Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Deterministic single-photon nonlinearities lift photonic fault-tolerance thresholds to 11.5–15.1%.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A photonic fault-tolerance architecture using deterministic single-photon nonlinearities maintains surface-code loss thresholds of up to 15.1% with QPC-encoded 2-chain resource states.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection Conditional but credible design study: the loss thresholds are real upper bounds under an ideal π-nonlinearity, and the paper says so only at the end. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.06890 v2 pith:MIBEBBZ7 submitted 2025-10-08 quant-ph

Nonlinear photonic architecture for fault-tolerant quantum computing

Maike Ostmann , Joshua Nunn , Alex E. Jones This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords fault-tolerant quantum computingphotonic quantum computingsingle-photon nonlinearitymeasurement-based quantum computingfoliated surface codeGHZ measurementloss thresholdresource state
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 replacing the probabilistic entangling measurements of linear-optical photonic quantum computing with deterministic measurements enabled by single-photon π-nonlinearities transforms the resource economics and loss tolerance of fault-tolerant photonic architectures. Working in a measurement-based scheme that uses small 2-chain entangled resource states and a foliated surface code, the authors show that a nonlinear sign-shift gate removes the intrinsic failure probability of Bell measurements, so photon loss becomes the only error mechanism the error-correcting code must handle. Monte Carlo simulations then give single-photon loss thresholds of 11.5% and 15.1% for 32- and 96-photon resource states—figures comparable to or better than linear-optical schemes that already use adaptivity, and well above the thresholds without adaptivity. The same determinism cuts multiplexing from about six stages to one and shrinks the estimated hardware footprint by orders of magnitude, pointing toward a route to practical, mostly room-temperature photonic quantum computing.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that a deterministic single-photon nonlinearity—a self-Kerr interaction that applies a π phase to the two-photon component—turns the probabilistic Bell measurements used to implement 4-GHZ measurements in a GHZ-measurement-based architecture into near-deterministic operations. The eigenvalue return probability for the ZZ-type measurement then changes from a loss-plus-intrinsic-failure expression (Eq. 4) to a loss-only form (Eq. 5). In the foliated surface code (RHG lattice) built from QPC(n,m)-encoded 2-chain resource states, this change yields single-photon loss thresholds of 11.5% (32 photons) and 15.1% (96 photons), with resource-state genera

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the deterministic nonlinear photonic CZ gate, implemented via an ideal π single-photon nonlinearity (a nonlinear sign-shift). The same module generates small entangled seed states (Bell and three-qubit GHZ states) and performs the deterministic Bell measurements that implement the 4-GHZ measurements of the foliated surface code. Its importance is that it removes the factor-of-one-half intrinsic failure that exists even in lossless linear-optical Bell measurements, reducing the eigenvalue return probability to a loss-only expression.

Load-bearing premise

The results depend on an ideal, loss-free, deterministic π single-photon nonlinearity, so that photon loss is the only mechanism that can reduce the success probability of measurements; any intrinsic loss, strong-drive requirement, or probabilistic behaviour in the gate erodes the threshold advantage.

What would settle it

Measure the per-gate loss and success probability of a real single-photon π-nonlinearity (e.g., a single atom or quantum dot coupled to a cavity/waveguide); if the gate's success probability is significantly below 1, the loss-only eigenvalue-return formula of Eq. (5) fails and the Table I thresholds are not achievable.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Single-photon loss thresholds of 11.5% and 15.1% for 32- and 96-photon resource states, achieved without adaptivity and comparable to or better than linear-optical schemes that do use adaptivity.
  • Resource-state generation becomes near-deterministic with one multiplexing stage, versus roughly six in linear-optical designs, with fewer than 10,000 nonlinear sources per logical qubit.
  • Most optical circuitry can operate at room temperature; only a modest number of photon detectors need cryogenic cooling, reducing system footprint.
  • The architecture supports magic state injection for universality and can accommodate non-π nonlinearities, giving hardware flexibility.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next step the paper leaves open is computing how much intrinsic loss in the nonlinear gate itself can be tolerated before the threshold advantage vanishes; that calculation would bound the hardware requirements.
  • Because the same deterministic nonlinear Bell measurement enables networking, the approach could also solve the probabilistic-interconnect bottleneck in modular matter-qubit platforms if the nonlinearity can be integrated with them.
  • Applying the same loss-only eigenvalue-return formula to other fusion-based or measurement-based codes would likely raise their loss thresholds as well, since the improvement is not specific to the foliated surface code.
  • A direct experimental benchmark—measuring the loss and success probability of the nonlinear CZ gate—would be a decisive test: if gate-level loss is non-negligible, the predicted thresholds must be revised downward.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a photonic fault-tolerant quantum computing architecture that combines deterministic single-photon nonlinearities with the GHZ-measurement-based MBQC framework of Ref. [33]. The authors replace probabilistic linear-optical Bell measurements with deterministic nonlinear Bell measurements, giving eigenvalue-return probabilities in Eq. (5) that approach 1 in the lossless limit. Using QPC(n,m)-encoded 2-chain resource states and a foliated surface code, they report single-photon loss thresholds of 11.5% for a 32-photon resource state and 15.1% for a 96-photon resource state, and claim that one stage of multiplexing suffices to make resource-state generation near-deterministic. The paper also argues for large reductions in component count, switching layers, and cryogenic footprint relative to linear-optical architectures.

Significance. If the central assumption of an ideal, lossless deterministic π-nonlinearity is met, the paper gives a transparent, parameter-free route to substantially higher photonic loss thresholds than linear-optical fusion architectures: Eqs. (4) and (5) are simple and interpretable, and the Monte Carlo study covers several QPC encodings. The concrete 32-photon/11.5% resource-state choice is a useful engineering target, and the comparison with linear-optical thresholds in Fig. 6 is a strength. However, the significance is currently conditional: the thresholds are upper bounds under an idealized nonlinear primitive, and the resource-overhead estimates are not derived.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.B and VI, Eq. (5)] The central loss-tolerance claim rests on the step from Eq. (4) to Eq. (5), which assumes that 'loss is the only mechanism that reduces the success probability' of the nonlinear entangling circuit. The conclusion (Sec. VI) acknowledges 'We have assumed ideal π-nonlinearities in this study', but no sensitivity analysis is provided. A realistic nonlinearity will have intrinsic loss and a non-unit gate success probability; a failed nonlinear interaction contributes either additional loss or a Pauli-type error that is not an erasure. Such terms enter Eq. (5) in the same way the factor 1/2 appears in Eq. (4), and the Table I thresholds (11.5% and 15.1%) would move toward the linear-optical values. The abstract's claim of 'dramatically' improved loss tolerance is therefore not yet demonstrated for a concrete device. Please add a parametric model, e.g., gate success probability q and added loss
  2. [Section IV, Table I] The threshold extraction is under-specified. The text gives only 50k Monte Carlo samples, a lattice geometry d×d×(2d+1), and d∈{11,13,15}; it does not specify the decoder implementation (MWPM vs union-find), the exact mapping from photon loss to erased eigenvalues and supercheck construction, or the finite-size extrapolation used to obtain the quoted two-digit thresholds. No error bars are reported. With 50k samples, threshold estimates typically carry a statistical uncertainty of order 0.1 percentage point, which is enough to affect the ordering in Fig. 6 and the comparison in Table I. For reproducibility, the authors should provide these details or release the simulation code.
  3. [Section III.B] The resource-overhead advantage relies on the claim that 'just a single stage of multiplexing is sufficient to make the overall nonlinear resource state generation near-deterministic', compared with six stages for linear optics [40]. No derivation, numerical simulation, or success-probability budget is given for the nonlinear resource-state generator. Since the RSG success probability depends on the number of nonlinear gates, their loss, and the seed-state generation probability, this one-stage claim cannot be checked from the manuscript. The abstract's statement that nonlinearities 'substantially reduce resource overheads' needs quantitative backing, or the claim should be explicitly labelled as an assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section VI] Typo: 'out analysis' should read 'our analysis'.
  2. [Section V] The estimate of 'fewer than 10k nonlinear single-photon sources' for a logical qubit is given without stating the underlying assumptions (e.g., per-source efficiency, multiplexing depth, number of RSG attempts per logical qubit). Please specify the resource model or remove the quantitative claim.
  3. [Section III.C and Appendix B] The derivation of Eq. (5) is not shown. Even if the assumption of ideal nonlinearities is accepted, the passage from 'loss is the only mechanism' to the exact algebraic form of P_zz and P_xx should be sketched, and the treatment of losses inside the entangled resource branch vs. the measurement branch should be clarified.
  4. [Figure 6] The legend says the nonlinear threshold uses 'no adaptivity' but the reader must infer which symbols are which. Please define the filled square and triangle explicitly in the caption.
  5. [Appendix A] The rotated QPC convention in Eqs. (A3)-(A4) is terse; a sentence explaining how the rotated basis is used in the Bell-measurement syndrome graph would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the loss thresholds are conditional Monte Carlo simulations from an explicitly stated ideal-nonlinearity model, not fitted parameters or self-imported results.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims are the single-photon loss thresholds in Table I, obtained from Monte Carlo simulations over the foliated surface code using the analytic eigenvalue return probabilities in Eq. (5). These formulas are introduced as the model for a deterministic nonlinear Bell measurement, in contrast to the linear-optical Eq. (4), and they are not fitted to any data nor taken from a prior paper. The improved P_zz in Eq. (5) follows directly from the stated assumption that the nonlinear sign-shift gate and CZ gate are deterministic, so that 'loss is the only mechanism that reduces the success probability' (Section III.B). This is a model assumption, not a circular derivation: the thresholds are conditional predictions from that assumption. The paper explicitly flags the idealization in Section VI ('We have assumed ideal pi-nonlinearities in this study'), which is a limitation of scope and a validity concern for real hardware, but it does not make the derivation circular. The only notable self-citation is Ref. [33] (co-authored by Ostmann), used to adopt the GHZ-measurement-based architecture and as a comparison point for the linear-optical case. This is a standard incremental use of prior work; the loss-threshold calculations and the nonlinear formulas are developed in this paper and are not imported from the cited architecture paper. No step in the claimed derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs, and no load-bearing conclusion rests on an unverified self-citation. The central results are therefore best assessed as an idealized performance estimate rather than a circular argument.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No numbers are fitted to data; loss thresholds are outputs of Monte Carlo simulation, and resource-state encodings are scanned rather than fitted. The ideal π-nonlinearity is a qualitative assumption, not a fitted parameter. The central claim rests on six stated axioms, the most fragile being the ideal nonlinearity and deterministic single-photon generation.

axioms (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Deterministic single-photon π-phase nonlinearity (ideal nonlinear sign-shift gate) with negligible intrinsic loss.
    Introduced in Section III ('deterministically implements a nonlinear sign-shift gate'), assumed for Eq. (5) and all thresholds; acknowledged in Section VI as an idealization.
  • domain assumption Deterministic single-photon sources.
    Section III.B begins 'with the deterministic generation of single photons'; no efficiency or noise model is included.
  • domain assumption Loss is the only error mechanism; photon distinguishability and gate infidelity are neglected.
    Section VI: 'we have focused on photon loss as the dominant error mechanism'; other errors are deferred to future work.
  • standard math The GHZ-measurement-based architecture and its syndrome construction from Ref [33].
    The architecture builds on Pankovich et al., including stabilizer groups, check operators, and superchecks, without re-deriving them.
  • domain assumption Eigenvalue return probability formula Eq. (5) for QPC-encoded nonlinear Bell measurements.
    The formula assumes each block returns the correct outcome unless photons are lost; it follows from the ideal-gate assumption but is not independently validated against experiment.
  • ad hoc to paper A single stage of multiplexing is sufficient for near-deterministic resource state generation.
    Asserted in Section III.B without calculation; contrasts with 'six stages' for linear optics [40].

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonlinear photonic architecture for fault-tolerant quantum computing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MIBEBBZ7

@misc{pith2026251006890,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonlinear photonic architecture for fault-tolerant quantum computing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MIBEBBZ7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.06890}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We propose a novel architecture for fault-tolerant quantum computing that incorporates strong single-photon nonlinearities into a photonic GHZ-measurement-based architecture. The nonlinearities substantially reduce resource overheads compared to conventional linear-optics-based architectures, which require significant redundancy to accommodate probabilistic photon generation and probabilistic entangling operations. By removing linear-optical failure modes, our nonlinear architecture can also tolerate much higher optical losses than linear approaches, with a baseline loss tolerance of $\sim$12\% using a 32-photon resource state and a foliated surface code. Nonlinear photonic architectures provide a route to dramatically improving practical implementations of fault-tolerant quantum computing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.06890 by Alex E. Jones, Joshua Nunn, Maike Ostmann.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Resource states and measurements in the GHZ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Schematic of a resource state generator. A subset of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Entangling gates based on the nonlinear photonic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Fault-tolerant base module comprising re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The resource state in our architecture is a 2-chain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Diamond check operator C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (a) Example of a 2D slice of the RHG lattice (foliated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (a) Unit cell of the RHG lattice represented using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Manipulating Excitation Dynamics in Structured Waveguide Quantum Electrodynamics

    quant-ph 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Structured wQED with locally patterned coupling directionalities yields four distinct excitation dynamics from subradiant eigenmode interferences, with tunable localization-delocalization via spacing and chirality tha...

  2. Photon Sorting with a Quantum Emitter

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A quantum emitter in a waveguide sorts single- and two-photon light with 62% success, enabling Bell state measurements at 57% post-selected probability that exceeds the 50% linear-optics limit.

  3. Towards Quantum Optimised Malware Containment

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A hybrid quantum approach is proposed to achieve quadratic speedups in influence estimation and edge removal optimization for malware containment modeled as a network influence minimisation problem.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, PRX Quantum 2, 040101 (2021)

    2021

  2. [2]

    Komoto and K

    D. Komoto and K. Kasai, arXiv:2412.21171 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Nature638, 920 (2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    M. Zhao, M. Singh, A. Singh, H. Thoreen, R. J. DeAn- gelo, D. Dominguez, A. Leenheer, F. Peyskens, A. Lukin, D. Englund, M. Eichenfield, N. Gemelke, and N. H. Wan, arXiv:2508.09920 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    R. D. Delaney, L. R. Sletten, M. J. Cich, B. Estey, M. I. Fabrikant, D. Hayes, I. M. Hoffman, J. Hostet- ter, C. Langer, S. A. Moses, A. R. Perry, T. A. Peterson, A. Schaffer, C. Volin, G. Vittorini, and W. C. Burton, Physical Review X14, 041028 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Carrera Vazquez, C

    A. Carrera Vazquez, C. Tornow, D. Rist` e, S. Woerner, M. Takita, and D. J. Egger, Nature636, 75 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    Gidney, How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers with less than a million noisy qubits (2025)

    C. Gidney, How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers with less than a million noisy qubits (2025)

    2048

  8. [8]

    Mohseni, A

    M. Mohseni, A. Scherer, K. G. Johnson, O. Wertheim, M. Otten, N. A. Aadit, Y. Alexeev, K. M. Bresniker, K. Y. Camsari, B. Chapman, S. Chatterjee, G. A. Dag- new, A. Esposito, F. Fahim, M. Fiorentino, A. Gajjar, A. Khalid, X. Kong, B. Kulchytskyy, E. Kyoseva, R. Li, P. A. Lott, I. L. Markov, R. F. McDermott, G. Pe- dretti, P. Rao, E. Rieffel, A. Silva, J. ...

    2025

  9. [9]

    Litinski, How to compute a 256-bit elliptic curve pri- vate key with only 50 million Toffoli gates (2023)

    D. Litinski, How to compute a 256-bit elliptic curve pri- vate key with only 50 million Toffoli gates (2023)

    2023

  10. [10]

    Photonic Inc., arXiv:2406.01704 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    de Gliniasty, P

    G. de Gliniasty, P. Hilaire, P.-E. Emeriau, S. C. Wein, A. Salavrakos, and S. Mansfield, Quantum8, 1423 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    Riedel, T

    D. Riedel, T. Graziosi, Z. Wang, C. De-Eknamkul, A. Abulnaga, J. Dietz, A. Mucchietto, M. Haas, M. Sutula, P. Barral, M. Pompili, C. Robens, J. Ha, D. Sukachev, D. Levonian, M. Bhaskar, M. Markham, and B. Machielse, A scalable photonic quantum inter- connect platform (2025)

    2025

  13. [13]

    M. J. Weaver, P. Duivestein, A. C. Bernasconi, S. Scharmer, M. Lemang, T. C. v. Thiel, F. Hijazi, B. Hensen, S. Gr¨ oblacher, and R. Stockill, Nature nan- otechnology19, 166 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    Slysz, P

    M. Slysz, P. Rydlichowski, K. Kurowski, O. Bacarezza, E. C. Gomez, Z. Chandani, B. Heim, P. Khalate, W. R. Clements, and J. Fletcher, arXiv:2508.16297 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    H. A. Rad, T. Ainsworth, R. N. Alexander, B. Altieri, M. F. Askarani, R. Baby, L. Banchi, B. Q. Baragiola, J. E. Bourassa, R. S. Chadwick,et al., Nature638, 912 (2025). 7

    2025

  16. [16]

    Kailasanathan, W

    R. Kailasanathan, W. R. Clements, M. R. Boskabadi, S. M. Gibford, E. Papadakis, C. J. Savoie, and S. S. Man- souri, arXiv:2508.21438 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Larsen, J

    M. Larsen, J. Bourassa, S. Kocsis, J. Tasker, R. Chad- wick, C. Gonz´ alez-Arciniegas, J. Hastrup, C. Lopetegui- Gonz´ alez, F. Miatto, A. Motamedi,et al., Nature , 1 (2025)

    2025

  18. [18]

    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 entangled photonic states using linear optics (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    Bartolucci, P

    S. Bartolucci, P. Birchall, D. Bonneau, H. Ca- ble, M. Gimeno-Segovia, K. Kieling, N. Nickerson, T. Rudolph, and C. Sparrow, Switch networks for pho- tonic fusion-based quantum computing (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    Zektzer, X

    R. Zektzer, X. Lu, K. T. Hoang, R. Shrestha, S. Austin, F. Zhou, A. Chanana, G. Holland, D. Westly, P. Lett, A. V. Gorshkov, and K. Srinivasan, Optica11, 1376 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    Bechler, A

    O. Bechler, A. Borne, S. Rosenblum, G. Guendelman, O. E. Mor, M. Netser, T. Ohana, Z. Aqua, N. Drucker, R. Finkelstein,et al., Nature Physics14, 996 (2018)

    2018

  22. [22]

    Maring, A

    N. Maring, A. Fyrillas, M. Pont, E. Ivanov, P. Stepanov, et al., Nature Photonics18, 603 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    M. L. Chan, A. A. Capatos, P. Lodahl, A. S. Sørensen, and S. Paesani, Practical blueprint for low-depth pho- tonic quantum computing with quantum dots (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    Simmons, PRX Quantum5, 010102 (2024)

    S. Simmons, PRX Quantum5, 010102 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    Canteri, Z

    M. Canteri, Z. X. Koong, J. Bate, A. Winkler, V. Krutyanskiy, and B. P. Lanyon, Physical Review Let- ters135, 080801 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Stephenson, D

    L. Stephenson, D. Nadlinger, B. Nichol, S. An, P. Dr- mota, T. G. Ballance, K. Thirumalai, J. F. Goodwin, D. M. Lucas, and C. Ballance, Physical Review Letters 124, 110501 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    Krutyanskiy, M

    V. Krutyanskiy, M. Galli, V. Krcmarsky, S. Baier, D. Fioretto, Y. Pu, A. Mazloom, P. Sekatski, M. Canteri, M. Teller,et al., Physical Review Letters130, 050803 (2023)

    2023

  28. [28]

    DeAbreu, C

    A. DeAbreu, C. Bowness, A. Alizadeh, C. Chartrand, N. Brunelle, E. MacQuarrie, N. Lee-Hone, M. Ruether, M. Kazemi, A. Kurkjian,et al., Optics Express31, 15045 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    Lodahl, S

    P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, and S. Stobbe, Reviews of Modern Physics87, 347 (2015)

    2015

  30. [30]

    H. J. Briegel, D. E. Browne, W. D¨ ur, R. Raussendorf, and M. Van den Nest, Nature Physics5, 19 (2009)

    2009

  31. [31]

    Raussendorf and H

    R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, Physical Review Let- ters86, 5188 (2001)

    2001

  32. [32]

    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, Nature Communications14, 912 (2023)

    2023

  33. [33]

    Pankovich, A

    B. Pankovich, A. Kan, K. H. Wan, M. Ostmann, A. Neville, S. Omkar, A. Sohbi, and K. Br´ adler, Phys- ical Review Letters133, 050604 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, Nature409, 46 (2001)

    2001

  35. [35]

    Thomas, L

    P. Thomas, L. Ruscio, O. Morin, and G. Rempe, Nature 608, 677 (2022)

    2022

  36. [36]

    K. H. Nielsen, Y. Wang, E. Deacon, P. I. Sund, Z. Liu, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, L. Midolo, A. S. Sørensen, S. Paesani, and P. Lodahl, Programmable non- linear quantum photonic circuits (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    R. Uppu, F. T. Pedersen, Y. Wang, C. T. Olesen, C. Pa- pon, X. Zhou, L. Midolo, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Lud- wig, and P. Lodahl, Science Advances6, eabc8268 (2020)

    2020

  38. [38]

    A. Pick, E. Matekole, Z. Aqua, G. Guendelman, O. Firstenberg, J. Dowling, and B. Dayan, Physical Re- view Applied15, 054054 (2021)

    2021

  39. [39]

    Witthaut, M

    D. Witthaut, M. D. Lukin, and A. S. Sørensen, Euro- physics Letters97, 50007 (2012)

    2012

  40. [40]

    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 hy- brid spin-photon devices (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    et al., Nature617, 265 (2023)

    Storz, S., Sch¨ ar, J., Kulikov, A. et al., Nature617, 265 (2023)

    2023

  42. [42]

    A. Bolt, G. Duclos-Cianci, D. Poulin, and T. M. Stace, Physical Review Letters117, 070501 (2016)

    2016

  43. [43]

    Raussendorf, J

    R. Raussendorf, J. Harrington, and K. Goyal, New Jour- nal of Physics9, 199 (2007)

    2007

  44. [44]

    Bartolucci, T

    S. Bartolucci, T. Bell, H. Bombin, P. Birchall, J. Bul- mer, C. Dawson, T. Farrelly, S. Gartenstein, M. Gimeno- Segovia, D. Litinski, Y. Liu, R. Knegjens, N. Nickerson, A. Olivo, M. Pant, A. Patil, S. Roberts, T. Rudolph, C. Sparrow, D. Tuckett, and A. Veitia, Comparison of schemes for highly loss tolerant photonic fusion based quantum computing (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Physical Review A71, 022316 (2005)

    2005

  46. [46]

    Bombin, I

    H. Bombin, I. H. Kim, D. Litinski, N. Nickerson, M. Pant, F. Pastawski, S. Roberts, and T. Rudolph, Interleaving: Modular architectures for fault-tolerant photonic quan- tum computing (2021)

    2021

  47. [47]

    Linde Engineering to deliver large cryo- genic plant to PsiQuantum in Australia, https://www.linde-engineering.com/news-and- events/press-releases/2025/linde-engineering-to-deliver- large-cryogenic-plant-to-psiquantum-in-australia (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    Steinmetz, M

    J. Steinmetz, M. Ostmann, A. Neville, B. Pankovich, and A. Sohbi, arXiv:2412.13330 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Bacon and A

    D. Bacon and A. Casaccino, Quantum error correcting subsystem codes from two classical linear codes (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0610088

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  50. [50]

    Pankovich, A

    B. Pankovich, A. Neville, A. Kan, S. Omkar, K. H. Wan, and K. Br´ adler, Physical Review A110, 032402 (2024)

    2024

  51. [51]

    Bombin, D

    H. Bombin, D. Litinski, N. Nickerson, F. Pastawski, and S. Roberts, Quantum8, 1379 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection(California Institute of Technology, 1997)

    D. Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection(California Institute of Technology, 1997)

    1997

  53. [53]

    B. J. Brown and S. Roberts, Physical Review Research 2, 033305 (2020)

    2020

  54. [54]

    Coecke and R

    B. Coecke and R. Duncan, New Journal of Physics13, 043016 (2011)

    2011

  55. [55]

    J. M. Auger, H. Anwar, M. Gimeno-Segovia, T. M. Stace, and D. E. Browne, Physical Review A97, 030301 (2018)

    2018

  56. [56]

    S. D. Barrett and T. M. Stace, Physical Review Letters 105, 200502 (2010)

    2010

  57. [57]

    Higgott, arXiv:2105.13082 (2021)

    O. Higgott, arXiv:2105.13082 (2021)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    Delfosse and N

    N. Delfosse and N. H. Nickerson, Quantum5, 595 (2021). Appendix A: Resource state encoding The resource states used in our quantum computing architecture are minimal in size, consisting of 2-qubit 8 graph states, referred to as 2-chain states. To implement GHZ measurements using Bell measurements, we apply a 2-qubit repetition code to each qubit, an appro...

    2021

  59. [59]

    or union-find decoding [58]

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.