REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 28 references
Holonomic quantum gates via continuous measurement in bosonic codes: GKP and cat states
T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read Continuous measurement of a time-dependent code subspace can implement logical T gates in cat and GKP bosonic codes through geometric holonomy alone.
desk verdict Cat-code half is a plausible CMHQC extension; the GKP half has a load-bearing projector error, and both halves build the target gate into the path endpoint rather than deriving it from the holonomy. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central mechanism is Zeno confinement of a time-dependent rank-two projector $P(t)=V(t)P_0 V^\dagger(t)$, combined with the parallel-transport (horizontal-lift) condition on the Stiefel bundle, $L^\dagger(t)\dot L(t)=0$. In the rotating frame, the projected Wilczek-Zee connection acts as an effective Hamiltonian; the protocol chooses the driving functions so that the integrated connection $h(t_f)$ is a trivial phase, leaving the geometric action of $V(t_f)$ on the code space as the logical operation. For cats the path is generated by two-photon squeezing plus a logical Z phase; for GKP it is generated by a cubic-phase polynomial $f(Q/\sqrt{\pi})$ and a momentum translation $g(t)$, with $A$ selected to cancel the accumulated $Z_L$ term. The error-correction analysis works with dressed errors $\tilde E_i(t)=V^\dagger(t)E_i V(t)$ and shows that the projected sandwich $P(t)E_j^\dagger E_i P(t)$ has the same vanishing/Pauli block structure as the ideal code.
What would settle it
For the GKP claim, evaluate $P_{\mathrm{GKP}}(t)^2-P_{\mathrm{GKP}}(t)$ with $P_{\mathrm{GKP}}(t)=\tfrac14(I+S_X(t))(I+S_Z(t))$ at an intermediate $g(t)\neq 0$; if this operator does not vanish, then Eq. (57) is not a projector and the dressed Knill-Laflamme proof collapses. For the cat claim, simulate the actual Lindblad measurement dynamics at finite $\kappa$ with $|\alpha|\approx 3$ and check whether the recovered logical operation has a residual $Z_L$ or $Y_L$ error beyond $O(e^{-|\alpha|^2})$; if the residual does not shrink as $|\alpha|$ grows, the trajectory does not implement $\exp(i\theta Z_L)$.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper claims that continuous measurement of a time-varying code subspace alone, without any logical Hamiltonian term, can implement holonomic gates in bosonic codes. For the four-component cat code, the unitary path $V(t)=e^{i\varphi(t)Z_L}S(\xi(t))$ with $\varphi(t)=\theta t/t_f$ and squeezing amplitude $r(t)=j_{0,1}(2|\alpha|^2)^{-1}\sin(2\pi t/t_f)$ closes the loop and satisfies $V(t_f)=e^{i\theta Z_L}$; choosing $\theta=\pi/8$ gives the non-Clifford $T_L$ gate, with numerical process infidelity below $10^{-3}$ for $|\alpha|\gtrsim 3$. For the GKP code, the path $V(t)=e^{i\kappa(t)f(Q/\sqrt{\pi})}e^{-i\sqrt{\pi}g(t)P}$, with $\kappa(t)=2\pi t/t_f$, $g(t)=A\sin^2(\pi t/t_f)$, and $A=-(8\pm 2\sqrt{7})/9$ chosen so the integrated $Z_L$ component of the projected connection vanishes, yields $V(t_f)=e^{2\pi i f(Q/\sqrt{\pi})}=T_{\mathrm{GKP}}$. The paper further claims that the instantaneous code spaces satisfy dressed Knill-Laflamme conditions for the relevant error models, and that leakage out of the code space is bounded by analytically derived Zeno estimates that vanish in the strong-measurement limit.
Load-bearing premise
The load-bearing assumption is that the Zeno limit faithfully realizes the idealized parallel-transport evolution while all neglected corrections, namely $O(e^{-|\alpha|^2})$ terms for the cat path and the non-Hermiticity of the translated GKP stabilizer $S_Z(t)=e^{i2\pi g(t)}S_Z$, remain negligible over the whole trajectory.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Choosing $\theta=\pi/8$ in the cat trajectory yields a non-Clifford $T_L$ gate whose numerically computed process infidelity falls below $10^{-3}$ once $|\alpha|\gtrsim 3$.
- The GKP translated-lattice path realizes $T_{\mathrm{GKP}}$ without a cubic-phase Hamiltonian, so the non-Clifford gate is fixed by the geometry of the closed measurement path rather than by a directly engineered logical interaction.
- Because the instantaneous code spaces obey dressed Knill-Laflamme conditions for the relevant bosonic error models, error correction can in principle operate while the holonomic evolution is underway.
- Leakage from the code space is suppressed by strong measurement: the cat bound scales as $1-\exp\big(-(8/\kappa)\int_0^{t_f}\|B(t)\|_2^2\,dt\big)$ and the GKP bound as $O(1/(\kappa t_f))$, so increasing the Zeno parameter drives both protocols toward the ideal geometric limit.
Reading between the lines
- The GKP construction's cubic polynomial $f$ is not essential: any phase-space function that acts diagonally on the GKP lattice and whose integrated projected $Z_L$ term can be cancelled should generate a different diagonal logical gate from the same translated-lattice template, potentially covering additional non-Clifford rotations.
- Because the paper's finite-energy analysis isolates the dominant effect as a renormalized logical phase rather than state mixing, a natural testable extension is to run the protocol with finite-energy GKP states and verify that the gate error tracks the predicted $\delta\theta(\epsilon)$ rather than an additional leakage channel.
- If the same horizontal-lift construction is combined with a two-qubit geometric gate, the two single-mode protocols would yield a measurement-only universal gate set for bosonic hardware; the paper itself does not construct that two-qubit gate.
- An experimental signature of the cat protocol is the predicted plateau in code-space population as $\kappa t_f$ grows, with the leakage scaling fixed by $j_{0,1}^2\pi^2/(\kappa t_f |\alpha|^2)$; measuring this scaling in a cavity-QED setup would directly test whether the Zeno limit really implements the geometric gate.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper applies continuous-measurement-based holonomic quantum computation (CMHQC) to two bosonic encodings. For the four-component cat code, it constructs a squeezed-cat path V(t)=e^{iφ(t)Z_L}S(ξ(t)) with V(0)=I and V(t_f)=e^{iθZ_L}, chooses the squeezing amplitude through the Bessel zero j_{0,1} to enforce the horizontal condition, and claims arbitrary logical Z rotations including the non-Clifford T_L gate. For the GKP code, it constructs V(t)=e^{iκ(t)f(Q/√π)}e^{-i√π g(t)P} with V(t_f)=T_GKP, introduces an instantaneous projector P_GKP(t)=(I+S_X(t))(I+S_Z(t))/4, and claims a purely geometric implementation of the logical T_GKP gate. The paper also derives dressed Knill-Laflamme conditions and analytic leakage bounds for both codes, with numerical fidelities and leakage simulations.
Significance. If the constructions were valid, the paper would be a valuable step toward measurement-based holonomic gates in bosonic error-correcting platforms, especially because it targets non-Clifford gates and includes explicit error-correction and leakage analysis. The cat-code half is built from legitimate projectors, contains an analytic horizontal-lift calculation, and is supported by leakage simulations; that part is a defensible contribution. The GKP half, however, rests on an invalid definition of the instantaneous code projector, so the central GKP claim is not supported as written. The paper is also careful to state approximations and to provide numerical checks, which is a strength, but the GKP numerical fidelity only tests the endpoint unitary V(t_f), not the measurement-induced Zeno dynamics.
major comments (3)
- [Section III.B, Eq. (57)] The operator P_GKP(t)=1/4(I+S_X(t))(I+S_Z(t)) is not a projector on the oscillator Hilbert space. From Eq. (55), S_Z(t)=e^{i2πg(t)}S_Z is unitary but not Hermitian, and S_X(t) in Eq. (56) is a displaced translation; neither satisfies S=S^† or S^2=I. Therefore (I+S)/2 is not a spectral projection, and P_GKP(t) is neither Hermitian nor idempotent. As a concrete check at t=0, P_GKP|√π>_Q = 1/2(|√π>_Q+|-√π>_Q), which is not an element of the ideal GKP code. Consequently Eq. (57) does not project onto span{|0_L>,|1_L>}, and the subsequent Wilczek-Zee connection, horizontal-lift condition, dressed Knill-Laflamme conditions in Eq. (62), and Zeno leakage argument are derived for an object that is not the monitored code subspace. The finite-energy projector P_ϵ in Eq. (70) is legitimate but is used only for the leakage estimate, not for the holonomy path. This invalidates the GKP T_GKP claim as stated.
- [Appendix D.1, Eqs. (D5)-(D7)] The projected cubic-phase calculation is not well-defined in the ideal-GKP limit. Equations (D5) and (D6) express the matrix elements of f(Q/√π+g) as infinite sums over the ideal comb states, such as ∑_j f(2j√π), but for the cubic polynomial f in Eq. (48) these sums diverge. The step of 'ignoring the modulo 2 values' before Eq. (D7) is not a controlled regularization, so the resulting formulas a_I(t) and a_Z(t), the integral condition Eq. (D11), and the conclusion that h(t_f) is a trivial phase are formal rather than mathematically justified. A consistent treatment must either use a finite-energy projector such as P_ϵ throughout or define the projected operators only through their action on logical basis states with an explicit regularization.
- [Eqs. (21b), (51b), and (A16b)] The claim that the logical gates arise from the projected Wilczek-Zee connection is not supported by the equations as written. In both protocols the target gate is imposed as the endpoint of the control unitary, V(t_f)=exp(iθZ_L) for the cat code and V(t_f)=T_GKP for the GKP code, and the horizontal condition is then used to make the auxiliary factor h(t_f) a trivial phase (Eqs. (C15) and (D11)-(D14)). By Eq. (A16b), the final state is therefore |ψ(t_f)>=V(t_f)|ψ(0)> up to a global phase, so the logical operation is exactly the endpoint of the control unitary. This can be a legitimate holonomic protocol if V(t_f) is interpreted as the holonomy of the closed Grassmannian path, but the paper should state this identification explicitly; as written, the abstract's statement that the connection 'generates' the logical operations is contradicted by the fact that the projected connection is made to vanish.
minor comments (4)
- [Eq. (3)] The normalization constant N_k is typeset in a way that is difficult to parse; the parentheses and exponentials should be rewritten so that the large-|α| limit N_k→1/2 is immediately visible.
- [Section II.D, Eqs. (C41)-(C42)] The definition of p_code as p_0(t_f)+p_1(t_f) needs clarification: for a superposition initial state the probability of remaining in the code is <ψ|P_0|ψ>, and the derivation appears to treat the two logical branches as if they were incoherent alternatives.
- [Figs. 1 and 4] The fidelities plotted are overlaps with V(t_f)|ψ(0)>, not fidelities of the full measurement-based Zeno evolution; the captions should say this explicitly to avoid overstating the numerical verification of the CMHQC protocol.
- [Eq. (56)] The displayed simplification of S_X(t) is correct only up to the stated replacement f(x)-f(x-2); the intermediate expression should be written out to avoid confusing the reader about the order of factors in the exponential.
Circularity Check
Gate "holonomies" are the imposed endpoints V(tf): cat Eq. (21b) and GKP Eq. (51b) fix the output gate, and the horizontal-lift parameter choices make the actual holonomy h trivial.
-
self definitional
[Section II.B, Eqs. (20)-(21b), and Appendix C.1, Eq. (C15)]
"At time t= 0 the unitary V is simply the identity, but at the final time t f it will produce the desired logical gate parametrized by the phase θ: V(0) =I,(21a) V(tf) = exp(iθZL).(21b) ... To make the unitary h(t) in Eq. (A15) trivial, h(t)≈I, we choose ... χ(t) = 2|α|2r(t) sin π 2 = j 0,1 sin 2πt tf , (C15a) Z tf 0 cosχ(t)dt=t fJ0(j0,1) = 0, (C15b) Z tf 0 sinχ(t)dt= 0. (C15c)"
The predicted logical gate exp(iθZ_L) is exactly the endpoint V(tf) imposed in Eq. (21b). The Wilczek-Zee holonomy h(tf) is then made trivial by choosing the Bessel zero j0,1 so that the projected connection integrates to zero. The final state is therefore V(tf)|ψ(0)>, which equals the input boundary condition by definition. No geometric holonomy is derived: the connection contributes identity, and the gate is loaded into V(tf) rather than emerging from the closed path in the Grassmannian.
-
self definitional
[Section III.B, Eqs. (50)-(51b), and Appendix D.1, Eqs. (D11)-(D15)]
"V(t) =e iκ(t)f(Q/√π)e−i√πg(t)P ... V(0) =I(51a) V(tf) =e 2iπf(Q/√π) =T GKP.(51b) ... We wish to make h(tf)≈ξIa trivial phase ... We chose g(t) in Eq. (53b) such that a Z integrated from 0 to t f is zero ... So we can conclude that at the final time the state is |ψ(tf)⟩=V(t f)L(0)h(tf)|ψ(0)⟩∝T GKP|ψ(0)⟩. (D15)"
T_GKP is inserted as the endpoint V(tf) in Eq. (51b). The functions κ(t) and g(t) are then chosen (including the amplitude A) so that h(tf) is a trivial phase, i.e. the geometric holonomy is identity. Equation (D15) then outputs T_GKP|ψ(0)> solely because V(tf)=T_GKP by definition. The claim that the T gate is 'realized through a purely geometric holonomy' therefore reduces to the boundary condition; the only computed geometric object, h(tf), has been deliberately eliminated.
1 more flagged steps
-
fitted input called prediction
[Fig. 1 caption and Section II.B simulation paragraph]
"The state evolves according to the time-dependent unitary pathV(t) in Eq. (20), usingθ=π/8,α= 3,t f = 5, and a Fock-space truncation ofN max = 40. ... The protocol reaches unit fidelity att=t f, demonstrating the implementation of the target logical gate."
The numerical simulation evolves the state with the explicit unitary V(t), not with the measurement-induced Zeno dynamics, and V(tf) was defined in Eq. (21b) to be exp(iθZ_L). Unit fidelity to T|ψ(0)> at t_f is therefore a direct consequence of the imposed endpoint, not an independent demonstration of a holonomic gate. The same constructive coincidence appears in the GKP fidelity plot, where V(tf)=T_GKP by Eq. (51b).
full rationale
The central gate claims in both halves are circular by construction, but not by self-citation. For the cat protocol, Eq. (21b) fixes V(tf)=exp(iθZ_L); Appendix C.1 then chooses the squeezing parameters so that the projected connection integrates to zero and h(tf)≈I, i.e. the Wilczek-Zee holonomy is trivial. The final state V(tf)|ψ(0)> is exactly the imposed endpoint. For the GKP protocol, Eq. (51b) fixes V(tf)=T_GKP, and Appendix D.1 chooses A so that h(tf) is a trivial phase; Eq. (D15) then outputs T_GKP|ψ(0)> by definition. In both cases the statement that the holonomy reproduces the desired logical operation is the boundary condition itself, and the only computed geometric quantity, h, is made the identity. The numerical fidelities in Figs. 1 and 4 apply V(t) directly to the initial state, so unit fidelity at t_f follows from V(tf)=T and supplies no independent evidence. I do not count the self-citations [1,2] as load-bearing: the geometric framework is restated self-containedly in Appendix A, and the circularity is not a citation chain. The separate mathematical concern that P_GKP(t) in Eq. (57) is not a true projector (S_Z(t) is non-Hermitian and S_X,S_Z are not involutions) is a correctness issue rather than a circular-reasoning step, so it is not scored as an additional circularity but reinforces that the GKP holonomy derivation is not well founded.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (4)
- Cat squeezing amplitude scale r0 =
j0,1/(2|α|^2) ≈ 1.2024/|α|^2
- Cat squeezing phase ϑ =
2 arg(α) − π/2
- GKP displacement envelope amplitude A =
A = −(8 ± 2√7)/9, roughly −1.477 or −0.301
- GKP cubic envelope rate κ(t) =
κ(t) = 2π t/t_f
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption Strong-measurement Zeno limit of continuously monitoring P(t) yields the horizontal-lift dynamics |ψ(t)> = V(t)L(0)h(t)L†(0)|ψ(0)>.
- domain assumption For large cat amplitude |α|^2 >> 1, O(e^{-|α|^2}) corrections can be neglected, for example in Eq (C9).
- domain assumption Ideal GKP code space properties: P_GKP e^{-iΔu P} P_GKP = 0 for off-lattice Δu, and diagonal matrix elements of f(Q/√π+g) are f(g) and f(g+1).
- ad hoc to paper Eq (57) defines P_GKP(t) as 1/4 (I+S_X(t))(I+S_Z(t)), treating S_X(t) and S_Z(t) as projectors.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Holonomic quantum gates via continuous measurement in bosonic codes: GKP and cat states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JIM4B7LE
@misc{pith2026260811369,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Holonomic quantum gates via continuous measurement in bosonic codes: GKP and cat states},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JIM4B7LE}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11369}
}
read the original abstract
We apply continuous measurement-based holonomic quantum computation (CMHQC) to bosonic quantum error-correcting codes and develop explicit protocols for both four-component cat codes and Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP) codes. In this framework, a continuously monitored time-dependent codespace undergoes a closed trajectory on the Grassmannian manifold while Zeno confinement suppresses departures from the instantaneous code subspace. For cat codes, we construct a family of squeezed-cat trajectories whose projected Wilczek-Zee connection generates arbitrary logical Z rotations, including non-Clifford T-gates. For GKP codes, we introduce a translated-lattice trajectory that realizes the logical GKP T gate through a purely geometric holonomy. We derive the corresponding time-dependent projectors, analytically evaluate the projected connections, and show that the resulting holonomies reproduce the desired logical operations without Hamiltonian control. Furthermore, we analyze the error-correcting capabilities of the instantaneous codespaces by establishing dressed Knill-Laflamme conditions for the relevant bosonic error models and derive analytical estimates for leakage induced by finite-strength continuous measurements. Our results provide a concrete realization of measurement-induced holonomic control in experimentally relevant bosonic platforms and establish a full fault-tolerant logical gate implementation.
Figures
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Continuous measurement-based holonomic quantum computation
A. Lanka, J. Garcia-Nila, and T. A. Brun, Continu- ous measurement-based holonomic quantum computa- tion, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2510.06725 [quant- ph]
work page Pith review arXiv 2025
- [2]
-
[3]
Wilczek and A
F. Wilczek and A. Zee, Appearance of gauge structure in simple dynamical systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.52, 2111 (1984)
1984
-
[4]
Zanardi and M
P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, Holonomic quantum compu- tation, Physics Letters A264, 94 (1999)
1999
-
[5]
C. J. G. Mommers and E. Sj¨ oqvist, Universal quantum computation and quantum error correction using discrete holonomies, Phys. Rev. A105, 022402 (2022)
work page 2022
-
[6]
Gottesman, A
D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Phys. Rev. A64, 012310 (2001)
2001
-
[7]
Mirrahimi, Z
M. Mirrahimi, Z. Leghtas, V. V. Albert, S. Touzard, R. J. Schoelkopf, L. Jiang, and M. H. Devoret, Dynamically protected cat-qubits: a new paradigm for universal quan- tum computation, New Journal of Physics16, 045014 (2014)
2014
-
[8]
Z. Leghtas, S. Touzard, I. M. Pop, A. Kou, B. Vlastakis, A. Petrenko, K. M. Sliwa, A. Narla, S. Shankar, M. J. Hatridge, M. Reagor, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, and M. H. Devoret, Confining the state of light to a quantum manifold by engi- neered two-photon loss, Science347, 853 (2015), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aaa2085
Show all 28 references
-
[9]
Touzard, A
S. Touzard, A. Grimm, Z. Leghtas, S. O. Mundhada, P. Reinhold, C. Axline, M. Reagor, K. Chou, J. Blumoff, K. M. Sliwa, S. Shankar, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, and M. H. Devoret, Coherent oscilla- tions inside a quantum manifold stabilized by dissipation, Phys. ...
2018
-
[10]
Grimm, N
A. Grimm, N. E. Frattini, S. Puri, S. O. Mundhada, S. Touzard, M. Mirrahimi, S. M. Girvin, S. Shankar, and M. H. Devoret, Stabilization and operation of a kerr-cat qubit, Nature584, 205–209 (2020)
2020
-
[11]
Glancy and E
S. Glancy and E. Knill, Error analysis for encod- ing a qubit in an oscillator, Physical Review A73, 10.1103/physreva.73.012325 (2006)
2006 doi
-
[12]
Fukui, A
K. Fukui, A. Tomita, A. Okamoto, and K. Fujii, High- threshold fault-tolerant quantum computation with ana- log quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. X8, 021054 (2018)
2018
-
[13]
Fl¨ uhmann, T
C. Fl¨ uhmann, T. Nguyen, M. Marinelli, V. Negnevitsky, K. Mehta, and J. Home, Encoding a qubit in a trapped- ion mechanical oscillator, Nature566, 513 (2019)
2019
-
[14]
B. e. a. de Neeve, Error correction with the gottesman- kitaev-preskill code, Nature (2025)
2025
-
[15]
V. V. Albert, C. Shu, S. Krastanov, C. Shen, R.- B. Liu, Z.-B. Yang, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, and L. Jiang, Holonomic quantum con- trol with continuous variable systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 140502 (2016)
2016
-
[16]
Krastanov, V
S. Krastanov, V. V. Albert, C. Shen, C.-L. Zou, R. W. Heeres, B. Vlastakis, R. J. Schoelkopf, and L. Jiang, Uni- versal control of an oscillator with dispersive coupling to a qubit, Phys. Rev. A92, 040303(R) (2015)
2015
-
[17]
Kang, Y.-H
Y.-H. Kang, Y.-H. Chen, X. Wang, J. Song, Y. Xia, A. Miranowicz, S.-B. Zheng, and F. Nori, Nonadiabatic geometric quantum computation with cat-state qubits via invariant-based reverse engineering, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013233 (2022)
2022
-
[18]
Zhang, Y.-H
H.-L. Zhang, Y.-H. Kang, F. Wu, Z.-B. Yang, and S.- B. Zheng, Non-adiabatic holonomic quantum operations in continuous variable systems, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy67, 10.1007/s11433-023-2339-x (2024)
2024 doi
-
[19]
S. Puri, L. St-Jean, J. A. Gross, A. Grimm, N. E. Frat- tini, P. S. Iyer, A. Krishna, S. Touzard, L. Jiang, A. Blais, S. T. Flammia, and S. M. Girvin, Bias-preserving gates with stabilized cat qubits, Science Advances6, 10.1126/s- ciadv.aay5901 (2020)
2020 doi
-
[20]
R. W. Heeres, B. Vlastakis, E. Holland, S. Krastanov, V. V. Albert, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Cavity state manipulation using photon-number selective phase gates, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 137002 (2015)
2015
-
[21]
M. T. P. Nguyen and M. H. Shaw, Fault-tolerant non- clifford gottesman-kitaev-preskill gates using polynomial phase gates and on-demand noise biasing, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 033107 (2026)
2026
-
[22]
N. C. Menicucci, Fault-tolerant measurement-based quantum computing with continuous-variable cluster states, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 120504 (2014). Appendix A: Measurement-based holonomic quantum computing The natural geometric object is the complex Grass- mannian manifold of ran...
2014
-
[23]
(A16), where the horizontal liftL(t) is given in Eq
Horizontal lift for cat codes The dynamics of a state|ψ(t)⟩in the cat-qubit codespace is given in Eq. (A16), where the horizontal liftL(t) is given in Eq. (A9) and it satisfies the parallel transport condition Eq. (A13) [3]. To obtain the unitaryh(t) in Eq. (A15) for the cat c...
-
[24]
(10) and annihilation operator from Eq
Error correction conditions To find the Knill-Laflamme conditions for the cat code, we start with the parity from Eq. (10) and annihilation operator from Eq. (1), whose anticommutation property gives ΠaΠ =−a,(C16) which follows immediately from Eq. (C2) withθ=π. Using the fact...
-
[25]
(37) using the Lindblad ensemble average equation in its rotated-frame version Eq
Leakage probability due to measurement Now we discuss how to derive the leakage probability in Eq. (37) using the Lindblad ensemble average equation in its rotated-frame version Eq. (33). We have defined the leakage subspaceQ 0 in Eq. (36), such that we decompose the whole Hil...
-
[26]
(A16); the horizontal liftL(t) is given in Eq
Horizontal lift for the GKP code The dynamics of a state|ψ(t)⟩in the codespace is given in Eq. (A16); the horizontal liftL(t) is given in Eq. (A9), and the unitaryh(t) in Eq. (A15). We wish to make h(tf)≈ξIa trivial phase, so we need to compute the termV †Vfor the unitary rota...
-
[27]
(58), the unitary is given by Eq
Error-correcting conditions To evaluate the error-correcting conditions for the in- stantaneous codespace, we analyze PGKPV†(t)E† jEiV(t)P GKP,(D16) where the correctable error set has the form in Eq. (58), the unitary is given by Eq. (50), and they satisfy the conditions Eq. ...
-
[28]
(45) are the distributions ψ(k) ideal(q)≡⟨q|k L⟩∝ X t∈Z δ(q−q (k) t ) (D27a) q(k) t ≡(2t+k) √π,(D27b) wherek∈{0,1}denotes 0 L or 1L, respectively
Truncated GKP states In position space, the ideal square-lattice GKP states described in Eq. (45) are the distributions ψ(k) ideal(q)≡⟨q|k L⟩∝ X t∈Z δ(q−q (k) t ) (D27a) q(k) t ≡(2t+k) √π,(D27b) wherek∈{0,1}denotes 0 L or 1L, respectively. A standard finite-energy regularizati...
Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.