be separated into clearly labeled columns, and the table should have a caption.
  6. [References] References [22] and [52] are the same paper by Bremner, Jozsa, and Shepherd and should be merged.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: RLGS's reported reductions are measured against an external Stabilizer Solver baseline; the reward function is a disclosed design choice, and no load-bearing self-citation chain is present.

full rationale

The central quantitative claims are reductions in generation time, emitter count, and CZ-gate count relative to a Stabilizer Solver baseline. The baseline is an external procedure described in Section 6.1.2, where the Stabilizer Solver is run 100 times with random emission orders and the best result is reported. The RLGS sequences are produced by a Q-network trained on small graph states and evaluated on all benchmarks, including unseen medium and large ones. The reward function in Equation 5 is a user-weighted proxy over the three metrics, but the reported metrics are computed from actual constructed gate sequences, and the reductions are not equal to the reward by construction. No parameter is fitted to the test-set reductions: alpha is a user-set constant, and the Q-network is not trained on the evaluation metrics as labels. Lemma 5.1 is a stated modeling argument that justifies penalizing emitter swaps through a proportionality relationship; it is a design assumption rather than a restatement of the experimental outcome. The only self-citations appear in the related-work section and are not used to justify the central claim, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The skeptical concern about the strength of the 100-random-order baseline is a legitimate evaluation-validity issue, but it is not circularity because the baseline is external to the method's definitions. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and the reported comparisons are not forced by the paper's own definitions.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an adopted graph-operation completeness result, an error-model proxy, and a learned policy's generalization across graph sizes. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Reward penalty alpha = 0.5 (default; 0.1 and 1.0 tested)
    User-defined weight in Eq. (5) that trades generation time against emitter and CZ gate penalties; reported results depend on its value.
  • Receptive field size W = 0.5V (default; 0.05V to 0.4V tested)
    Limits the action set during inference; sensitivity study shows both runtime and metric quality degrade as W shrinks.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Generation fidelity is determined by N_e, T_gen, and N_CZ through the error model F_de = exp(-N_e*T_gen/T2) and F_CZ = sigma^{N_CZ}.
    Stated in Section 3 and used to define the reward; not validated against full physical simulation or hardware.
  • domain assumption The six graph operations from reference [10] are sufficient and correct for any graph state generation sequence.
    Section 4.2 adopts operations from Kaur et al.; completeness is inherited from cited work and not re-proven here.
  • ad hoc to paper N_CZ is proportional to N_e (Lemma 5.1), supporting the emitter-swap penalty.
    The lemma uses 'average edges removed' constants beta and gamma that are not defined or shown constant; the proportionality is a heuristic.
  • domain assumption A Q-network trained on three small graphs generalizes to unseen medium and large graphs.
    Section 6.5 empirically probes this, but generalization is assumed, not guaranteed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Using Reinforcement Learning to Guide Graph State Generation for Photonic Quantum Computers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S4LRGUCB

@misc{pith2026241201038,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Using Reinforcement Learning to Guide Graph State Generation for Photonic Quantum Computers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S4LRGUCB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01038}
}
read the original abstract

Photonic quantum computer (PQC) is an emerging and promising quantum computing paradigm that has gained momentum in recent years. In PQC, which leverages the measurement-based quantum computing (MBQC) model, computations are executed by performing measurements on photons in graph states (i.e., sets of entangled photons) that are generated before measurements. The graph state in PQC is generated deterministically by quantum emitters. The generation process is achieved by applying a sequence of quantum gates to quantum emitters. In this process, i) the time required to complete the process, ii) the number of quantum emitters used, and iii) the number of CZ gates performed between emitters greatly affect the fidelity of the generated graph state. However, prior work for determining the generation sequence only focuses on optimizing the number of quantum emitters. Moreover, identifying the optimal generation sequence has vast search space. To this end, we propose RLGS, a novel compilation framework to identify optimal generation sequences that optimize the three metrics. Experimental results show that RLGS achieves an average reduction in generation time of 31.1%, 49.6%, and 57.5% for small, medium, and large graph states compared to the baseline.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01038 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Representations of a graph state. 16.7%, and 17.5%, whereas the reductions in the number of CZ gates are 37.7%, 53.4%, and 57.8%. 2 Background 2.1 Graph State The photonic quantum computers (PQCs) adopt the Measurement￾based Quantum Computation (MBQC) [38–41] model, where computation is carried out through photon measurements on a group of entangled photons (i.e., physical photon qubits) called graph state [2, 40–42… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example of Stabilizer Solver. determining the minimum number of emitters required, the Stabilizer Solver constructs the corresponding generation sequences [9]. 3 Error Model Different generation sequences to the same graph state may have different values in graph state fidelity. There are two primary types of errors: emitter-caused errors and photon loss. 3.1 Emitter-Caused Errors Errors occurring in emitters dur… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of graph operations, their forward versions, and their quantum gate. Emitter SWAP Type-I Absorption Type-I Absorption Type-II Absorption (a) Graph operations to generate a graph state reversely. H + H + + X H + generation time Number of emitter: 1 Number of CZ gate: 0 𝑒1 (b) Generation Sequence for (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example of using graph operations. applied to photon 3, followed by another Type-I absorption on photon 2. Finally, a Type-II absorption is applied to pho￾ton 1. Once all edges and photons are removed, the process concludes. The constructed generation sequence in fo…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The overview of RLGS. reward 𝑟𝑗 (step 6 ). (b) If 𝑠𝑗+1 is not the end state, the Q￾value is computed in two steps: RLGS first uses a target Q￾network, which is a stale copy of the Q-network, to predict the Q-values of taking any possible actions in the next state (i.e.…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An example of an RLGS inference stage. selects the action with the highest Q-value (pointed by the black arrow) and introduces a new emitter labeled 𝑒1. For all subsequent action choices, a black arrow is used to denote the option with the highest Q-value, as selected …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Reduction ratios achieved by RLGS. Tgen Ne Ncz small medium large -10% 30% 70% Tgen Ne Ncz (a) 𝜶 = 𝟎. 𝟏 𝑻𝒈𝒆𝒏 𝑵𝒆 𝑵𝑪𝒁 Tgen Ne Ncz (b) 𝜶 = 𝟎. 𝟓 (c) 𝜶 = 𝟏. 𝟎 𝑻𝒈𝒆𝒏 𝑵𝒆 𝑵𝑪𝒁 𝑻𝒈𝒆𝒏 𝑵𝒆 𝑵𝑪𝒁 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Results comparison with a different 𝛼 values. 0 5 10 15 𝑻𝒈𝒆𝒏 bv 𝑵𝒆 qft𝑵𝑪𝒁 iqpTime hwea 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.05 Relative Value s and Time Improvement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Averaged reduction ratios over 20 Q-networks. sequence for every graph state at this size. Therefore, we set the reduction ratios as 1 for all three metrics in 1200-photon graph states. From 400 photons to 1000 photons, we observe a consistent increase in the reductio…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A compiler for universal photonic quantum computers

    Felix Zilk, Korbinian Staudacher, Tobias Guggemos, Karl Fürlinger, Dieter Kranzlmüller, and Philip Walther. A compiler for universal photonic quantum computers. In 2022 IEEE/ACM Third International Workshop on Quantum Computing Software (QCS) , pages 57–67, 2022. IEEE

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Koenraad M. R. Audenaert and Martin B. Plenio. Entanglement on mixed stabilizer states: normal forms and reduction procedures. New Journal of Physics, 7(1):170, 2005

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Graphical description of the action of local Clifford transformations on graph states

    Maarten Van den Nest, Jeroen Dehaene, and Bart De Moor. Graphical description of the action of local Clifford transformations on graph states. Physical Review A, 69(2):022316, 2004

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  5. [5]

    Optimization of deterministic pho- tonic graph state generation via local operations

    Sobhan Ghanbari, Jie Lin, Benjamin MacLellan, Luc Robichaud, Piotr Roztocki, and Hoi-Kwong Lo. Optimization of deterministic pho- tonic graph state generation via local operations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00635, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Playing atari with deep reinforcement learning

    Volodymyr Mnih, Koray Kavukcuoglu, David Silver, Alex Graves, Ioannis Antonoglou, Daan Wierstra, and Martin Riedmiller. Playing atari with deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.5602, 2013

    arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Rusu, Joel Veness, Marc G

    Volodymyr Mnih, Koray Kavukcuoglu, David Silver, Andrei A. Rusu, Joel Veness, Marc G. Bellemare, Alex Graves, Martin Riedmiller, An- dreas K. Fidjeland, Georg Ostrovski, and others. Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Nature, 518(7540):529–533, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Economou, and Shuo Sun

    Yuan Zhan, Paul Hilaire, Edwin Barnes, Sophia E. Economou, and Shuo Sun. Performance analysis of quantum repeaters enabled by deterministically generated photonic graph states. Quantum, 7:924, 2023. 12

    work page 2023

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Economou, and Edwin Barnes

    Bikun Li, Sophia E. Economou, and Edwin Barnes. Photonic resource state generation from a minimal number of quantum emitters. npj Quantum Information, 8(1):11, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Eneet Kaur, Ashlesha Patil, and Saikat Guha. Resource-efficient and loss-aware photonic graph state preparation using an array of quan- tum emitters, and application to all-photonic quantum repeaters.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00731, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Economou

    Antonio Russo, Edwin Barnes, and Sophia E. Economou. Generation of arbitrary all-photonic graph states from quantum emitters. New Journal of Physics, 21(5):055002, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Maarten Van den Nest, Wolfgang Dür, Akimasa Miyake, and Hans J. Briegel. Fundamentals of universality in one-way quantum computa- tion. New Journal of Physics , 9(6):204, 2007

    2007

  5. [13]

    Quantum-dot-based deterministic photon–emitter in- terfaces for scalable photonic quantum technology

    Ravitej Uppu, Leonardo Midolo, Xiaoyan Zhou, Jacques Carolan, and Peter Lodahl. Quantum-dot-based deterministic photon–emitter in- terfaces for scalable photonic quantum technology. Nature Nanotech- nology, 16(12):1308–1317, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Economou, David Elkouss, Paul Hilaire, Liang Jiang, Hoi-Kwong Lo, and Ilan Tzitrin

    Koji Azuma, Sophia E. Economou, David Elkouss, Paul Hilaire, Liang Jiang, Hoi-Kwong Lo, and Ilan Tzitrin. Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet.Reviews of Modern Physics, 95(4):045006, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Eisenberg, and Sophia E

    Paul Hilaire, Leonid Vidro, Hagai S. Eisenberg, and Sophia E. Economou. Near-deterministic hybrid generation of arbitrary pho- tonic graph states using a single quantum emitter and linear optics. Quantum, 7:992, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Kandel, Saeed Fallahi, Geoffrey C

    Haifeng Qiao, Yadav P. Kandel, Saeed Fallahi, Geoffrey C. Gardner, Michael J. Manfra, Xuedong Hu, and John M. Nichol. Long-distance superexchange between semiconductor quantum-dot electron spins. Physical Review Letters, 126(1):017701, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Ladd, Andrew Pan, John M

    Guido Burkard, Thaddeus D. Ladd, Andrew Pan, John M. Nichol, and Jason R. Petta. Semiconductor spin qubits. Reviews of Modern Physics , 95(2):025003, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Kipf and Max Welling

    Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Inductive representa- tion learning on large graphs

    Will Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec. Inductive representa- tion learning on large graphs. Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Graph attention networks

    Petar Veličković, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Liò, and Yoshua Bengio. Graph attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  13. [23]

    How powerful are graph neural networks? arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00826, 2018

    Keyulu Xu, Weihua Hu, Jure Leskovec, and Stefanie Jegelka. How powerful are graph neural networks? arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00826, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  14. [24]

    Learning-based efficient graph similarity computation via multi-scale convolutional set matching

    Yunsheng Bai, Hao Ding, Ken Gu, Yizhou Sun, and Wei Wang. Learning-based efficient graph similarity computation via multi-scale convolutional set matching. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 3219–3226, 2020

    2020

  15. [25]

    Graph matching networks for learning the similarity of graph structured objects

    Yujia Li, Chenjie Gu, Thomas Dullien, Oriol Vinyals, and Pushmeet Kohli. Graph matching networks for learning the similarity of graph structured objects. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 3835–3845, 2019

    2019

  16. [26]

    Cegma: Coordinated elas- tic graph matching acceleration for graph matching networks

    Yue Dai, Youtao Zhang, and Xulong Tang. Cegma: Coordinated elas- tic graph matching acceleration for graph matching networks. In 2023 IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), pages 584–597, 2023

    2023

  17. [27]

    Combinatorial learning of graph edit distance via dynamic embedding

    Runzhong Wang, Tianqi Zhang, Tianshu Yu, Junchi Yan, and Xiaokang Yang. Combinatorial learning of graph edit distance via dynamic embedding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 5241–5250, 2021

    2021

  18. [28]

    Glsearch: Maxi- mum common subgraph detection via learning to search

    Yunsheng Bai, Derek Xu, Yizhou Sun, and Wei Wang. Glsearch: Maxi- mum common subgraph detection via learning to search. In Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning , pages 588–598, 2021

    2021

  19. [29]

    Challenges and opportunities in deep reinforcement learning with graph neural networks: A compre- hensive review of algorithms and applications

    Sai Munikoti, Deepesh Agarwal, Laya Das, Mahantesh Halappanavar, and Balasubramaniam Natarajan. Challenges and opportunities in deep reinforcement learning with graph neural networks: A compre- hensive review of algorithms and applications. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks...

    2023

  20. [30]

    Combinatorial optimization by graph pointer networks and hierarchi- cal reinforcement learning

    Qiang Ma, Suwen Ge, Danyang He, Darshan Thaker, and Iddo Drori. Combinatorial optimization by graph pointer networks and hierarchi- cal reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.04936, 2019

    1911 arXiv

  21. [31]

    Review of performance metrics of spin qubits in gated semiconducting nanostructures

    Peter Stano and Daniel Loss. Review of performance metrics of spin qubits in gated semiconducting nanostructures. Nature Reviews Physics, 4(10):672–688, 2022

    2022

  22. [32]

    Lindner and Terry Rudolph

    Netanel H. Lindner and Terry Rudolph. Proposal for pulsed on-demand sources of photonic cluster state strings. Physical Review Letters , 103(11):113602, 2009

    2009

  23. [33]

    Economou

    Paul Hilaire, Edwin Barnes, and Sophia E. Economou. Resource re- quirements for efficient quantum communication using all-photonic graph states generated from a few matter qubits. Quantum, 5:397, 2021

    2021

  24. [34]

    Economou

    Antonio Russo, Edwin Barnes, and Sophia E. Economou. Photonic graph state generation from quantum dots and color centers for quan- tum communications. Physical Review B, 98(8):085303, 2018

    2018

  25. [35]

    Advances in low-loss, large-area, and multicore fibers

    Ming-Jun Li and Tetsuya Hayashi. Advances in low-loss, large-area, and multicore fibers. In Optical Fiber Telecommunications VII, pages 3–50, 2020

    2020

  26. [36]

    Economou

    Donovan Buterakos, Edwin Barnes, and Sophia E. Economou. Deter- ministic generation of all-photonic quantum repeaters from solid-state emitters. Physical Review X, 7(4):041023, 2017

    2017

  27. [37]

    Huthmacher, R

    L. Huthmacher, R. Stockill, E. Clarke, Maxime Hugues, C. Le Gall, and Mete Atatüre. Coherence of a dynamically decoupled quantum-dot hole spin. Physical Review B, 97(24):241413, 2018

    2018

  28. [38]

    Robert Raussendorf and Hans J. Briegel. A one-way quantum com- puter. Physical Review Letters, 86(22):5188, 2001

    2001

  29. [39]

    Browne, and Hans J

    Robert Raussendorf, Daniel E. Browne, and Hans J. Briegel. Measurement-based quantum computation on cluster states. Physical Review A, 68(2):022312, 2003

    2003

  30. [40]

    Briegel, David E

    Hans J. Briegel, David E. Browne, Wolfgang Dür, Robert Raussendorf, and Maarten Van den Nest. Measurement-based quantum computa- tion. Nature Physics, 5(1):19–26, 2009

    2009

  31. [41]

    Michael A. Nielsen. Cluster-state quantum computation. Reports on Mathematical Physics, 57(1):147–161, 2006

    2006

  32. [42]

    Marc Hein, Wolfgang Dür, Jens Eisert, Robert Raussendorf, Maarten Van den Nest, and Hans-J. Briegel. Entanglement in graph states and its applications. In Quantum Computers, Algorithms and Chaos , pages 115–218, 2006

    2006

  33. [43]

    O’Brien, Akira Furusawa, and Jelena Vučković

    Jeremy L. O’Brien, Akira Furusawa, and Jelena Vučković. Photonic quantum technologies. Nature Photonics, 3(12):687–695, 2009

    2009

  34. [44]

    Sergei Slussarenko and Geoff J. Pryde. Photonic quantum information processing: A concise review. Applied Physics Reviews, 6(4):041303, 2019

    2019

  35. [45]

    Parallelizing quantum circuits

    Anne Broadbent and Elham Kashefi. Parallelizing quantum circuits. Theoretical Computer Science, 410(26):2489–2510, 2009

    2009

  36. [46]

    Fusion-based quantum computation

    Sara Bartolucci, Patrick Birchall, Héctor Bombín, Hugo Cable, Chris Dawson, Mercedes Gimeno-Segovia, Eric Johnston, Konrad Kieling, Naomi Nickerson, Mihir Pant, and others. Fusion-based quantum computation. Nature Communications, 14(1):912, 2023

    2023

  37. [47]

    3/4-efficient bell measurement with passive linear optics and unentangled ancillae

    Fabian Ewert and Peter van Loock. 3/4-efficient bell measurement with passive linear optics and unentangled ancillae. Physical Review 13 Letters, 113(14):140403, 2014

    2014

  38. [48]

    OneQ: A Compilation Framework for Photonic One-Way Quantum Computation

    Hezi Zhang, Anbang Wu, Yuke Wang, Gushu Li, Hassan Shapourian, Alireza Shabani, and Yufei Ding. OneQ: A Compilation Framework for Photonic One-Way Quantum Computation. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture , pages 1–14, 2023

    2023

  39. [49]

    OnePerc: A Randomness-aware Compiler for Photonic Quantum Computing

    Hezi Zhang, Jixuan Ruan, Hassan Shapourian, Ramana Rao Kompella, and Yufei Ding. OnePerc: A Randomness-aware Compiler for Photonic Quantum Computing. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating System...

    2024

  40. [50]

    Bishop, Jerry M

    Nikolaj Moll, Panagiotis Barkoutsos, Lev S. Bishop, Jerry M. Chow, Andrew Cross, Daniel J. Egger, Stefan Filipp, Andreas Fuhrer, Jay M. Gambetta, Marc Ganzhorn, and others. Quantum optimization us- ing variational algorithms on near-term quantum devices. Quantum Science and Te...

    2018

  41. [51]

    An approximate Fourier transform useful in quan- tum factoring

    Don Coppersmith. An approximate Fourier transform useful in quan- tum factoring. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0201067, 2002

    2002 arXiv

  42. [52]

    Bremner, Richard Jozsa, and Dan J

    Michael J. Bremner, Richard Jozsa, and Dan J. Shepherd. Classical sim- ulation of commuting quantum computations implies collapse of the polynomial hierarchy. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 467(2126):459–472, 2011

    2011

  43. [53]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  44. [54]

    Stair, Renke Huang, and Francesco A

    Nicholas H. Stair, Renke Huang, and Francesco A. Evangelista. A multireference quantum Krylov algorithm for strongly correlated electrons. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation , 16(4):2236– 2245, 2020

    2020

  45. [55]

    Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando G

    Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C. Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando G. S. L. Brandão, David A. Buell, and others. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature, 574(7779):505–510, 2019

    2019

  46. [56]

    Olson, Matthias Degroote, Peter D

    Yudong Cao, Jonathan Romero, Jonathan P. Olson, Matthias Degroote, Peter D. Johnson, Mária Kieferová, Ian D. Kivlichan, Tim Menke, Borja Peropadre, Nicolas P. D. Sawaya, and others. Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing. Chemical Reviews, 119(19):10856– 10915, 2019

    2019

  47. [57]

    Peter W. Shor. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM Review, 41(2):303– 332, 1999

    1999

  48. [58]

    Lov K. Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages 212–219, 1996

    1996

  49. [59]

    Minimizing Photonic Cluster State Depth in Measurement-Based Quantum Computing

    Yingheng Li, Aditya Pawar, Zewei Mo, Youtao Zhang, Jun Yang, and Xulong Tang. Minimizing Photonic Cluster State Depth in Measurement-Based Quantum Computing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10865, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  50. [60]

    Orchestrating Measurement-Based Quantum Computation over Pho- tonic Quantum Processors

    Yingheng Li, Aditya Pawar, Mohadeseh Azari, Yanan Guo, Youtao Zhang, Jun Yang, Kaushik Parasuram Seshadreesan, and Xulong Tang. Orchestrating Measurement-Based Quantum Computation over Pho- tonic Quantum Processors. In 2023 60th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), pag...

    2023

  51. [61]

    FCM: A Fusion-aware Wire Cutting Approach for Measurement-based Quantum Computing

    Zewei Mo, Yingheng Li, Aditya Pawar, Xulong Tang, Jun Yang, and Youtao Zhang. FCM: A Fusion-aware Wire Cutting Approach for Measurement-based Quantum Computing. In Proceedings of the 61st ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, pages 1–6, 2024

    2024

  52. [62]

    Myers, Peter P

    Madhav Krishnan Vijayan, Alexandru Paler, Jason Gavriel, Casey R. Myers, Peter P. Rohde, and Simon J. Devitt. Compilation of algorithm- specific graph states for quantum circuits. Quantum Science and Technology, 9(2):025005, 2024

    2024

  53. [63]

    3/4-efficient bell measurement with passive linear optics and unentangled ancillae

    Fabian Ewert and Peter van Loock. 3/4-efficient bell measurement with passive linear optics and unentangled ancillae. Physical Review Letters, 113(14):140403, 2014

    2014

  54. [64]

    Optical fiber — Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

    Wikipedia. Optical fiber — Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

  55. [2024]

    [Online; accessed 21-November-2024]

    Available at:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Optical% 20fiber&oldid=1257492851. [Online; accessed 21-November-2024]. 14

    2024

Pith tools

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