Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

For any qudit hardware whose allowed transitions form a connected graph, the paper proves every single-qudit unitary can be decomposed into at most d(d−1)/2 two-level pulses, and gives an algorithm that finds the sequence.

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 ↗

T0 review

2026-08-04 07:26 UTC pith:YWGNY3LI

load-bearing objection Genuinely useful new compiler pass for single-qudit gates with a provable pulse count; the proof of the d(d-1)/2 bound has two real, fixable gaps and the benchmarks skip numerical verification. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2510.25561 v4 pith:YWGNY3LI submitted 2025-10-29 quant-ph

Transition-aware decomposition of single-qudit gates

Denis A. Drozhzhin , Evgeniy O. Kiktenko , Aleksey K. Fedorov , Anastasiia S. Nikolaeva This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P68 PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords quditsingle-qudit gatesunitary decompositiontwo-level pulsesselection rulestransition graphquantum computationpulse count bound
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 paper addresses a practical bottleneck for qudit quantum computers: although a d-level system stores more information than a qubit, generic gates require pulses between specific pairs of levels, and not every platform allows every pair. The authors construct a decomposition algorithm that takes the platform's selection rules as a graph and produces a sequence of allowed two-level rotations and phase shifts. Their central result is a universal bound: any single-qudit unitary can be implemented with at most d(d−1)/2 two-level pulses, which is the number needed to carry the d² real parameters of a generic unitary. The same algorithm works for line, star, and bipartite transition graphs, and an adaptive variant exploits zero entries to shorten sequences for specific gates.

Core claim

The central claim is that row-elimination QR-style decomposition can be made transition-aware: instead of requiring a fixed ladder of neighboring transition pulses, the algorithm eliminates entries row by row using pulses that correspond to edges of any connected graph of allowed transitions. At each elimination step it removes a level whose deletion keeps the graph connected, then orders the remaining levels by their distance from that level via breadth-first search so that each non-diagonal entry can be zeroed using a higher-distance level as a pivot. Repeating this d−1 times yields at most d(d−1)/2 transitions for an arbitrary unitary. The static version precomputes an index scheme per pl

What carries the argument

The central object is the transition graph G, whose vertices are qudit levels and edges are allowed two-level pulses. The elimination engine is a generalized row-elimination pattern: for each row r_k, choose a removable vertex, run breadth-first search to stratify the remaining graph into distance layers, and for every non-diagonal element z in the row pick a pivot p in the layer closer to r_k, so that z is eliminated without re-introducing previously eliminated elements. The fact that the chosen vertex is non-cut keeps the graph connected through the recursion, which the paper relies on for the d(d−1)/2 count.

Load-bearing premise

The algorithm relies on being able to find, at each of the d−1 elimination rounds, some level whose removal leaves the transition graph connected; if no such level existed for some allowed-transition graph, the pulse bound would not follow.

What would settle it

Run the static algorithm on a connected transition graph, for example a four-level cycle or a star, with a Haar-random unitary, and count the two-level rotations in the produced circuit. A single output circuit that requires more than d(d−1)/2 transitions, or a step where the chosen pivot was already eliminated, would falsify the bound.

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

Share X LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Any single-qudit operation on any connected selection-rule graph can be executed with at most d(d−1)/2 native pulses, matching the number of pulses needed to parameter-count generic unitaries.
  • Static per-platform schemes can be computed once and reused for all unitaries, making transpilation fast (millisecond-scale for the tested dimensions up to 6).
  • For trapped-ion-style star and bipartite transition graphs, the algorithm matches or beats existing synthesis tools in pulse count and runtime.
  • Phase gates can be performed virtually on many platforms, so the pulse count is the dominant cost; fewer pulses means lower accumulated error.
  • The adaptive variant reduces pulse counts further for operations with zeros, such as level permutations and increment gates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This suggests the bound is worst-case optimal: d(d−1)/2 two-level rotations carry d(d−1) real parameters, and together with d phase gates they exhaust the d² parameters of a generic unitary, so no scheme can use fewer rotations in the worst case.
  • The algorithm's reliance on repeatedly removing non-cut vertices connects to a standard graph-theoretic fact (every connected graph has at least two non-cut vertices); making that step explicit would close the one unstated assumption in the proof of the bound.
  • The distance-layer pivot rule could likely be extended to weighted transition graphs where pulses have different error rates, since the paper already notes the freedom to pick the least noisy pivot at each step.
  • The same decomposition pattern might generalize to two-qudit entangling gates, which the paper frames as single-qudit operations embedded into a larger space.

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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a constructive decomposition algorithm (TAQR) that realizes an arbitrary d-dimensional single-qudit unitary using two-level transition gates R_{ij} and phase gates P_k, where the allowed transitions are specified by an arbitrary connected undirected graph. The main claim is that for any such graph the decomposition uses at most d(d−1)/2 transition gates, matching the superconducting/line-graph count and improving on naive level-swap strategies for trapped-ion-like topologies. The algorithm works by eliminating rows in an order determined by repeatedly removing non-cut vertices from the transition graph; within each row, entries are eliminated from outer BFS layers inward, using a parent level as pivot. A static version fixes the scheme for a platform, while an adaptive version exploits zero entries to skip unnecessary gates. The paper benchmarks TAQR against BQSKit (QSearch, QSweep) and MQT.Qudits (LocQRPass, LocAdaPass) on line, star, and bipartite transition graphs, reporting transition counts and runtimes.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper gives a clean, unifying solution to a practical qudit-compilation problem: any connected selection-rule graph supports decompositions with the parameter-count-optimal number of two-level pulses. The construction is genuinely graph-aware rather than platform-specific, and the BFS-based row-elimination scheme is transparent and easy to implement. The comparison with third-party synthesis tools is concrete, with code made available, and the authors distinguish static and adaptive modes in a useful way. The result is not circular or fitted: no constants are learned and no author-derived prior results are used as inputs. The main value is as a drop-in single-qudit transpilation routine for qudit hardware with nontrivial selection rules.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (23)–(26)] The row-elimination formula is derived under the assumption that the pivot entry is nonzero: Eq. (25) divides by |U_{r,p}|. The theorem claims arbitrary unitaries, including sparse ones such as a swap of two non-adjacent levels. For such a row, the target U_{r,z} can be nonzero while the BFS-chosen pivot U_{r,p} is zero. The text only notes that θ can be 0 when the eliminated element is already zero; it does not specify the zero-pivot case. A correct handling is to set θ = π when U_{r,p}=0 and U_{r,z}≠0, moving the amplitude into the pivot column, and one must prove this remains compatible with the BFS ordering (the pivot has not yet been eliminated). As written, the proof covers only dense matrices, so the 'arbitrary unitary' claim is not fully established.
  2. [Sec. V, first algorithm bullet and Fig. 2a] The algorithm repeatedly selects a level whose removal from the transition graph preserves connectivity, doing this d−1 times. The paper does not prove that such a level always exists at every step. The fact is true — every finite connected graph with at least two vertices has at least two non-cut vertices — but it is load-bearing for the d(d−1)/2 bound and should be stated explicitly and either proved or cited. Without this lemma, the recursion could in principle stall, so the termination argument is incomplete.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. VI, Tables II–III] The comparison reports only transition counts and runtimes, not any fidelity or distance to the target unitary. Since QSearch is a numerical optimizer, the reported lengths are only meaningful if the returned circuits approximate the target to a specified tolerance. Please add a verification metric (e.g., Hilbert–Schmidt distance or infidelity) for all reported decompositions.
  2. [Sec. VII and Sec. VI] The Conclusions call the decomposition 'optimal' and Sec. VI calls d(d−1)/2 'the theoretical upper bound.' The paper does not give the parameter-count argument that would justify optimality: each R gate carries two continuous parameters and the d phase gates supply the remaining degrees of freedom. Please include this reasoning or soften the optimality claim.
  3. [Data Availability Statement] The comparison code is on GitHub, but the source of the developed method is 'available on reasonable request.' For reproducibility of the central algorithm, please publish the TAQR implementation itself, not only the benchmark harness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: constructive algorithm with external benchmarks; proof gaps are correctness issues, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that any single-qudit unitary can be decomposed into at most d(d−1)/2 allowed two-level transitions—is established by a constructive algorithm with explicit parameter formulas (Eqs. 24–26) and a graph-based procedure for selecting elimination order and pivots (Sec. V). The bound arises by counting the number of off-diagonal elements eliminated per row, not from fitting parameters to data or from assuming the conclusion. No fitted input is later renamed as a prediction. The benchmarks compare against third-party tools (BQSkit, MQT.Qudits), providing external validation independent of the authors' own prior results. Self-citations appear mainly as background context (e.g., refs. [23], [62]–[64], [68], [79], [80], [84]) and are not load-bearing premises of the decomposition theorem. The paper does invoke a graph property—that a level can be removed without breaking connectivity at each step—without proving it, and Eq. (25) divides by a pivot that may be zero for sparse unitaries; these are genuine correctness gaps but not circularity, since they do not reduce the claimed result to its own inputs. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities. The method rests on standard 2×2 unitary row-elimination algebra, on the domain assumption of an undirected connected transition graph, and on an unstated graph-theory lemma (existence of a non-cut vertex at every step).

axioms (4)
  • standard math A two-level unitary R(θ, φ) can zero any single off-diagonal element in a target row given a nonzero pivot (Eqs. 23–26).
    Core row-elimination step; follows from direct computation of the 2×2 rotation.
  • domain assumption The transition graph is connected and undirected.
    Section V states 'an arbitrary single-qudit system could be described as a connected undirected graph'; disconnected graphs cannot realize arbitrary unitaries because elements in different components cannot be mixed.
  • standard math Every connected graph has a vertex whose removal leaves the graph connected (non-cut vertex).
    Unstated lemma on which the row-ordering step depends; true in graph theory but not cited or proved in the paper.
  • domain assumption Phase gates P_k are available for free (virtual) on the target platforms.
    The d(d−1)/2 count excludes the d phase gates; the paper notes they are virtual on the considered platforms (Sec. IV).

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Transition-aware decomposition of single-qudit gates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YWGNY3LI

@misc{pith2026251025561,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Transition-aware decomposition of single-qudit gates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YWGNY3LI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.25561}
}
Share X LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Quantum computation with $d$-level quantum systems, also known as qudits, benefits from the possibility to use a richer computational space compared to qubits. However, for an arbitrary qudit-based hardware platform, the issue is that a generic qudit operation has to be decomposed into the sequence of native operations $-$ pulses that are adjusted to the transitions between two levels in a qudit. Typically, not all levels in a qudit are simply connected to each other due to specific selection rules. Moreover, the number of pulses plays a significant role, since each pulse takes a certain execution time and may introduce error. In this paper, we propose a resource-efficient algorithm to decompose single-qudit operations into the sequence of pulses that are allowed by qudit selection rules. Using the developed algorithm, the number of pulses is at most $d(d{-}1)/2$ for an arbitrary single-qudit operation. For specific operations, the algorithm could produce even fewer pulses. We provide a comparison of qudit decompositions for several types of trapped ions, specifically $^{171}\text{Yb}^+$, $^{137}\text{Ba}^+$ and $^{40}\text{Ca}^+$ with different selection rules, and also decomposition for superconducting qudits. Although our approach deals with single-qudit operations, the proposed approach is important for realizing two-qudit operations since they can be implemented as a standard two-qubit gate that is surrounded by efficiently implemented single-qudit gates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.25561 by Aleksey K. Fedorov, Anastasiia S. Nikolaeva, Denis A. Drozhzhin, Evgeniy O. Kiktenko.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Row elimination schemes for a qudit unitary matrix with given allowed transitions. (a) Decomposition for a superconducting qudit with allowed transitions R n,n±1 . (b) Decomposition for a trapped-ion qudit with allowed transitions R 0,n and R n,0 . transition R ij into the allowed transition R 0i : R ij (θ, ϕ) = S 0i ◦ R 0j (θ, ϕ) ◦ S i0 , or R ij (θ, ϕ) = S 0j ◦ R i0 (θ, ϕ) ◦ S j0 , (28) S ij = R ij  π, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Algorithm that determines indices for the qudit decomposition scheme. It utilizes the graph structure of selection rules and the breadth-first search algorithm. not break connectivity of the graph. One of these levels can be chosen as |rk⟩ to eliminate the row rk of the qudit unitary matrix (Figure 2a). Here, we can use physical heuristics to eliminate less stable levels earlier. • Each level |i⟩ ∈ G is as… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Decomposition of a matrix with zero non-diagonal elements: (a) Static and (b) Adaptive schemes. decomposition scheme is only valid for a given matrix and contains the least number of operations, whereas the static decomposition scheme can be applied to an arbi￾trary matrix. VI. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING DECOMPOSITION METHODS To show the advantage of the developed algorithm, we provide the comparison with ot… 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 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Qudit-native simulation of the Potts model

    quant-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0

    A qudit-native circuit decomposition maps the Potts-model interaction onto a symmetric light-shift gate or an aux-level MS-gate sequence, and Trotterized evolution reproduces DQPT signatures in a q=3 chain.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Brassard, I

    G. Brassard, I. Chuang, S. Lloyd, and C. Monroe, Quan- tum computing, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences95, 11032 (1998)

    1998

  2. [2]

    T. D. Ladd, F. Jelezko, R. Laflamme, Y. Nakamura, C. Monroe, and J. L. O’Brien, Quantum computers, Na- ture464, 45 (2010)

    2010

  3. [3]

    A. K. Fedorov, N. Gisin, S. M. Beloussov, and A. I. Lvovsky, Quantum computing at the quantum advantage threshold: a down-to-business review (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    1996

  5. [5]

    Barraza, G

    N. Barraza, G. Alvarado Barrios, J. Peng, L. Lamata, E. Solano, and F. Albarr´ an-Arriagada, Analog quantum approximate optimization algorithm, Quantum Science and Technology7, 045035 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring, inProceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science(1994) pp

    P. Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring, inProceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science(1994) pp. 124–134

    1994

  7. [7]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum algo- rithms, Nature Reviews Physics3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.-C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms, Reviews of Modern Physics94, 10.1103/revmodphys.94.015004 (2022)

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.94.015004 2022

  9. [9]

    Ebadi, T

    S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Se- meghini, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pich- ler, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum phases of matter on a 256-atom programmable quantum simulator, Nature 595, 227 (2021)

    2021

  10. [10]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin, S. Habegger, M. P. Harrigan, M. J. Hartmann, A. Ho, M. Hoffmann, T. Huang, T. S...

    2019

  11. [11]

    Wu, W.-S

    Y. Wu, W.-S. Bao, S. Cao, F. Chen, M.-C. Chen, X. Chen, T.-H. Chung, H. Deng, Y. Du, D. Fan, M. Gong, C. Guo, C. Guo, S. Guo, L. Han, L. Hong, H.-L. Huang, Y.-H. Huo, L. Li, N. Li, S. Li, Y. Li, F. Liang, C. Lin, J. Lin, H. Qian, D. Qiao, H. Rong, H. Su, L. Sun, L. Wang, S. Wang, D. Wu, Y. Xu, K. Yan, W. Yang, Y. Yang, Y. Ye, J. Yin, C. Ying, J. Yu, C. Zh...

    2021

  12. [12]

    X. Xue, M. Russ, N. Samkharadze, B. Undseth, A. Sam- mak, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Quantum logic with spin qubits crossing the surface code threshold, Nature601, 343 (2022)

    2022

  13. [13]

    M. T. Madzik, S. Asaad, A. Youssry, B. Joecker, K. M. Rudinger, E. Nielsen, K. C. Young, T. J. Proctor, A. D. Baczewski, A. Laucht, V. Schmitt, F. E. Hudson, K. M. 10 Itoh, A. M. Jakob, B. C. Johnson, D. N. Jamieson, A. S. Dzurak, C. Ferrie, R. Blume-Kohout, and A. Morello, Precision tomography of a three-qubit donor quantum processor in silicon, Nature60...

    2022

  14. [14]

    Noiri, K

    A. Noiri, K. Takeda, T. Nakajima, T. Kobayashi, A. Sam- mak, G. Scappucci, and S. Tarucha, Fast universal quan- tum gate above the fault-tolerance threshold in silicon, Nature601, 338 (2022)

    2022

  15. [15]

    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

  16. [16]

    L. S. Madsen, F. Laudenbach, M. F. Askarani, F. Rortais, T. Vincent, J. F. F. Bulmer, F. M. Miatto, L. Neuhaus, L. G. Helt, M. J. Collins, A. E. Lita, T. Gerrits, S. W. Nam, V. D. Vaidya, M. Menotti, I. Dhand, Z. Vernon, N. Quesada, and J. Lavoie, Quantum computational ad- vantage with a programmable photonic processor, Nature 606, 75 (2022)

    2022

  17. [17]

    Scholl, M

    P. Scholl, M. Schuler, H. J. Williams, A. A. Eberharter, D. Barredo, K.-N. Schymik, V. Lienhard, L.-P. Henry, T. C. Lang, T. Lahaye, A. M. L¨ auchli, and A. Browaeys, Quantum simulation of 2d antiferromagnets with hun- dreds of rydberg atoms, Nature595, 233 (2021)

    2021

  18. [18]

    Henriet, L

    L. Henriet, L. Beguin, A. Signoles, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, G.-O. Reymond, and C. Jurczak, Quantum computing with neutral atoms, Quantum4, 327 (2020)

    2020

  19. [19]

    T. M. Graham, Y. Song, J. Scott, C. Poole, L. Phutti- tarn, K. Jooya, P. Eichler, X. Jiang, A. Marra, B. Grinke- meyer, M. Kwon, M. Ebert, J. Cherek, M. T. Licht- man, M. Gillette, J. Gilbert, D. Bowman, T. Ballance, C. Campbell, E. D. Dahl, O. Crawford, N. S. Blunt, B. Rogers, T. Noel, and M. Saffman, Multi-qubit en- tanglement and algorithms on a neutra...

    2022

  20. [20]

    Zhang, G

    J. Zhang, G. Pagano, P. W. Hess, A. Kyprianidis, P. Becker, H. Kaplan, A. V. Gorshkov, Z. X. Gong, and C. Monroe, Observation of a many-body dynamical phase transition with a 53-qubit quantum simulator, Nature 551, 601 (2017)

    2017

  21. [21]

    Blatt and C

    R. Blatt and C. F. Roos, Quantum simulations with trapped ions, Nature Physics8, 277 (2012)

    2012

  22. [22]

    Hempel, C

    C. Hempel, C. Maier, J. Romero, J. McClean, T. Monz, H. Shen, P. Jurcevic, B. P. Lanyon, P. Love, R. Babbush, A. Aspuru-Guzik, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Quantum chemistry calculations on a trapped-ion quantum simu- lator, Phys. Rev. X8, 031022 (2018)

    2018

  23. [23]

    E. O. Kiktenko, A. S. Nikolaeva, and A. K. Fedorov, Colloquium: Qudits for decomposing multiqubit gates and realizing quantum algorithms, Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 021003 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    Farhi and S

    E. Farhi and S. Gutmann, Analog analogue of a digital quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A57, 2403 (1998)

    1998

  25. [25]

    A. R. Kessel’ and V. L. Ermakov, Multiqubit spin, Jour- nal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters70, 61 (1999)

    1999

  26. [26]

    A. R. Kessel’ and V. L. Ermakov, Physical implementa- tion of three-qubit gates on a separate quantum particle, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters 71, 307 (2000)

    2000

  27. [27]

    A. R. Kessel and N. M. Yakovleva, Implementation schemes in nmr of quantum processors and the deutsch- jozsa algorithm by using virtual spin representation, Phys. Rev. A66, 062322 (2002)

    2002

  28. [28]

    Muthukrishnan and C

    A. Muthukrishnan and C. R. Stroud, Multivalued logic gates for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A62, 052309 (2000)

    2000

  29. [29]

    M. A. Nielsen, M. J. Bremner, J. L. Dodd, A. M. Childs, and C. M. Dawson, Universal simulation of hamiltonian dynamics for quantum systems with finite-dimensional state spaces, Phys. Rev. A66, 022317 (2002)

    2002

  30. [30]

    X. Wang, B. C. Sanders, and D. W. Berry, Entangling power and operator entanglement in qudit systems, Phys. Rev. A67, 042323 (2003)

    2003

  31. [31]

    A. B. Klimov, R. Guzm´ an, J. C. Retamal, and C. Saave- dra, Qutrit quantum computer with trapped ions, Phys. Rev. A67, 062313 (2003)

    2003

  32. [32]

    Bagan, M

    E. Bagan, M. Baig, and R. Mu˜ noz Tapia, Minimal mea- surements of the gate fidelity of a qudit map, Phys. Rev. A67, 014303 (2003)

    2003

  33. [33]

    A. Y. Vlasov, Algebra of quantum computations with higher dimensional systems, inFirst International Sym- posium on Quantum Informatics, Vol. 5128, edited by Y. I. Ozhigov, International Society for Optics and Pho- tonics (SPIE, 2003) pp. 29 – 36

    2003

  34. [34]

    A. D. Greentree, S. G. Schirmer, F. Green, L. C. L. Hol- lenberg, A. R. Hamilton, and R. G. Clark, Maximizing the hilbert space for a finite number of distinguishable quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 097901 (2004)

    2004

  35. [35]

    D. P. O’Leary, G. K. Brennen, and S. S. Bullock, Paral- lelism for quantum computation with qudits, Phys. Rev. A74, 032334 (2006)

    2006

  36. [36]

    T. C. Ralph, K. J. Resch, and A. Gilchrist, Efficient tof- foli gates using qudits, Phys. Rev. A75, 022313 (2007)

    2007

  37. [37]

    B. P. Lanyon, T. J. Weinhold, N. K. Langford, J. L. O’Brien, K. J. Resch, A. Gilchrist, and A. G. White, Manipulating biphotonic qutrits, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 060504 (2008)

    2008

  38. [38]

    Ionicioiu, T

    R. Ionicioiu, T. P. Spiller, and W. J. Munro, General- ized toffoli gates using qudit catalysis, Phys. Rev. A80, 012312 (2009)

    2009

  39. [39]

    Neeley, M

    M. Neeley, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, M. Hofheinz, E. Lucero, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank, H. Wang, J. Wen- ner, A. N. Cleland, M. R. Geller, and J. M. Martinis, Emulation of a quantum spin with a superconducting phase qudit, Science325, 722 (2009)

    2009

  40. [40]

    B. P. Lanyon, M. Barbieri, M. P. Almeida, T. Jennewein, T. C. Ralph, K. J. Resch, G. J. Pryde, J. L. O’Brien, A. Gilchrist, and A. G. White, Simplifying quantum logic using higher-dimensional hilbert spaces, Nature Physics 5, 134 (2009)

    2009

  41. [41]

    S. S. Ivanov, H. S. Tonchev, and N. V. Vitanov, Time- efficient implementation of quantum search with qudits, Phys. Rev. A85, 062321 (2012)

    2012

  42. [42]

    B. E. Mischuck, S. T. Merkel, and I. H. Deutsch, Control of inhomogeneous atomic ensembles of hyperfine qudits, Phys. Rev. A85, 022302 (2012)

    2012

  43. [43]

    Fedorov, L

    A. Fedorov, L. Steffen, M. Baur, M. P. da Silva, and A. Wallraff, Implementation of a toffoli gate with super- conducting circuits, Nature481, 170 (2012)

    2012

  44. [44]

    Li, Z.-H

    B. Li, Z.-H. Yu, and S.-M. Fei, Geometry of quan- tum computation with qutrits, Scientific Reports3, 2594 (2013)

    2013

  45. [45]

    Svetitsky, H

    E. Svetitsky, H. Suchowski, R. Resh, Y. Shalibo, J. M. Martinis, and N. Katz, Hidden two-qubit dynamics of a four-level josephson circuit, Nature Communications5, 11 5617 (2014)

    2014

  46. [46]

    M. J. Peterer, S. J. Bader, X. Jin, F. Yan, A. Kamal, T. J. Gudmundsen, P. J. Leek, T. P. Orlando, W. D. Oliver, and S. Gustavsson, Coherence and decay of higher energy levels of a superconducting transmon qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 010501 (2015)

    2015

  47. [47]

    E. O. Kiktenko, A. K. Fedorov, O. V. Man’ko, and V. I. Man’ko, Multilevel superconducting circuits as two-qubit systems: Operations, state preparation, and entropic in- equalities, Phys. Rev. A91, 042312 (2015)

    2015

  48. [48]

    Kiktenko, A

    E. Kiktenko, A. Fedorov, A. Strakhov, and V. Man’ko, Single qudit realization of the deutsch algorithm using su- perconducting many-level quantum circuits, Physics Let- ters A379, 1409 (2015)

    2015

  49. [49]

    Braum¨ uller, J

    J. Braum¨ uller, J. Cramer, S. Schl¨ or, H. Rotzinger, L. Radtke, A. Lukashenko, P. Yang, S. T. Skacel, S. Probst, M. Marthaler, L. Guo, A. V. Ustinov, and M. Weides, Multiphoton dressing of an anharmonic su- perconducting many-level quantum circuit, Phys. Rev. B 91, 054523 (2015)

    2015

  50. [50]

    Song, S.-L

    C. Song, S.-L. Su, J.-L. Wu, D.-Y. Wang, X. Ji, and S. Zhang, Generation of tree-type three-dimensional en- tangled states via adiabatic passage, Phys. Rev. A93, 062321 (2016)

    2016

  51. [51]

    Frydryszak, L

    A. Frydryszak, L. Jak´ obczyk, and P. Lugiewicz, Deter- mining quantum correlations in bipartite systems - from qubit to qutrit and beyond, Journal of Physics: Confer- ence Series804, 012016 (2017)

    2017

  52. [52]

    Godfrin, A

    C. Godfrin, A. Ferhat, R. Ballou, S. Klyatskaya, M. Ruben, W. Wernsdorfer, and F. Balestro, Operating quantum states in single magnetic molecules: Implemen- tation of grover’s quantum algorithm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 187702 (2017)

    2017

  53. [53]

    Bocharov, M

    A. Bocharov, M. Roetteler, and K. M. Svore, Factor- ing with qutrits: Shor’s algorithm on ternary and meta- plectic quantum architectures, Phys. Rev. A96, 012306 (2017)

    2017

  54. [54]

    M. Kues, C. Reimer, P. Roztocki, L. R. Cort´ es, S. Sciara, B. Wetzel, Y. Zhang, A. Cino, S. T. Chu, B. E. Little, D. J. Moss, L. Caspani, J. Aza˜ na, and R. Morandotti, On-chip generation of high-dimensional entangled quan- tum states and their coherent control, Nature546, 622 (2017)

    2017

  55. [55]

    Gokhale, J

    P. Gokhale, J. M. Baker, C. Duckering, N. C. Brown, K. R. Brown, and F. T. Chong, Asymptotic improve- ments to quantum circuits via qutrits, inProceedings of the 46th International Symposium on Computer Archi- tecture, ISCA ’19 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2019) pp. 554–566

    2019

  56. [56]

    Luo, H.-S

    Y.-H. Luo, H.-S. Zhong, M. Erhard, X.-L. Wang, L.-C. Peng, M. Krenn, X. Jiang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, A. Zeilinger, and J.-W. Pan, Quantum teleportation in high dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 070505 (2019)

    2019

  57. [57]

    P. J. Low, B. M. White, A. A. Cox, M. L. Day, and C. Senko, Practical trapped-ion protocols for universal qudit-based quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 033128 (2020)

    2020

  58. [58]

    Jin, W.-J

    Z. Jin, W.-J. Gong, A.-D. Zhu, S. Zhang, Y. Qi, and S.-L. Su, Dissipative preparation of qutrit entanglement via periodically modulated rydberg double antiblockade, Opt. Express29, 10117 (2021)

    2021

  59. [59]

    Sawant, J

    R. Sawant, J. A. Blackmore, P. D. Gregory, J. Mur-Petit, D. Jaksch, J. Aldegunde, J. M. Hutson, M. R. Tarbutt, and S. L. Cornish, Ultracold polar molecules as qudits, New Journal of Physics22, 013027 (2020)

    2020

  60. [60]

    Pavlidis and E

    A. Pavlidis and E. Floratos, Quantum-fourier-transform- based quantum arithmetic with qudits, Phys. Rev. A 103, 032417 (2021)

    2021

  61. [61]

    Rambow and M

    P. Rambow and M. Tian, Reduction of circuit depth by mapping qubit-based quantum gates to a qudit ba- sis (2021)

    2021

  62. [62]

    A. S. Nikolaeva, E. O. Kiktenko, and A. K. Fedorov, Effi- cient realization of quantum algorithms with qudits, EPJ Quantum Technology11, 1 (2024)

    2024

  63. [63]

    A. S. Nikolaeva, E. O. Kiktenko, and A. K. Fedorov, Universal quantum computing with qubits embedded in trapped-ion qudits, Physical Review A109, 022615 (2024)

    2024

  64. [64]

    D. A. Drozhzhin, A. S. Nikolaeva, E. O. Kiktenko, and A. K. Fedorov, Transpiling quantum assembly language circuits to a qudit form, Entropy26, 1129 (2024)

    2024

  65. [65]

    Barenco, C

    A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, Elementary gates for quantum computa- tion, Phys. Rev. A52, 3457 (1995)

    1995

  66. [66]

    Liu, H.-R

    W.-Q. Liu, H.-R. Wei, and L.-C. Kwek, Low-cost fredkin gate with auxiliary space, Phys. Rev. Applied14, 054057 (2020)

    2020

  67. [67]

    J. M. Baker, C. Duckering, and F. T. Chong, Efficient quantum circuit decompositions via intermediate qudits, in2020 IEEE 50th International Symposium on Multiple- Valued Logic (ISMVL)(2020) pp. 303–308

    2020

  68. [68]

    E. O. Kiktenko, A. S. Nikolaeva, P. Xu, G. V. Shlyap- nikov, and A. K. Fedorov, Scalable quantum computing with qudits on a graph, Phys. Rev. A101, 022304 (2020)

    2020

  69. [69]

    Liu, H.-R

    W.-Q. Liu, H.-R. Wei, and L.-C. Kwek, Universal quan- tum multi-qubit entangling gates with auxiliary spaces, Advanced Quantum Technologies5, 2100136 (2022)

    2022

  70. [70]

    Galda, M

    A. Galda, M. Cubeddu, N. Kanazawa, P. Narang, and N. Earnest-Noble, Implementing a ternary decomposi- tion of the toffoli gate on fixed-frequencytransmon qutrits (2021), arXiv:2109.00558 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  71. [71]

    X. Gu, J. Allcock, S. An, and Y.-x. Liu, Efficient multi- qubit subspace rotations via topological quantum walks (2021)

    2021

  72. [72]

    A. D. Hill, M. J. Hodson, N. Didier, and M. J. Reagor, Realization of arbitrary doubly-controlled quan- tum phase gates (2021)

    2021

  73. [73]

    Y. Chi, J. Huang, Z. Zhang, J. Mao, Z. Zhou, X. Chen, C. Zhai, J. Bao, T. Dai, H. Yuan, M. Zhang, D. Dai, B. Tang, Y. Yang, Z. Li, Y. Ding, L. K. Oxenløwe, M. G. Thompson, J. L. O’Brien, Y. Li, Q. Gong, and J. Wang, A programmable qudit-based quantum processor, Nature Communications13, 1166 (2022)

    2022

  74. [74]

    Ringbauer, M

    M. Ringbauer, M. Meth, L. Postler, R. Stricker, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, and T. Monz, A universal qudit quan- tum processor with trapped ions, Nature Physics18, 1053–1057 (2022)

    2022

  75. [75]

    M. A. Aksenov, I. V. Zalivako, I. A. Semerikov, A. S. Borisenko, N. V. Semenin, P. L. Sidorov, A. K. Fe- dorov, K. Y. Khabarova, and N. N. Kolachevsky, Re- alizing quantum gates with optically addressable 171Yb+ ion qudits, Phys. Rev. A107, 052612 (2023)

    2023

  76. [76]

    Champion, Z

    E. Champion, Z. Wang, R. W. Parker, and M. S. Blok, Efficient control of a transmon qudit using effective spin- 7/2 rotations, Physical Review X15, 10.1103/vbh4-lysv (2025). 12

    work page doi:10.1103/vbh4-lysv 2025

  77. [77]

    Z. Wang, R. W. Parker, E. Champion, and M. S. Blok, High-EJ /EC transmon qudits with up to 12 levels, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 034046 (2025)

    2025

  78. [78]

    Y. Yu, Y. Chi, C. Zhai, J. Huang, Q. Gong, and J. Wang, Simulating hamiltonian dynamics in a programmable photonic quantum processor using linear combinations of unitary operations (2022), arXiv:2211.06723 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  79. [79]

    A. S. Nikolaeva, E. O. Kiktenko, and A. K. Fedorov, De- composing the generalized toffoli gate with qutrits, Phys. Rev. A105, 032621 (2022)

    2022

  80. [80]

    A. S. Nikolaeva, I. V. Zalivako, A. S. Borisenko, N. V. Semenin, K. P. Galstyan, A. E. Korolkov, E. O. Kik- tenko, K. Y. Khabarova, I. A. Semerikov, A. K. Fedorov, and N. N. Kolachevsky, Scalable improvement of the gen- eralized toffoli gate realization using trapped-ion-based qutrits, Physical Review Letters135, 10.1103/p1z9-6w93 (2025)

    doi:10.1103/p1z9-6w93 2025

Showing first 80 references.

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