Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Resource-efficient linear-optical generation of GHZ-like states

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that allowing intermediate 'primate' states to carry tunable entanglement, and allowing the 'bleeding' purification step to be non-exhaustive, lowers the average photon cost of generating GHZ-like states, even maximally…

desk verdict A solid analytic extension of the primate fusion/bleeding framework with genuinely new closed-form update rules, but the headline factor-of-two bleeding gain rests on the continuum limit and needs a finite-step validation before it's a practical claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.14794 v3 pith:PXK3I3TS submitted 2025-09-18 quant-ph

Suren A. Fldzhyan , Stanislav S. Straupe , Mikhail Yu. Saygin This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords linearopticalquantumcomputingGHZstatesheraldedentanglementgenerationphotonresourcecostfusion-basednon-maximallyentangledbleedingtechniqueadditionchains
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 tries to establish that heralded linear-optical generation of GHZ-like states is cheaper, in average photon number, when the intermediate entangled states are allowed to be non-maximally entangled and when the 'bleeding' purification step is deliberately non-exhaustive. It extends the primate-fusion construction, in which small entangled resource states are fused sequentially into larger ones, to variable primate states $|\pi^{(n)}(\lambda,s)\rangle$ whose useful component has weight $\lambda$ and entanglement strength $s$. For maximally entangled targets $|\mathrm{GHZ}_N(0.5)\rangle$, optimizing $s$ lowers the fusion-only cost at $N=10$ from $11484.6$ to $11093.5$ photons, and optimizing the non-exhaustive bleeding parameter $c$ lowers the bleeding cost from $N2^N=10240$ to $5287.6$. The authors conclude that the advantage is not universal, but that non-exhaustive bleeding is a concrete resource improvement worth adopting in experiments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the variable primate states $|\pi^{(n)}(\lambda,s)\rangle = \sqrt{\lambda}|s^{(n)}\rangle + \sqrt{1-\lambda}|0\rangle|\zeta\rangle|0\rangle$ with $|s^{(n)}\rangle = \sqrt{s}|2\rangle|01\rangle^{n-1}|0\rangle + \sqrt{1-s}|0\rangle|10\rangle^{n-1}|2\rangle$, and the non-exhaustive bleeding unit $B(c)$, a network of weak beam splitters characterized by $c = \prod_{x=1}^{N_b} t_x^2$. The resource accounting is carried by the ratio update $(s'^{-1}-1) = (s_1^{-1}-1)(s_2^{-1}-1)$ (or its inverse for the other mode pair), by the weight update $\lambda' = (s_1s_2+(1-s_1)(1-s_2))\lambda_1\lambda_2(1+c)/[\lambda_1+\lambda_2-(1-c)\lambda_1\lambda_2]$, and by the recursion $\nu^{(n_1+n_2)} = (\nu^{(n_1)}+\nu^{(n_2)})/p^{(1)}$ for the average photon cost. The paper then uses the continuum approximation $N_b \to \infty$, $t_x \approx 1$, in which multi-photon outcomes are neglected, to collapse the whole bleeding process into the single parameter $c$, making the optimization a one-dimensional trade-off between success probability and final-state weight.

What would settle it

Using the paper's exact discrete formulas (B24)-(B25), compute the minimal average photon cost for $N=10$, target $s=0.5$, over finite numbers of bleeding steps $N_b$ with constant transmittances, then compare that minimum with the continuum value $5287.6$ and the exhaustive baseline $10240$; if the finite-step minimum stays close to $10240$ (rather than near $5287.6$), the non-exhaustive advantage is an artifact of the continuum approximation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that two new degrees of freedom reduce the average number of photons needed to herald a target $|\mathrm{GHZ}_N(s)\rangle = \sqrt{s}|10\rangle_N + \sqrt{1-s}|01\rangle_N$. First, the intermediate primate states are generalized to $|\pi^{(n)}(\lambda,s)\rangle = \sqrt{\lambda}|s^{(n)}\rangle + \sqrt{1-\lambda}|0\rangle|\zeta\rangle|0\rangle$, and each successful fusion updates the entanglement parameter by a ratio law, $(s'^{-1}-1) = (s_1^{-1}-1)(s_2^{-1}-1)$ or its inverse for the other mode pair, together with an update for the weight $\lambda'$; optimizing the initial $s$ and the fusion transmittances over all addition chains gives the fusion-only improvement. Second, the bleeding procedure is summarized by a single tunable parameter $c = \prod_x t_x^2 \in [0,1]$, with success probability $p^{(1)} = (1-c)(\lambda_1+\lambda_2-(1-c)\lambda_1\lambda_2)$ and a complementary update for $\lambda'$; optimizing $c$ gives the much larger bleeding improvement, and for the maximally entangled target the optimal bleeding solution uses $s=1/2$ initial states, so the gain is from $c$ itself. The paper does not claim these protocols are optimal in all settings, only that variable-entanglement intermediates and non-exhaustive bleeding outperform the fixed-entanglement exhaustive baselines in the regimes studied.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the bleeding optimization can be performed in the continuum, infinite-step approximation ($t_x \approx 1$, $N_b \to \infty$, multi-photon outcomes neglected) in which the whole procedure is summarized by $c=\prod_x t_x^2$; if a finite, constant-transmittance implementation gives substantially different costs, the headline bleeding numbers do not describe a realizable protocol.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a 10-qubit maximally entangled target, optimizing variable-entanglement primates cuts the fusion-only average photon cost from $11484.6$ to $11093.5$.
  • Tuning the non-exhaustive bleeding parameter $c$ cuts the average photon cost for the same target from $N2^N=10240$ to $5287.6$, roughly half the exhaustive-bleeding budget.
  • In the bleeding channel the optimal solution for the maximally entangled target returns to $s=1/2$ initial states, so the improvement there comes from $c$ rather than from variable entanglement.
  • The reduced average photon cost comes with a lower single-pass success probability, so the scheme trades total photon budget for per-attempt success rate.
  • In every case studied, the optimal fusion sequence was one of the shortest star addition chains.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper: evaluating the exact discrete cost formulas (B24)-(B25) for finite $N_b$ and constant transmittances would show how closely a realistic bleeding schedule approaches the continuum value $5287.6$; the paper optimizes only the continuum limit.
  • Going beyond the paper: because the fusion gain is driven by the dependence of the success probability on the initial $s$, a similar optimization may apply to other resource states whose construction is described by a ratio law for the entanglement parameter, such as certain weighted graph states.
  • Going beyond the paper: the cost model does not include photon loss or detector inefficiency; adding a fixed per-photon loss would affect the modest fusion gain and the large bleeding gain differently, and this comparison is left open by the authors.
  • Going beyond the paper: the cheaper non-exhaustive-bleeding protocol uses only $s=1/2$ initial states, so it can be implemented with the same elementary state source as the previous exhaustive scheme, merely with different beam-splitter settings and feed-forward logic.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a framework for generating GHZ-like states |GHZ_N(s)> by sequential fusion of variable-entanglement 'primate' states. The authors generalize the fixed-entanglement primates of Bartolucci et al. to a two-parameter family with weight lambda and entanglement s, derive analytic update formulas for fusion success probabilities and state parameters, and introduce a 'non-exhaustive bleeding' procedure with a tunable retention parameter c. Optimizing over initial s, beamsplitter transmittances t, and c, they report reduced average photon costs: for |GHZ_10(0.5)>, the fusion-only cost drops from 11484.6 to 11093.5, and the bleeding cost drops from 10240 to 5287.6. The paper also discusses single-pass success probabilities, addition-chain optimizations, and experimental feasibility.

Significance. The paper addresses a practical bottleneck in photonic quantum computing: the rapidly growing resource cost of heralded multiphoton entanglement. Its main conceptual contribution, using variable-entanglement intermediate states and a tunable non-exhaustive bleeding parameter, is timely, and the analytic framework is largely self-contained, with exact discrete formulas (B24)-(B25) provided for the bleeding process. If the reported resource reductions survive finite-step validation, the non-exhaustive bleeding result (roughly a factor of two at N=10) would be practically relevant. The derivations in Appendices A and B are internally consistent, and the comparison against the fixed-primate, exhaustive-bleeding baseline is well defined. The principal weakness is that the headline cost reductions rely on the continuum limit of the bleeding process, so the quantitative claims are not yet established outside that idealization.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV, Eqs. (27)-(31) and Appendix B, Eqs. (B24)-(B25)] The reported bleeding cost reductions, including the factor-of-two improvement for |GHZ_10(0.5)> (5287.6 vs 10240), are computed with the continuum expressions (B19)-(B20) / (27)-(31), which assume an infinite number of bleeding steps and t_x close to 1. The exact finite-Nb formulas (B24)-(B25) are never used to validate convergence, and the paper does not state the number of steps or the transmittance schedule needed to realize the optimized c values. Because the cost recursion (22) divides by p^(1) and the optimal c balances p^(1) against lambda', even modest finite-Nb corrections could shift the headline numbers. The authors should either optimize the exact discrete expressions under a finite-Nb budget, or at least demonstrate numerically that constant-transmittance schedules with large Nb approach the continuum results to within a stated tolerance.
  2. [Eq. (26) and Appendix B, Eq. (B1)] The mixed-state description (26) discards off-diagonal terms with the statement that they 'do not affect probabilities and are eventually measured out.' This assertion underlies the derivation of p^(1) and lambda' in Appendix B, but no proof is given that the measurement operators used in bleeding (which are built from N_ij and a_i ± a_j) cannot couple the |s> sector to the |0>zeta|0> sector. A short argument based on photon-number superselection in the measured modes would remove the gap; without it, the expectation-value formula (B16) is not fully justified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (14)] The notation |10>^N and |01>^N for N-qubit dual-rail states is nonstandard and should be defined explicitly at first use.
  2. [Figure 6 caption] The caption could state explicitly which curves correspond to fixed versus optimized s for each N; the gray 's=0.5' line is clear, but the other lines need legend entries.
  3. [Section IV, paragraph near Eq. (27)] The statement that the success probability 'does not depend on s_i' is a simplification that should be explicitly flagged as a continuum-limit result, since it is derived from the approximate formulas.
  4. [Section IV, headline results] The authors should provide the optimal parameters (s, t, c) and addition chains for the headline N=10 numbers to allow reproducibility.
  5. [Section III, paragraph near Figure 5] There is a typo: 'beamslitter' should be 'beamsplitter'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the resource-cost results are derived from first-principles linear-optics formulas and legitimate parameter optimization, not from a self-citation chain or a fit to the claimed conclusion.

full rationale

The central quantities (fusion and bleeding success probabilities, updated s' and lambda', and average photon costs) are derived in Appendices A and B from explicit linear-optical projectors and the recurrence nu(n1+n2) = (nu(n1)+nu(n2))/p(1). No parameter is fitted to the reported target costs; the optimization over s, t, and c is a genuine minimization of the derived cost function, and the reported improvements are the values of that function at the optima. The fixed-entanglement and exhaustive-bleeding baselines come from an external reference ([29]) and are not assumed in the derivation. Self-citations in the reference list (e.g., [21,23,24,51]) are contextual or point to alternative strategies; none is load-bearing for the present formulas. The main validity caveat is non-circular: the headline bleeding numbers use the continuum approximation (Appendix B, 'Continuum Approximation', with c = exp(-2 integral Delta dx) and p(1)=1-p(0)(<infinity)), while the exact finite-Nb expressions (B24)-(B25) are given but not used to test the limit; likewise Eq. (26) asserts that off-diagonal terms 'do not affect probabilities and are eventually measured out' without proof. These are robustness and justification concerns, not instances of the derivation assuming its conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central cost results rest on the primate ansatz, the cost recurrence, and the continuum/coherence assumptions for bleeding. None of these are externally verified beyond the analytical derivation: no code, no experimental data, and no independent benchmark. The free parameters (s, t, c) are physical control knobs, not hidden fit parameters, but their optimal values are chosen to minimize the reported cost, so the quoted improvements are best-case for the idealized model.

free parameters (3)
  • s (initial primate entanglement) = optimized in [0,1]; e.g., s=0.5 for |GHZ_10(0.5)> via bleeding
    Controls the entanglement of |π^(1)(1,s)> and its generation cost via Eq (13); optimized to minimize the average photon cost ν.
  • t (fusion beamsplitter transmittance) = optimized per fusion; final fusion t=1/2
    Appears in p^(1)_ij (Eqs 17-20) and the final fusion probability λ/2 (Eq 23); chosen to minimize the average photon cost.
  • c (bleeding retention parameter) = optimized per intermediate B(c) unit; e.g., c≈0.072 for N=4 sequence {1,2,3,4}; c=0 for fusing two π^(1) states and…
    Quantifies non-exhaustive bleeding via c=∏t_x²; balances success probability against the resulting λ' (Eqs 27-31).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Fock-space linear-optical evolution is unitary and photon measurements are projective (Eqs 1-6).
    Basis of all fusion and bleeding derivations in Appendices A and B.
  • domain assumption The variable primate state ansatz (Eq 10-11), with junk component |0>|ζ>|0>, is closed under the considered operations.
    Used to derive update rules for s' and λ'; closure is asserted, not proved for arbitrary ζ.
  • domain assumption Average photon cost satisfies ν(n1+n2) = (ν(n1)+ν(n2))/p^(1) (Eq 22), assuming failed attempts are discarded and retried independently.
    Defines the resource metric; ignores loss, detector inefficiency, and reuse of partial failures.
  • ad hoc to paper Off-diagonal coherence terms in the mixed primate state (Eq 26) do not affect probabilities and are eventually measured out.
    Asserted after Eq (26); needed for the expectation-value treatment of λ' in Appendix B, but not demonstrated.
  • ad hoc to paper Bleeding can be treated in the continuum limit t_x≈1, Nb→∞, with multi-photon outcomes vanishing, reducing the process to c=∏t_x².
    All reported bleeding costs use the continuum formulas (B18-B20); finite-Nb corrections (B24-B25) are not evaluated in the optimization.
  • standard math Optimal fusion sequences can be restricted to star addition chains (Knuth's bound N<12509).
    Cites [43-45]; used to justify enumerating all relevant sequences for N≤10.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resource-efficient linear-optical generation of GHZ-like states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PXK3I3TS

@misc{pith2026250914794,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resource-efficient linear-optical generation of GHZ-like states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PXK3I3TS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.14794}
}
abstract

Heralded multi-photon entanglement generation is a central bottleneck for photonic quantum computing, where resource costs typically skyrocket with target size. We explore efficient methods for generating photon states with tunable entanglement, providing a flexible tool for quantum state engineering. We introduce a theoretical framework that has been numerically validated, demonstrating the capacity to generate GHZ-like states incrementally from non-logical intermediate states. We demonstrate that in certain scenarios $-$ such as reducing the resource cost for building large maximally entangled GHZ states $-$ these variable-entanglement states can outperform their fixed-entanglement counterparts. By adjusting intermediate states and optimizing interferometer schemes, we improve photon number cost efficiency of GHZ-like states generation. Our findings indicate that while not a universal solution, non-maximally entangled states offer practical advantages for specific photonic quantum information tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.14794 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of the fusion unit. A success trigger can [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The scheme for generating elementary variable pri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The photon resource cost [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Improved photon resource costs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of resource costs for generating the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Probability of generating a maximally entangled GHZ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Schematic depiction of the bleeding procedure units [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (a) an example of two primate fusion when 13 & 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Improved photon resource costs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Probability of generating a maximally entangled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Single-photon-boosted type-I fusion gates

    quant-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    A type-I fusion gate, boosted with four single-photon ancillas and passive linear optics, reaches 3/4 success probability via a distillation protocol.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [51]

    A. A. Melkozerov, M. Y. Saygin, and S. S. Straupe, Entanglement-efficiency trade-offs in the fusion- based generation of photonic GHZ-like states (2025), arXiv:2507.12389 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Aaronson and A

    S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, The computational com- plexity of linear optics, Theory of Computing9, 143–252 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [2]

    Zhong, H

    H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y.-H. Deng, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y.-H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y. Hu, P. Hu, X.-Y. Yang, W.-J. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Li, X. Jiang, L. Gan, G. Yang, L. You, Z. Wang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Quantum computational advantage using photons, Science370, 1460 (2020)

    2020

  4. [3]

    P. I. Sund, R. Uppu, S. Paesani, and P. Lodahl, Hard- ware requirements for realizing a quantum advantage with deterministic single-photon sources, Phys. Rev. A 109, 042613 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [4]

    D. E. Browne and T. Rudolph, Resource-efficient lin- ear optical quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 010501 (2005)

    2005

  6. [5]

    Kieling, T

    K. Kieling, T. Rudolph, and J. Eisert, Percolation, renor- malization, and quantum computing with nondetermin- istic gates, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 130501 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [6]

    Gimeno-Segovia, P

    M. Gimeno-Segovia, P. Shadbolt, D. E. Browne, and T. Rudolph, From three-photon Greenberger-Horne- Zeilinger states to ballistic universal quantum computa- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 020502 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [7]

    Bartolucci, P

    S. Bartolucci, P. Birchall, H. Bomb´ ın, H. Cable, C. Daw- son, M. Gimeno-Segovia, E. Johnston, K. Kieling, N. Nickerson, M. Pant, F. Pastawski, T. Rudolph, and C. Sparrow, Fusion-based quantum computation, Nature Communications14, 912 (2023)

    2023

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    Bomb´ ın, C

    H. Bomb´ ın, C. Dawson, R. V. Mishmash, N. Nickerson, F. Pastawski, and S. Roberts, Logical blocks for fault- tolerant topological quantum computation, PRX Quan- tum4, 020303 (2023)

    2023

  2. [9]

    Litinski and N

    D. Litinski and N. Nickerson, Active volume: An architecture for efficient fault-tolerant quantum com- puters with limited non-local connections, (2022), arXiv:2211.15465 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Avanesov, A

    A. Avanesov, A. Shurinov, I. Dyakonov, and S. Straupe, Building a fusion-based quantum computer using tele- ported gates, Quantum9, 1762 (2025)

    2025

  4. [11]

    Y. L. Lim, A. Beige, and L. C. Kwek, Repeat-until- success linear optics distributed quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 030505 (2005)

    2005

  5. [12]

    Gimeno-Segovia, T

    M. Gimeno-Segovia, T. Rudolph, and S. E. Economou, Deterministic generation of large-scale entangled pho- tonic cluster state from interacting solid state emitters, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 070501 (2019)

    2019

  6. [13]

    Dhara, S

    P. Dhara, S. J. Johnson, C. N. Gagatsos, P. G. Kwiat, and S. Guha, Heralded multiplexed high-efficiency cas- caded source of dual-rail entangled photon pairs us- ing spontaneous parametric down-conversion, Phys. Rev. Appl.17, 034071 (2022)

    2022

  7. [14]

    Hilaire, L

    P. Hilaire, L. Vidro, H. S. Eisenberg, and S. E. Economou, Near-deterministic hybrid generation of arbi- trary photonic graph states using a single quantum emit- ter and linear optics, Quantum7, 992 (2023)

    2023

  8. [15]

    S. C. Wein, T. G. de Brugi` ere, L. Music, P. Senellart, B. Bourdoncle, and S. Mansfield, Minimizing resource overhead in fusion-based quantum computation using hybrid spin-photon devices, (2024), arXiv:2412.08611 [quant-ph]

    2024

  9. [16]

    L. A. Pettersson, A. S. Sørensen, and S. Paesani, De- terministic generation of concatenated graph codes from quantum emitters, PRX Quantum6, 010305 (2025)

    2025

  10. [17]

    Aqua and B

    Z. Aqua and B. Dayan, Atom-mediated deterministic generation and stitching of photonic graph states, PRX Quantum6, 010340 (2025)

    2025

  11. [18]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics, Nature 409, 46–52 (2001)

    2001

  12. [19]

    Knill, Quantum gates using linear optics and postse- lection, Phys

    E. Knill, Quantum gates using linear optics and postse- lection, Phys. Rev. A66, 052306 (2002)

    2002

  13. [20]

    Forbes, F

    I. Forbes, F. Ghafari, E. Deacon, S. P. P. Singh, E. Lavie, P. Yard, R. Shaw, A. Laing, and N. Tischler, Heralded generation of entanglement with photons, Rep. Prog. Phys.88, 086002 (2025)

    2025

  14. [21]

    N. N. Skryabin, Y. A. Biriukov, M. A. Dryazgov, S. A. Fldzhyan, S. A. Zhuravitskii, A. S. Argenchiev, I. V. Kon- dratyev, L. A. Tsoma, K. I. Okhlopkov, I. M. Gruzinov, A. Y. Arsenyev, K. V. Taratorin, M. Y. Saygin, I. V. Dyakonov, M. V. Rakhlin, A. I. Galimov, G. V. Klimko, S....

    2025

  15. [22]

    Chen, L.-C

    S. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y.-P. Guo, X.-M. Gu, X. Ding, R.- Z. Liu, J.-Y. Zhao, X. You, J. Qin, Y.-F. Wang, Y.-M. He, J. J. Renema, Y.-H. Huo, H. Wang, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Heralded three-photon entanglement from a single-photon source on a photonic chip, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, ...

    2024

  16. [23]

    S. A. Fldzhyan, M. Y. Saygin, and S. P. Kulik, Compact linear optical scheme for Bell state generation, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 043031 (2021)

    2021

  17. [24]

    S. A. Fldzhyan, M. Y. Saygin, and S. P. Kulik, Pro- grammable heralded linear optical generation of two- qubit states, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 054030 (2023)

    2023

  18. [25]

    F. V. Gubarev, I. V. Dyakonov, M. Y. Saygin, G. I. Struchalin, S. S. Straupe, and S. P. Kulik, Improved her- alded schemes to generate entangled states from single photons, Phys. Rev. A102, 012604 (2020)

    2020

  19. [26]

    F. V. Gubarev, Fock space perspective on optimal herald- ing schemes, (2021), arXiv:2108.09336 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Chernikov, S

    A. Chernikov, S. S. Sysoev, E. A. Vashukevich, and T. Y. 11 Golubeva, Heralded gate search with genetic algorithms for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A108, 012609 (2023)

    2023

  21. [28]

    G. S. Hartnett, D. Kielpinski, S. Maity, P. S. Mundada, Y. Baum, and M. R. Hush, Automated discovery of heralded ballistic graph state generators for fusion-based photonic quantum computation (2025), arXiv:2508.16505 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Bartolucci, P

    S. Bartolucci, P. M. Birchall, M. Gimeno-Segovia, E. Johnston, K. Kieling, M. Pant, T. Rudolph, J. Smith, C. Sparrow, and M. D. Vidrighin, Creation of en- tangled photonic states using linear optics (2021), arXiv:2106.13825 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Paesani, J

    S. Paesani, J. F. F. Bulmer, A. E. Jones, R. Santagati, and A. Laing, Scheme for universal high-dimensional quantum computation with linear optics, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 230504 (2021)

    2021

  24. [31]

    Pankovich, A

    B. Pankovich, A. Neville, A. Kan, S. Omkar, K. H. Wan, and K. Br´ adler, Flexible entangled-state generation in linear optics, Phys. Rev. A110, 032402 (2024)

    2024

  25. [32]

    Bhatti and S

    D. Bhatti and S. Barz, Heralding higher-dimensional bell and Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger states using multiport splitters, New J. Phys.27, 033006 (2025)

    2025

  26. [33]

    Clausen, M

    J. Clausen, M. Dakna, L. Knoell, and D. G. Welsch, Con- ditional quantum state engineering at beam splitter ar- rays, Acta Physica Slovaca49, 653 (1999)

    1999

  27. [34]

    Y. I. Bogdanov, K. G. Katamadze, G. V. Avosopiants, L. V. Belinsky, N. A. Bogdanova, A. A. Kalinkin, and S. P. Kulik, Multiphoton subtracted thermal states: De- scription, preparation, and reconstruction, Physical Re- view A96(2017)

    2017

  28. [35]

    H¨ ayrynen, J

    T. H¨ ayrynen, J. Oksanen, and J. Tulkki, Exact theory for photon subtraction for fields from quantum to classical limit, EPL (Europhysics Letters)87, 44002 (2009)

    2009

  29. [36]

    Marek, J

    P. Marek, J. Provazn´ ık, and R. Filip, Loop-based sub- traction of a single photon from a traveling beam of light, Opt. Express26, 29837 (2018)

    2018

  30. [37]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, B

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu, and F. Lalo¨ e, Creation and annihilation operators for identical particles, inQuantum Mechanics, Volume 3: Fermions, Bosons, Photons, Cor- relations, and Entanglement, Vol. 3 (Wiley-VCH, 2020) Chap. XV, pp. 1591–1616, 1st ed

    2020

  31. [38]

    M. Reck, A. Zeilinger, H. J. Bernstein, and P. Bertani, Experimental realization of any discrete unitary opera- tor, Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 58 (1994)

    1994

  32. [39]

    Guo, G.-Y

    Y.-P. Guo, G.-Y. Zou, X. Ding, Q.-H. Zhang, M.-C. Xu, R.-Z. Liu, J.-Y. Zhao, Z.-X. Ge, L.-C. Peng, K.-M. Xu, Y.-Y. Lou, Z. Ning, L.-J. Wang, H. Wang, Y.-H. Huo, Y.- M. He, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Boosted fusion gates above the percolation threshold for scalable graph-state ge...

    2024 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Hauser, M

    N. Hauser, M. J. Bayerbach, S. E. D’Aurelio, R. Weber, M. Santandrea, S. P. Kumar, I. Dhand, and S. Barz, Boosted Bell-state measurements for photonic quantum computation, npj Quantum Information11, 41 (2025)

    2025

  34. [41]

    Kieling,Linear optics quantum computing – construc- tion of small networks and asymptotic scaling, PhD The- sis, Imperial College London (2008)

    K. Kieling,Linear optics quantum computing – construc- tion of small networks and asymptotic scaling, PhD The- sis, Imperial College London (2008)

    2008

  35. [42]

    de Gliniasty, P

    G. de Gliniasty, P. Bagourd, S. Draux, and B. Bour- doncle, Simple rules for two-photon state preparation with linear optics, in2024 Ieee International Conference On Quantum Computing And Engineering, Qce, Vol 1 (IEEE, Los Alamitos, 2025) p. 706–711

    2025

  36. [43]

    Downey, B

    P. Downey, B. Leong, and R. Sethi, Computing sequences with addition chains, SIAM Journal on Computing10, 638 (1981)

    1981

  37. [44]

    Brauer, On addition chains, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society (1939)

    A. Brauer, On addition chains, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society (1939)

    1939

  38. [45]

    D. E. Knuth,The Art of Computer Programming, 3rd ed., Vol. 2 (Addison–Wesley, 1997) Section 4.6.3

    1997

  39. [46]

    Gimeno-Segovia,Towards practical linear optical quantum computing, PhD Thesis, Imperial College Lon- don (2015)

    M. Gimeno-Segovia,Towards practical linear optical quantum computing, PhD Thesis, Imperial College Lon- don (2015)

    2015

  40. [47]

    Melkozerov, A

    A. Melkozerov, A. Avanesov, I. Dyakonov, and S. Straupe, Analysis of optical loss thresholds in the fusion-based quantum computing architecture, APL Quantum1, 036119 (2024)

    2024

  41. [48]

    F. H. B. Somhorst and J. J. Renema, Mitigating quantum operation infidelity through engineering the distribution of photon losses, (2025), arXiv:2507.04805 [quant-ph]

    2025

  42. [49]

    Schmidt and P

    F. Schmidt and P. van Loock, Generalized fusions of pho- tonic quantum states using static linear optics (2024), arXiv:2410.20261 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Rimock, K

    N. Rimock, K. Cohen, and Y. Oz, Generalized type II fusion of cluster states, (2024), arXiv:2406.15666 [quant- ph]

    2024

  44. [52]

    Zakaryan, K.-R

    H. Zakaryan, K.-R. Revis, and Z. Raissi, Nonsymmet- ric Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger states: Weighted hy- pergraph and controlled-unitary graph representations, Physical Review A112(2025). Appendix A: F usion In this section we derive formulae from Section III. We investigate t...

    2025

  45. [53]

    To simplify the analysis, we approximate the discrete transmission steps with a continuous representation, lettingt x≈1−∆(x)dx≈e −∆(x)dx

    Continuum Approximation At its core, the bleeding process assumes thatt x≈1 for most steps. To simplify the analysis, we approximate the discrete transmission steps with a continuous representation, lettingt x≈1−∆(x)dx≈e −∆(x)dx. Using this approximation, we focus only on term...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.