Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 90 references

Efficient and scalable inter-module switching for distributed quantum computing architectures

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper aims to show that generalized Mach-Zehnder interferometers, normally treated as blocking switches, can be arranged in decentralized networks that provide simultaneous any-to-any connectivity between quantum computing modules with

desk verdict Useful GMZI quantum characterization, but the Spanke resource comparison is ambiguous and needs a clean count. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19088 v1 pith:7L7CYNJD submitted 2025-08-26 quant-ph math-phmath.MPphysics.optics

Kamil Bradler This is my paper
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MPphysics.optics
keywords distributedquantumcomputingopticalswitchingnetworksgeneralizedMach-Zehnderinterferometersimultaneousany-to-anyconnectivityFock-stateroutingsignedpermutationssurfacecodeinterconnectactivedepth
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 sets out to show that a Generalized Mach-Zehnder Interferometer (GMZI), normally regarded as a blocking switch, can be arranged in decentralized networks that give simultaneous any-to-any (sa2a) connectivity between modules of a distributed quantum computer. The load-bearing result is a Fock-space identity: with quantum-Fourier-transform passive layers and type-consistent 0/pi phase settings, the GMZI acts as a signed permutation of modes, the sign depending only on total photon number and the last phase. This lets each GMZI route several photons from several inputs at once, so the author replaces the GMZI-based Spanke network with constellations of smaller GMZIs that cut the active depth per photon from four to two and fiber-to-chip couplers from eight to four without loss of routing functionality. If correct, the schemes make the photon-loss budget for inter-module entanglement substantially easier to meet, directly serving modular fault-tolerant quantum computers based on color centers, ions, neutral atoms, and photonic measurement-based quantum computing.

What carries the argument

The object doing the work is the GMZI unitary S_phi = W-dagger D(phi) W, where W is the N-mode quantum Fourier transform (a passive network of 50/50 beam splitters) and D(phi) is a middle layer of phase shifters. The analysis tracks how D(phi) acts inside each SU(2) representation labeled by photon number, using the small Wigner d-matrices for beam splitters. Type-consistent phase strings—where at every nesting level the two halves of phi are either equal or bitwise inverted—are shown to convert the phase layer into a signed permutation on Fock space; the resulting permutation sigma is read off from the phase string, and the sign from the last phase. That signed-permutation action is the mec

What would settle it

Take an 8x8 GMZI with W as the 8-mode quantum Fourier transform and the type-consistent phase string (0 pi pi 0 pi 0 0 pi) from Eq. (30), and compute the full Fock-space unitary on the input |1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0>. Equation (45) predicts a signed permutation with permutation (18)(27)(36)(45) and global sign + (four photons, last phase pi); a direct Wigner-matrix calculation either confirms this or falsifies the induction on which the resource claims rest.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central technical discovery is Eq. (45) of Appendix A: for an N-by-N GMZI with N a power of two, passive layers W and W-dagger realizing the quantum Fourier transform, and phase vector phi whose entries are 0 or pi in a type-consistent pattern, the switching unitary S_phi acts on any Fock state as (-1)^{n_tot phi(N)/pi} times the same state with modes permuted by sigma. In plain terms, the GMZI routes photons like classical distinguishable particles: the output is the same permutation of modes regardless of how the photons are distributed among inputs, and only a global phase records their bosonic character. The same analysis gives a complete bijection between allowed phase strings and p

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the unstated induction in Appendix A that the signed-permutation identity, proven for Fock states with at most two occupied modes, holds for arbitrary occupation numbers; if that generalization fails, the multi-photon resource counts for the schemes in Figs. 4-7 are unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Each module needs N-1 GMZIs rather than 2N for direct entanglement schemes, with active depth two and four fiber couplers per photon instead of four and eight.
  • A four-GMZI, 4-to-12 scheme implements a transversal CNOT between any two [4,1,2] surface-code patches simultaneously, halving the lossy components relative to the 16-to-16 Spanke network.
  • For probabilistic entanglement, placing the Bell-state gadget between module and GMZI and doubling the GMZI inputs (N to 2N) preserves sa2a and an active depth of two; an alternative graph-theoretic wiring for N=2k modules uses only N/2-to-N/2 GMZIs and reaches any pair in at most three GMZI passes.
  • The same switches give a constant active depth of two for CSS stabilizer readout and for sending magic states from a factory to k modules via an N-to-kN GMZI.
  • The switch is insensitive to the relative arrival times of photons, so routing succeeds whether or not photons arrive simultaneously.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: the unproved induction after Eq. (45) is the spot to probe first; a direct Fock-space simulation of an 8x8 GMZI with three or four photons would either confirm the signed-permutation rule or invalidate the multi-photon resource counts.
  • Extension: the phase redundancy in Table 2 (several equivalent configurations per module pair) could be repurposed as fault tolerance, steering around a faulty GMZI port or fiber, an optimization the paper only hints at.
  • Extension: because the GMZI's routing action is independent of photon arrival times, the switching schemes could be combined with the temporal or frequency multiplexing the paper sets aside, raising entanglement attempt rates without adding active depth.
  • Extension: the graph-theoretic construction of Fig. 9 should generalize beyond even N by using longer directed cycles instead of 3-cycles, giving bounded-depth sa2a fabrics for arbitrary module counts at the cost of larger GMZIs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes several decentralized switching schemes based on Generalized Mach-Zehnder Interferometers (GMZIs) to provide simultaneous any-to-any (sa2a) connectivity between modules of a distributed quantum computer. The central technical claim, developed in Appendix A, is that a GMZI with a QFT passive structure and 'type-consistent' {0,π} phase settings acts on arbitrary Fock states as a signed permutation of the input modes. The paper then uses this to construct direct and probabilistic entanglement-routing schemes that, it claims, halve the active depth and the number of fiber-to-chip couplers relative to a GMZI-based Spanke network. Case studies cover transversal CNOT and lattice-surgery merge operations for [4,1,2] surface-code patches and an MBQC architecture.

Significance. If the central routing claim is correct, the paper offers a genuinely useful resource reduction for optical switching in modular fault-tolerant quantum computing, and the Wigner-d-matrix characterization of GMZI switching is a valuable theoretical contribution. The work is parameter-free, contains explicit worked examples (Table 1, Eqs. (21)-(31)), and provides concrete phase configurations for case studies (Table 2). The main results, however, rest on two load-bearing points that need attention: the multi-photon generalization of the signed-permutation action is asserted rather than proved, and the resource baseline for the Spanke comparison is defined inconsistently.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (45)] The generalization from single-photon/single-mode inputs to arbitrary multi-mode Fock states is not proved. Eq. (45) states the signed-permutation action for two occupied modes, and the text says 'exactly the same expression as in Eq. (40) follows by induction,' but the induction step is never shown. In particular, the displayed factorization Sφ(|0,...,ni,...,0>)⊗Sφ(|0,...,nj,...,0>) is not justified, since Sφ acts on the full N-mode Hilbert space and not separately on disjoint two-mode subspaces. Because all schemes in Figs. 4-8 rely on simultaneous multi-photon inputs (e.g., |1,1,1,1>), this gap is load-bearing. Please supply the missing argument, for example by deriving U a_i† U† = α a_{σ^{-1}(i)}† from the single-photon result and then extending to multi-photon creation operators, or by giving an explicit induction.
  2. [Sec. 2 / Fig. 3 / Sec. 3, Fig. 4] The active-depth baseline for the GMZI-based Spanke network is inconsistent. The paper defines active depth as 'the number of active optical components a single photon has to pass through' (Sec. 2). Under that definition, a photon in a GMZI-based Spanke path passes through exactly one 1→M GMZI and one N→1 GMZI, i.e., two active layers, and a photon in the Fig. 4 direct scheme passes through one 1→M GMZI, i.e., one active layer. The reported 'four to two' and 'eight to four' numbers correspond instead to per-entangling-attempt counts involving two photons. This ambiguity affects the headline resource comparison, the Fig. 6 counts ('active depth four' vs. 'active depth two'), and the Fig. 8 claim of 'active depth three.' Please restate all resource counts with an explicit per-photon or per-attempt definition and use that definition consistently; if per-photon counts are adopted, the Fig. 8
  3. [Sec. 2, paragraph after Fig. 3] The text contains a direct internal contradiction about the Spanke baseline: it first says substituting GMZIs into the Spanke network 'reduce[s] the active optical depth to two [31],' and then the next sentence claims the resulting schemes 'imply an active depth four.' The same network is assigned both values. This is not merely a typo, because the subsequent comparisons ('halving from four to two') depend on which value is meant. Please resolve the contradiction by defining the counting convention precisely and applying it to every scheme compared.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Footnote 4] The tacit rounding of non-power-of-two port numbers to the nearest power of two changes the passive-layer count and coupler count. A sentence quantifying the resulting overhead would help the scalability discussion.
  2. [Sec. 2, Eq. (1)] The falling-factorial notation in Eq. (1) is concise but the displayed formula 'min[(M)_M, (M)_N]' is easy to misread; adding a short explanation or an example would improve clarity.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical slips ('algortihms', 'as a remainder' for 'as a reminder', 'respectivelly'), and the Figure 3 caption repeats the 'active depth four' claim that conflicts with the main text. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  4. [Appendix A, Eq. (41)] The Hilbert-space decomposition in Eq. (41) is introduced rather abruptly. Since it is used in the sign argument, a short explanation of why the pivot sector determines the sign for all sectors would make the derivation easier to follow.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the GMZI switching action is derived from first principles; the flagged weaknesses are an unproved induction and an inconsistent baseline count, neither of which is circular.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain. The central technical result, Eq. (45), is obtained in Appendix A by direct calculation: S_phi = W† D(phi) W with W the QFT and D the phase operator, and the Wigner d-matrix identities (19), (20), (43), (44) are used to show that type-consistent phase layers act as identity or swap on two-mode Fock subspaces with sign (-)^(n_tot phi(N)/pi). This is a first-principles derivation from the stated model, not an import of the conclusion. The sa2a switching schemes in Sec. 3 are resource counts built on that derived permutation action; no parameter is fitted and no prediction is statistically forced. The Spanke baseline ('achieving a constant active depth four', Fig. 3 caption; 'reduce the active optical depth to two [31]... implies an active depth four') is attributed to the external reference [31], so the comparison is not self-referential. Self-citations [24] and [79] appear only in the GHZ-measurement MBQC case study and in a citation for flexible entangled-state generation; they are illustrative, not premises of the switching theorem. I therefore find no circular step. Two correctness risks are nevertheless flagged. First, after Eq. (45) the text says 'and exactly the same expression as in Eq. (40) follows by induction', but the displayed derivation covers states with at most two occupied modes and the induction for more than two occupied modes is not shown; the subsequent linearity/complete-basis remark does not close the gap because a multi-occupied Fock basis state is not a superposition of two-occupied-mode states. This matters for the multi-photon schemes in Figs. 4-8. Second, the text counts the same Spanke circuit as active depth two and then four without a path-by-path definition; this is an accounting inconsistency, not a reduction to inputs. Neither issue raises the circularity score under the stated rubric.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities. The load-bearing axioms are the QFT structure of the GMZI, the Wigner-matrix description of beam splitters, the loss model based on active depth and couplers, and the tacit rounding of N-to-M sizes to powers of two. The paper's own type-consistency and pivot claims are derived results, but their proofs have gaps noted in the report.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The GMZI unitary is W-dagger D(phi) W with W the N-mode quantum Fourier transform for N a power of two
    Invoked throughout Appendix A; restricts the analysis to QFT-based GMZIs. Footnote 4 extends by rounding N,M to powers of two.
  • standard math A beam splitter acting on n photons is described by the spin-j=n/2 Wigner d-matrix
    Standard result used in Eqs. (4)-(9), citing ref. [89].
  • domain assumption Photon loss is dominated by active switching layers and fiber-to-chip couplers
    Motivates the figures of merit in Sec. 2; stated qualitatively, no loss model or quantitative validation.
  • ad hoc to paper GMZIs with port numbers not powers of two can be treated by rounding up to the nearest power of two
    Footnote 4; allows 4-to-12 and 8-to-16 examples to use the power-of-two analysis.
  • domain assumption Low-loss large-port-count GMZIs are manufacturable at the scale required
    Relies on ref. [34]; without this, the schemes have no practical advantage.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient and scalable inter-module switching for distributed quantum computing architectures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7L7CYNJD

@misc{pith2026250819088,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient and scalable inter-module switching for distributed quantum computing architectures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7L7CYNJD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19088}
}
read the original abstract

Large-scale fault-tolerant quantum computers of the future will likely be modular by necessity or by design. Modularity is inevitable if the substrate cannot support the desired error-correction code due to its planar geometry or manufacturing constraints resulting in a limited number of logical qubits per module. Even if the computer is compact enough there may be functional requirements to distribute the quantum computation substrate over distant regions of varying scales. In both cases, matter-based quantum information, such as spins, ions or neutral atoms, is the most conveniently transmitted or mediated by photonic interconnects. To avoid long algorithm execution times and reduce errors, each module of a universal quantum computer should be dynamically interconnected with as many other modules as possible. This task relies on an optical switching network providing any-to-any or sufficiently high simultaneous connectivity. In this work we construct several novel and decentralized switching schemes based on the properties of the Generalized Mach-Zehnder Interferometer (GMZI) that are more economic and less noisy compared to commonly considered alternatives while achieving the same functionality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19088 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A high-level picture of simultaneous any-to-any (sa2a) connectiv￾ity studied in this paper. Any pair of logical modules (four surface code patches for illustration) are required to be simultaneously connectable by N links, typically optical fibers. This corresponds to three perfect matchings: [(1, 2),(3, 4)], [(1, 3),(2, 4)] and [(1, 4),(2, 3)]. and photon loss reduces it further. The main result in the form of seve… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The output ports of an N → N non-blocking switches (the rectangle black boxes) are hardwired so is possible to convert the sender/receiver operation mode to the sa2a scenario by simultaneously connecting n = N/2 pairs of the output ports either deterministically (on the left) or probabilistically (on the right), where the orange box is a general entangling operation such as the BSM. The grey lines illustrate a parti… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Top) N → M Spanke’s (also called switch-and-select) network as an example of the switching device capable of the routing illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A collection of N = M +1 matter qubits (the black dots), each emitting a single photon to a fixed input port of a 1 → M GMZI. By counting the components every photon state has to go through, our scheme is simpler and less noisy than Spanke’s network in [PITH_FULL_IMAG…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A high-level depiction of a typical problem in modular quantum com￾puting. A collection of M + 1 logical qubits (here illustrated as rotated surface code patches) whose N supporting physical qubits are required to interact to enact simultaneous two-qubit operations suc…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A comparison of the GMZI-based Spanke network (a) and (b) recon￾nected as depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: By carefully inserting an entangling gadget (the orange box) between a logical module and an GMZI in probabilistic schemes we make sure that in this way modules updated in this way are identical (equalized) and so we are not artificially splitting the communication net…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Connectivity for N = 8 matter qubits (the black dots) can be achieved by only 4 → 4 GMZIs if we erase the difference between the input and output sides of the GMZI and allow some photons to enter through the input, where the matter qubits are typically generated. Sa2a …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A mixed graph G constructed in the text. GMZIs, each of them with a matter qubit substrate, where e1 , e2 are the entangling modules and the directed edges indicate the direction of photons such that any pair of substrates can get entangled with at most three GMZI trip…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: [4, 1, 2] surface code patch constructed from the T centers [12] serving as the data (black dots) and check qubits (red and blue dots) connected by the BSM entangling modules in the form of the Barret-Kok protocol [54] depicted as orange squares [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A GMZI-based switching setup for a simultaneous transversal CNOT between any pair of the five [4, 1, 2] surface code patches from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Two [4, 1, 2] surface code patches combined (merged) into a single code. 8 → 8 GMZI A 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 → 8 GMZI B 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 → 8 GMZI C 8 → 8 GMZI D 8 → 8 GMZI E [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Five [4, 1, 2] modules (A-E) from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: RHG lattice [72] build from encoded Bell pairs (edges with a blue and a red vertex) and the GHZ measurement [24]. The arrows indicate how to redirect blue encoded qubits at different times from one idling substrate to the other in order to merge them. The RHG lattice …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The most straightforward use of the GMZIs is for a stabilizer measure￾ment of the CSS codes. We depict the [9, 1, 3] rotated surface code’s Tanner graph. On the left it is in a geometrically friendly form and on the right as a bipartite graph. The GMZIs depicted as re…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The structure of the 8 → 8 GMZI and some terminology used to illus￾trate the derivation of the general N → N GMZI properties in order to act as an optical switch. W is a passive optical circuit implementing the standard quantum Fourier transform [16] for a practically…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    Switch networks for photonic fusion-based quantum computing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.13760, 2021

    Sara Bartolucci, Patrick Birchall, Damien Bonneau, Hugo Cable, Mercedes Gimeno-Segovia, Konrad Kieling, Naomi Nickerson, Terry Rudolph, and Chris Sparrow. Switch networks for photonic fusion-based quantum computing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.13760, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  2. [1]

    Logical computation demonstrated with a neutral atom quantum processor.arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2411, 2024

    Ben W Reichardt, Adam Paetznick, David Aasen, Ivan Basov, Juan M Bello-Rivas, Parsa Bon- derson, Rui Chao, Wim van Dam, Matthew B Hastings, Andres Paz, et al. Logical computation demonstrated with a neutral atom quantum processor.arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2411, 2024

    2024

  3. [2]

    Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators. Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold. Nature, 638(8052):920–926, February 2025

    2025

  4. [3]

    Experimental demonstration of logical magic state distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15165, 2024

    Pedro Sales Rodriguez, John M Robinson, Paul Niklas Jepsen, Zhiyang He, Casey Duckering, Chen Zhao, Kai-Hsin Wu, Joseph Campo, Kevin Bagnall, Minho Kwon, et al. Experimental demonstration of logical magic state distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15165, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [4]

    High-fidelity teleportation of a logical qubit using transversal gates and lattice surgery.Science, 385(6715):1327–1331, 2024

    C Ryan-Anderson, NC Brown, CH Baldwin, JM Dreiling, C Foltz, JP Gaebler, TM Gatterman, N Hewitt, C Holliman, CV Horst, et al. High-fidelity teleportation of a logical qubit using transversal gates and lattice surgery.Science, 385(6715):1327–1331, 2024

    2024

  6. [5]

    Demonstration of two-dimensional connectivity for a scalable error-corrected ion-trap quantum processor archi- tecture

    Marco Valentini, Martin W van Mourik, Friederike Butt, Jakob Wahl, Matthias Dietl, Michael Pfeifer, Fabian Anmasser, Yves Colombe, Clemens Rössler, Philip Holz, et al. Demonstration of two-dimensional connectivity for a scalable error-corrected ion-trap quantum processor archi- tecture. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02406, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [6]

    Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays.Nature, 626(7997):58–65, 2024

    Dolev Bluvstein, Simon J Evered, Alexandra A Geim, Sophie H Li, Hengyun Zhou, Tom Manovitz, Sepehr Ebadi, Madelyn Cain, Marcin Kalinowski, Dominik Hangleiter, et al. Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays.Nature, 626(7997):58–65, 2024

    2024

  8. [7]

    Demonstrationofquantum computation and error correction with a tesseract code

    Ben W Reichardt, David Aasen, Rui Chao, Alex Chernoguzov, Wim van Dam, John P Gaebler, DanGresh,DominicLucchetti,MichaelMills,StevenAMoses,etal. Demonstrationofquantum computation and error correction with a tesseract code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04628, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 90 references
  1. [8]

    Large-scale modular quantum-computer architecture with atomic memory and photonic interconnects.Physical Review A, 89(2):022317, 2014

    Christopher Monroe, Robert Raussendorf, Alex Ruthven, Kenneth R Brown, Peter Maunz, L-M Duan, and Jungsang Kim. Large-scale modular quantum-computer architecture with atomic memory and photonic interconnects.Physical Review A, 89(2):022317, 2014

    2014

  2. [9]

    Spin qubit performance at the error correction threshold: Advancing quantum information processing above 700 mk.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01920, 2024

    S Amitonov, A Apra, M Asker, R Bals, B Barry, I Bashir, E Blokhina, P Giounanlis, M Harkin, P Hanos-Puskai, et al. Spin qubit performance at the error correction threshold: Advancing quantum information processing above 700 mk.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01920, 2024

    2024

  3. [10]

    Semicon- ductor spin qubits.Reviews of Modern Physics, 95(2):025003, 2023

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

    2023

  4. [11]

    Scaling silicon-based quantum computing using cmos technology

    MF Gonzalez-Zalba, S De Franceschi, E Charbon, Tristan Meunier, M Vinet, and AS Dzu- rak. Scaling silicon-based quantum computing using cmos technology. Nature Electronics, 4(12):872–884, 2021

    2021

  5. [12]

    Scalable fault-tolerant quantum technologies with silicon color centers

    Stephanie Simmons. Scalable fault-tolerant quantum technologies with silicon color centers. PRX quantum, 5(1):010102, 2024

    2024

  6. [13]

    A spin-optical quantum computing architecture.Quantum, EFFICIENT AND SCALABLE INTER-MODULE SWITCHING FOR DISTRIBUTED QUANTUM COMPUTING ARCHITECTURES 35 8:1423, 2024

    Grégoire de Gliniasty, Paul Hilaire, Pierre-Emmanuel Emeriau, Stephen C Wein, Alexia Salavrakos, and Shane Mansfield. A spin-optical quantum computing architecture.Quantum, EFFICIENT AND SCALABLE INTER-MODULE SWITCHING FOR DISTRIBUTED QUANTUM COMPUTING ARCHITECTURES 35 8:1423, 2024

    2024

  7. [14]

    Breakingevenwithmagic: demon- stration of a high-fidelity logical non-clifford gate.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.14688, 2025

    Shival Dasu, Simon Burton, Karl Mayer, David Amaro, Justin A Gerber, Kevin Gilmore, Dan Gresh,DavideDelVento,AndrewCPotter,andDavidHayes. Breakingevenwithmagic: demon- stration of a high-fidelity logical non-clifford gate.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.14688, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Quantumcomputingwithneutralatoms

    Loïc Henriet, Lucas Beguin, Adrien Signoles, Thierry Lahaye, Antoine Browaeys, Georges- OlivierReymond, andChristopheJurczak. Quantumcomputingwithneutralatoms. Quantum, 4:327, 2020

    2020

  9. [16]

    Quantumfastfouriertransformandquantumcomputation by linear optics.Journal of the Optical Society of America B, 24(2):231–240, 2007

    RonenBarakandYacobBen-Aryeh. Quantumfastfouriertransformandquantumcomputation by linear optics.Journal of the Optical Society of America B, 24(2):231–240, 2007

    2007

  10. [17]

    Repeat-until-success quantum computing using stationary and flying qubits.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 73(1):012304, 2006

    Yuan Liang Lim, Sean D Barrett, Almut Beige, Pieter Kok, and Leong Chuan Kwek. Repeat-until-success quantum computing using stationary and flying qubits.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 73(1):012304, 2006

    2006

  11. [18]

    Resource-efficient linear optical quantum computation

    Daniel E Browne and Terry Rudolph. Resource-efficient linear optical quantum computation. Physical Review Letters, 95(1):010501, 2005

    2005

  12. [19]

    Experimental demonstration of memory-enhanced quantum communication.Nature, 580(7801):60–64, 2020

    Mihir K Bhaskar, Ralf Riedinger, Bartholomeus Machielse, David S Levonian, Christian T Nguyen, Erik N Knall, Hongkun Park, Dirk Englund, Marko Lončar, Denis D Sukachev, et al. Experimental demonstration of memory-enhanced quantum communication.Nature, 580(7801):60–64, 2020

    2020

  13. [20]

    Fault tolerant quantum computation with very high threshold for loss errors.Physical review letters, 105(20):200502, 2010

    Sean D Barrett and Thomas M Stace. Fault tolerant quantum computation with very high threshold for loss errors.Physical review letters, 105(20):200502, 2010

    2010

  14. [21]

    Fault-tolerantquantumcomputationwithnondeterministicentanglinggates

    James M Auger, Hussain Anwar, Mercedes Gimeno-Segovia, Thomas M Stace, and Dan E Browne. Fault-tolerantquantumcomputationwithnondeterministicentanglinggates. Physical Review A, 97(3):030301, 2018

    2018

  15. [22]

    Fault tolerant quantum computation with nondeterministic gates.Physical review letters, 105(25):250502, 2010

    Ying Li, Sean D Barrett, Thomas M Stace, and Simon C Benjamin. Fault tolerant quantum computation with nondeterministic gates.Physical review letters, 105(25):250502, 2010

    2010

  16. [23]

    Fusion- based quantum computation.Nature Communications, 14(1):912, 2023

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

    2023

  17. [24]

    High-photon-loss threshold quantum computing using ghz-state measurements.Physical Review Letters, 133(5):050604, 2024

    Brendan Pankovich, Angus Kan, Kwok Ho Wan, Maike Ostmann, Alex Neville, Srikrishna Omkar, Adel Sohbi, and Kamil Brádler. High-photon-loss threshold quantum computing using ghz-state measurements.Physical Review Letters, 133(5):050604, 2024

    2024

  18. [25]

    Distributed quantum computing: a survey

    Marcello Caleffi, Michele Amoretti, Davide Ferrari, Jessica Illiano, Antonio Manzalini, and Angela Sara Cacciapuoti. Distributed quantum computing: a survey. Computer Networks, 254:110672, 2024

    2024

  19. [26]

    Scalable quantum computing with optical links.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.00542, 2025

    MJ Weaver, G Arnold, H Weaver, S Gröblacher, and R Stockill. Scalable quantum computing with optical links.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.00542, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Distributed quantum error correction based on hyperbolic floquet codes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14029, 2025

    Evan Sutcliffe, Bhargavi Jonnadula, Claire Le Gall, Alexandra E Moylett, and Coral M West- oby. Distributed quantum error correction based on hyperbolic floquet codes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14029, 2025

    2025

  21. [28]

    Scalable networkingofneutral-atomqubits: Nanofiber-basedapproachformultiprocessorfault-tolerant quantum computers.PRX Quantum, 6(1):010101, 2025

    Shinichi Sunami, Shiro Tamiya, Ryotaro Inoue, Hayata Yamasaki, and Akihisa Goban. Scalable networkingofneutral-atomqubits: Nanofiber-basedapproachformultiprocessorfault-tolerant quantum computers.PRX Quantum, 6(1):010101, 2025

    2025

  22. [29]

    Development of quantum interconnects (quics) for next-generation information technologies.Prx Quantum, 2(1):017002, 2021

    David Awschalom, Karl K Berggren, Hannes Bernien, Sunil Bhave, Lincoln D Carr, Paul Davids, Sophia E Economou, Dirk Englund, Andrei Faraon, Martin Fejer, et al. Development of quantum interconnects (quics) for next-generation information technologies.Prx Quantum, 2(1):017002, 2021

    2021

  23. [30]

    Universal fault-tolerant measurement-based quantum computation

    Benjamin J Brown and Sam Roberts. Universal fault-tolerant measurement-based quantum computation. Physical Review Research, 2(3):033305, 2020. 36 EFFICIENT AND SCALABLE INTER-MODULE SWITCHING FOR DISTRIBUTED QUANTUM COMPUTING ARCHITECTURES

    2020

  24. [32]

    Thegeneralizedmach-zehnderinterferometerusingmultimodeinterference couplers for optical communications networks

    NeilSatishLagali. Thegeneralizedmach-zehnderinterferometerusingmultimodeinterference couplers for optical communications networks. 2000

    2000

  25. [33]

    Architectures for large nonblocking optical space switches.IEEE Journal of quantum electronics, 22(6):964–967, 1986

    R Spanke. Architectures for large nonblocking optical space switches.IEEE Journal of quantum electronics, 22(6):964–967, 1986

    1986

  26. [34]

    A manufacturable platform for photonic quantum computing.Nature, pages 1–3, 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Architectures for multinode superconducting quantum computers.(2022).arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06167, 2022

    James Ang, Gabriella Carini, Yanzhu Chen, Isaac Chuang, Michael Austin DeMarco, Sophia E Economou, Alec Eickbusch, Andrei Faraon, Kai-Mei Fu, Steven M Girvin, et al. Architectures for multinode superconducting quantum computers.(2022).arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06167, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary.arXiv preprint quant-ph/9811052, 1998

    Sergey B Bravyi and A Yu Kitaev. Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary.arXiv preprint quant-ph/9811052, 1998

    1998 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Surface code quan- tum computing by lattice surgery.New Journal of Physics, 14(12):123011, 2012

    Dominic Horsman, Austin G Fowler, Simon Devitt, and Rodney Van Meter. Surface code quan- tum computing by lattice surgery.New Journal of Physics, 14(12):123011, 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    A study of non-blocking switching networks

    Charles Clos. A study of non-blocking switching networks. Bell System Technical Journal, 32(2):406–424, 1953

    1953

  31. [39]

    Algebraic and topological properties of connecting networks.Bell System Technical Journal, 41(4):1249–1274, 1962

    VE Beneš. Algebraic and topological properties of connecting networks.Bell System Technical Journal, 41(4):1249–1274, 1962

    1962

  32. [40]

    N-stage planar optical permutation network.Applied Optics, 26(7):1226–1229, 1987

    Ron A Spanke and VE Beneš. N-stage planar optical permutation network.Applied Optics, 26(7):1226–1229, 1987

    1987

  33. [41]

    Dilated networks for photonic switching.IEEE transactions on communications, 35(12):1357–1365, 1987

    Krishnan Padmanabhan and Arun Netravali. Dilated networks for photonic switching.IEEE transactions on communications, 35(12):1357–1365, 1987

    1987

  34. [42]

    Silicon photonic switch fabrics: Technology and archi- tecture

    Benjamin G Lee and Nicolas Dupuis. Silicon photonic switch fabrics: Technology and archi- tecture. Journal of Lightwave Technology, 37(1):6–20, 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    Recent advances in optical technologies for data centers: a review.Optica, 5(11):1354–1370, 2018

    Qixiang Cheng, Meisam Bahadori, Madeleine Glick, Sébastien Rumley, and Keren Bergman. Recent advances in optical technologies for data centers: a review.Optica, 5(11):1354–1370, 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    High-rate and high-fidelity modular interconnects between neu- tral atom quantum processors.PRX Quantum, 5(2):020363, 2024

    Yiyi Li and Jeff D Thompson. High-rate and high-fidelity modular interconnects between neu- tral atom quantum processors.PRX Quantum, 5(2):020363, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Hierarchical surface code for network quantum computing with modules of arbitrary size.Physical Review A, 94(4):042303, 2016

    Ying Li and Simon C Benjamin. Hierarchical surface code for network quantum computing with modules of arbitrary size.Physical Review A, 94(4):042303, 2016

    2016

  38. [46]

    Experimental realiza- tion of any discrete unitary operator.Physical review letters, 73(1):58, 1994

    Michael Reck, Anton Zeilinger, Herbert J Bernstein, and Philip Bertani. Experimental realiza- tion of any discrete unitary operator.Physical review letters, 73(1):58, 1994

    1994

  39. [47]

    Distributed quantum computing across an optical network link.Nature, pages 1–6, 2025

    D Main, P Drmota, DP Nadlinger, EM Ainley, A Agrawal, BC Nichol, R Srinivas, G Araneda, and DM Lucas. Distributed quantum computing across an optical network link.Nature, pages 1–6, 2025

    2025

  40. [48]

    Compact, low-loss and low-power 8× 8 broadband silicon optical switch.Optics express, 20(17):18977–18985, 2012

    Long Chen and Young-kai Chen. Compact, low-loss and low-power 8× 8 broadband silicon optical switch.Optics express, 20(17):18977–18985, 2012

    2012

  41. [49]

    Modular architecture for fully non-blocking silicon photonic switch fabric.Microsystems & nanoengineering, 3(1):1–9, 2017

    Dessislava Nikolova, David M Calhoun, Yang Liu, Sébastien Rumley, Ari Novack, Tom Baehr- Jones, Michael Hochberg, and Keren Bergman. Modular architecture for fully non-blocking silicon photonic switch fabric.Microsystems & nanoengineering, 3(1):1–9, 2017

    2017

  42. [50]

    Measurement of subpicosecond time inter- vals between two photons by interference.Physical review letters, 59(18):2044, 1987

    Chong-Ki Hong, Zhe-Yu Ou, and Leonard Mandel. Measurement of subpicosecond time inter- vals between two photons by interference.Physical review letters, 59(18):2044, 1987

  43. [51]

    Freely scalable quantum technologies using cells of 5-to-50 qubits with very lossy and noisy photonic links.Physical Review X, 4(4):041041, 2014

    Naomi H Nickerson, Joseph F Fitzsimons, and Simon C Benjamin. Freely scalable quantum technologies using cells of 5-to-50 qubits with very lossy and noisy photonic links.Physical Review X, 4(4):041041, 2014. EFFICIENT AND SCALABLE INTER-MODULE SWITCHING FOR DISTRIBUTED QUANTUM...

    2014

  44. [52]

    Photonicarchitectureforscalablequantuminformationprocessingindiamond

    Kae Nemoto, Michael Trupke, Simon J Devitt, Ashley M Stephens, Burkhard Scharfenberger, Kathrin Buczak, Tobias Nöbauer, Mark S Everitt, Jörg Schmiedmayer, and William J Munro. Photonicarchitectureforscalablequantuminformationprocessingindiamond. PhysicalReview X, 4(3):031022, 2014

    2014

  45. [53]

    Code deformation and lattice surgery are gauge fixing.New Journal of Physics, 21(3):033028, 2019

    Christophe Vuillot, Lingling Lao, Ben Criger, Carmen García Almudéver, Koen Bertels, and Barbara M Terhal. Code deformation and lattice surgery are gauge fixing.New Journal of Physics, 21(3):033028, 2019

    2019

  46. [54]

    Efficienthigh-fidelityquantumcomputationusingmatterqubits and linear optics

    SeanDBarrettandPieterKok. Efficienthigh-fidelityquantumcomputationusingmatterqubits and linear optics. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 71(6):060310, 2005

    2005

  47. [55]

    Fault-tolerant optical interconnects for neutral-atom arrays.Physical Review Research, 7(1):013313, 2025

    Josiah Sinclair, Joshua Ramette, Brandon Grinkemeyer, Dolev Bluvstein, Mikhail D Lukin, and Vladan Vuletić. Fault-tolerant optical interconnects for neutral-atom arrays.Physical Review Research, 7(1):013313, 2025

    2025

  48. [56]

    High-rate, high- fidelity entanglement of qubits across an elementary quantum network.Physical review letters, 124(11):110501, 2020

    LJ Stephenson, DP Nadlinger, BC Nichol, Shuoming An, P Drmota, Timothy G Ballance, K Thirumalai, Joseph Francis Goodwin, David M Lucas, and CJ Ballance. High-rate, high- fidelity entanglement of qubits across an elementary quantum network.Physical review letters, 124(11):110501, 2020

    2020

  49. [57]

    Quantum gate teleportation between separated qubits in a trapped-ion processor.Science, 364(6443):875– 878, 2019

    Yong Wan, Daniel Kienzler, Stephen D Erickson, Karl H Mayer, Ting Rei Tan, Jenny J Wu, Hilma M Vasconcelos, Scott Glancy, Emanuel Knill, David J Wineland, et al. Quantum gate teleportation between separated qubits in a trapped-ion processor.Science, 364(6443):875– 878, 2019

    2019

  50. [58]

    Deterministic high-rateentanglementdistillationwithneutralatomarrays

    Thomas A Hahn, Ryan White, Hannes Bernien, and Rotem Arnon-Friedman. Deterministic high-rateentanglementdistillationwithneutralatomarrays. arXivpreprintarXiv:2503.00445 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Constant-overhead fault-tolerant bell-pair distillation using high-rate codes

    JAtaides, HengyunZhou, QianXu, GefenBaranes, BikunLi, MikhailDLukin, andLiangJiang. Constant-overhead fault-tolerant bell-pair distillation using high-rate codes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09542, 2025

    2025

  52. [60]

    Optimized noise- resilient surface code teleportation interfaces.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04968, 2025

    Mohamed A Shalby, Renyu Wang, Denis Sedov, and Leonid P Pryadko. Optimized noise- resilient surface code teleportation interfaces.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04968, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Analysis of multipartite entanglement dis- tribution using a central quantum-network node.Physical Review A, 107(1):012609, 2023

    Guus Avis, Filip Rozpędek, and Stephanie Wehner. Analysis of multipartite entanglement dis- tribution using a central quantum-network node.Physical Review A, 107(1):012609, 2023

    2023

  54. [62]

    Fast quantum interconnects via constant-rate entanglement distillation

    Christopher A Pattison, Gefen Baranes, J Ataides, Mikhail D Lukin, and Hengyun Zhou. Fast quantum interconnects via constant-rate entanglement distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15936, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Mini- mally complex ion traps as modules for quantum communication and computing.New Journal of Physics, 18(10):103028, 2016

    Ramil Nigmatullin, Christopher J Ballance, Niel De Beaudrap, and Simon C Benjamin. Mini- mally complex ion traps as modules for quantum communication and computing.New Journal of Physics, 18(10):103028, 2016

    2016

  56. [64]

    Entanglement distillation between solid-state quantum network nodes.Sci- ence, 356(6341):928–932, 2017

    Norbert Kalb, Andreas A Reiserer, Peter C Humphreys, Jacob JW Bakermans, Sten J Kamer- ling, Naomi H Nickerson, Simon C Benjamin, Daniel J Twitchen, Matthew Markham, and Ronald Hanson. Entanglement distillation between solid-state quantum network nodes.Sci- ence, 356(6341):928...

    2017

  57. [65]

    Lattice surgery-based logical state teleportation via noisy links.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15747, 2025

    Áron Márton, Luis Colmenarez, Lukas Bödeker, and Markus Müller. Lattice surgery-based logical state teleportation via noisy links.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15747, 2025

    2025

  58. [66]

    Multiplexed entan- glement of multi-emitter quantum network nodes.Nature, pages 1–6, 2025

    A Ruskuc, C-J Wu, E Green, SLN Hermans, W Pajak, J Choi, and A Faraon. Multiplexed entan- glement of multi-emitter quantum network nodes.Nature, pages 1–6, 2025

    2025

  59. [67]

    An optical interconnect for modular quantum computers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.09299, 2024

    Daisuke Sakuma, Amin Taherkhani, Tomoki Tsuno, Toshihiko Sasaki, Hikaru Shimizu, Ken- taro Teramoto, Andrew Todd, Yosuke Ueno, Michal Hajdušek, Rikizo Ikuta, et al. An optical interconnect for modular quantum computers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.09299, 2024. 38 EFFICIENT AND SC...

    2024

  60. [68]

    Network requirements for distributed quantum computation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08891, 2025

    Hugo Jacinto, Élie Gouzien, and Nicolas Sangouard. Network requirements for distributed quantum computation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08891, 2025

    2025

  61. [69]

    Computing efficiently in qldpc codes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07150, 2025

    Alexander J Malcolm, Andrew N Glaudell, Patricio Fuentes, Daryus Chandra, Alexis Schotte, Colby DeLisle, Rafael Haenel, Amir Ebrahimi, Joschka Roffe, Armanda O Quintavalle, et al. Computing efficiently in qldpc codes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07150, 2025

    2025

  62. [70]

    High-threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory.Nature, 627(8005):778–782, 2024

    Sergey Bravyi, Andrew W Cross, Jay M Gambetta, Dmitri Maslov, Patrick Rall, and Theodore J Yoder. High-threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory.Nature, 627(8005):778–782, 2024

    2024

  63. [71]

    Entanglement of nanophotonic quantum memory nodes in a telecom network.Nature, 629(8012):573–578, 2024

    Can M Knaut, Aziza Suleymanzade, Y-C Wei, Daniel R Assumpcao, P-J Stas, Yan Qi Huan, Bartholomeus Machielse, Erik N Knall, Madison Sutula, Gefen Baranes, et al. Entanglement of nanophotonic quantum memory nodes in a telecom network.Nature, 629(8012):573–578, 2024

    2024

  64. [72]

    Topological fault-tolerance in cluster state quantum computation.New Journal of Physics, 9(6):199, 2007

    Robert Raussendorf, Jim Harrington, and Kovid Goyal. Topological fault-tolerance in cluster state quantum computation.New Journal of Physics, 9(6):199, 2007

    2007

  65. [73]

    Foliated quantum error-correcting codes

    A Bolt, G Duclos-Cianci, D Poulin, and TM Stace. Foliated quantum error-correcting codes. Physical review letters, 117(7):070501, 2016

    2016

  66. [74]

    Tailoring fusion-based error correction for high thresholds to biased fusion failures.Physical Review Letters, 131(12):120604, 2023

    Kaavya Sahay, Jahan Claes, and Shruti Puri. Tailoring fusion-based error correction for high thresholds to biased fusion failures.Physical Review Letters, 131(12):120604, 2023

    2023

  67. [75]

    High-threshold quantum computing by fusing one- dimensional cluster states.Physical Review Letters, 131(12):120603, 2023

    Stefano Paesani and Benjamin J Brown. High-threshold quantum computing by fusing one- dimensional cluster states.Physical Review Letters, 131(12):120603, 2023

    2023

  68. [76]

    Quantum error correcting subsystem codes from two classical linear codes.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0610088, 2006

    Dave Bacon and Andrea Casaccino. Quantum error correcting subsystem codes from two classical linear codes.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0610088, 2006

    2006 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Ultrafast fault-tolerant long-distance quantum communi- cation with static linear optics.Physical Review A, 95(1):012327, 2017

    Fabian Ewert and Peter Van Loock. Ultrafast fault-tolerant long-distance quantum communi- cation with static linear optics.Physical Review A, 95(1):012327, 2017

    2017

  70. [78]

    Fundamental building block for all- optical scalable quantum networks.Physical Review A, 100(5):052303, 2019

    Seung-Woo Lee, Timothy C Ralph, and Hyunseok Jeong. Fundamental building block for all- optical scalable quantum networks.Physical Review A, 100(5):052303, 2019

    2019

  71. [79]

    Flexibleentangled-stategenerationinlinearoptics

    Brendan Pankovich, Alex Neville, Angus Kan, Srikrishna Omkar, Kwok Ho Wan, and Kamil Brádler. Flexibleentangled-stategenerationinlinearoptics. PhysicalReviewA ,110(3):032402, 2024

    2024

  72. [80]

    From three- photongreenberger-horne-zeilingerstatestoballisticuniversalquantumcomputation

    Mercedes Gimeno-Segovia, Pete Shadbolt, Dan E Browne, and Terry Rudolph. From three- photongreenberger-horne-zeilingerstatestoballisticuniversalquantumcomputation. Physical review letters, 115(2):020502, 2015

    2015

  73. [81]

    Encoded-fusion-based quantum computation for high thresholds with linear optics

    Wooyeong Song, Nuri Kang, Yong-Su Kim, and Seung-Woo Lee. Encoded-fusion-based quantum computation for high thresholds with linear optics. Physical Review Letters, 133(5):050605, 2024

    2024

  74. [82]

    Lattice surgery on the raussendorf lattice.Quantum Science and Technology, 3(3):035011, 2018

    Daniel Herr, Alexandru Paler, Simon J Devitt, and Franco Nori. Lattice surgery on the raussendorf lattice.Quantum Science and Technology, 3(3):035011, 2018

    2018

  75. [83]

    High-fidelity multiphoton- entangled cluster state with solid-state quantum emitters in photonic nanostructures.Physical Review A, 105(3):L030601, 2022

    Konstantin Tiurev, Martin Hayhurst Appel, Pol Llopart Mirambell, Mikkel Bloch Lauritzen, Alexey Tiranov, Peter Lodahl, and Anders Søndberg Sørensen. High-fidelity multiphoton- entangled cluster state with solid-state quantum emitters in photonic nanostructures.Physical Review ...

    2022

  76. [84]

    Loss-tolerant architecture for quan- tum computing with quantum emitters.Quantum, 8:1302, 2024

    Matthias C Löbl, Stefano Paesani, and Anders S Sørensen. Loss-tolerant architecture for quan- tum computing with quantum emitters.Quantum, 8:1302, 2024

    2024

  77. [85]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation

    Peter W Shor. Fault-tolerant quantum computation. InProceedings of 37th conference on foun- dations of computer science, pages 56–65. IEEE, 1996

    1996

  78. [86]

    Active stabilization, quantum computation, and quantum state synthesis

    Andrew M Steane. Active stabilization, quantum computation, and quantum state synthesis. Physical Review Letters, 78(11):2252, 1997. EFFICIENT AND SCALABLE INTER-MODULE SWITCHING FOR DISTRIBUTED QUANTUM COMPUTING ARCHITECTURES 39

    1997

  79. [87]

    Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices.Nature, 434(7029):39– 44, 2005

    Emanuel Knill. Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices.Nature, 434(7029):39– 44, 2005

    2005

  80. [88]

    Low-distance surface codes under realistic quantum noise

    Yu Tomita and Krysta M Svore. Low-distance surface codes under realistic quantum noise. Physical Review A, 90(6):062320, 2014

    2014

  81. [89]

    Lawrence C Biedenharn, James D Louck, and Peter A Carruthers.Angular momentum in quan- tum physics: theory and application. 1984

    1984

  82. [90]

    Entanglement by a beam splitter: Nonclassi- cality as a prerequisite for entanglement.Physical Review A, 65(3):032323, 2002

    MS Kim, W Son, Vladimír Bužek, and PL Knight. Entanglement by a beam splitter: Nonclassi- cality as a prerequisite for entanglement.Physical Review A, 65(3):032323, 2002

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.