pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.26792 · v2 · pith:TWHQNFXLnew · submitted 2026-04-29 · 🪐 quant-ph

Fault-Tolerant Resource Comparison of Qudit and Qubit Encodings for Diagonal Quadratic Operators

Samuel Godwood , Do\u{g}a Murat K\"urk\c{c}\"uo\u{g}lu , Gabriel N. Perdue , Marina Maneyro , Alessandro Roggero This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 09:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords qudit encodingsqubit encodingsfault-tolerant quantum simulationdiagonal quadratic operatorsLCUproduct formulasnon-Clifford gatesscalar field theory
0
0 comments X

The pith

Qudits yield constant-factor non-Clifford savings over qubits for low-d LCU implementations of diagonal quadratic operators, though qubits win asymptotically.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper compares the non-Clifford gate costs of implementing quadratic diagonal evolutions, such as exp(-i t phi_x^2) for a discretized scalar field, using either one d-level qudit or log2(d) qubits. It examines product-formula and LCU approaches by expressing qudit operations through embedded two-level rotations and deriving finite-d break-even synthesis thresholds. The analysis concludes that product-formula qudit implementations require exponentially stronger synthesis advantages to compete at large d, while LCU favors the qubit encoding asymptotically in d. Finite-d thresholds nevertheless reveal low-dimensional regions where qudits deliver meaningful constant-factor savings, especially under LCU, and an idealized code-switching model supplies absolute T-count comparisons with per-switch overhead budgets.

Core claim

Within the constructive models studied here, product-formula implementations would require an exponentially stronger per-primitive synthesis advantage for qudits to win asymptotically, while in the LCU setting the qubit encoding is asymptotically cheaper in d. Nevertheless, the finite-d threshold analysis identifies low dimensional regions in which qudits can yield meaningful constant-factor savings, particularly for LCU-based implementations.

What carries the argument

Embedded two-level SU(2) rotations that express qudit constructions to derive explicit finite-d break-even synthesis costs against qubit baselines.

If this is right

  • Product-formula qudit implementations require exponentially stronger per-primitive synthesis advantages to win asymptotically.
  • In the LCU setting the qubit encoding is asymptotically cheaper as dimension d grows.
  • Finite-d thresholds show low-dimensional regions where qudits deliver constant-factor savings, particularly for LCU.
  • Idealized negligible-overhead code-switching yields an absolute T-count comparison and allowable per-switch overhead budget.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The derived break-even points can serve as concrete targets for qudit synthesis algorithm development.
  • For practical near-term simulations with small truncation dimensions, qudits may reduce overall fault-tolerant overhead in LCU-based workflows.
  • The same threshold analysis could be repeated for other operators or nonuniform discretizations to locate additional advantage regions.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes qudit operations can be modeled as embedded two-level SU(2) rotations whose synthesis costs allow direct comparison and that qubit-qudit code-switching overhead remains negligible.

What would settle it

An explicit calculation or measurement of the synthesis cost for a general single-qudit rotation that exceeds the paper's derived break-even thresholds, or a quantification of actual code-switching overheads that violates the negligible-overhead model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.26792 by Alessandro Roggero, Do\u{g}a Murat K\"urk\c{c}\"uo\u{g}lu, Gabriel N. Perdue, Marina Maneyro, Samuel Godwood.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Break-even synthesis prefactor view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Non-Clifford resource comparison for the Regime 2 LCU/block-encoding implementation under the code-switching view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Non-Clifford resource comparison for the Regime 2 LCU/block-encoding implementation under the code-switching view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Finite local Hilbert-space truncations arise naturally in quantum simulations of lattice field theories and motivate qudit encodings, but their fault-tolerant advantage over qubit encodings remains unclear. We compare the non-Clifford cost of implementing quadratic diagonal evolutions, exemplified by $U=e^{-it\phi_x^2}$ in a uniform field-amplitude discretization of a real scalar field, using either one logical $d$-level qudit or $n_b=\lceil \log_2 d\rceil$ logical qubits. We analyze two standard settings: product-formula simulation and LCU/block encoding, taking the resource metric to be the number of non-Clifford gates after synthesis into a discrete logical gate set. Because tight synthesis bounds for general single-qudit rotations are not known, we express the qudit constructions in terms of embedded two-level $SU(2)$ rotations and derive explicit finite-$d$ break-even conditions for their synthesis cost; these serve as compiler targets for when qudit encodings can outperform the qubit baseline. Within the constructive models studied here, product-formula implementations would require an exponentially stronger per-primitive synthesis advantage for qudits to win asymptotically, while in the LCU setting the qubit encoding is asymptotically cheaper in $d$. Nevertheless, the finite-$d$ threshold analysis identifies low dimensional regions in which qudits can yield meaningful constant-factor savings, particularly for LCU-based implementations. As a secondary analysis of the LCU construction, we use an idealized negligible-overhead qubit-qudit code-switching model to give an absolute $T$-count comparison, and reinterpret the savings as an allowable per-switch overhead budget.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript compares the non-Clifford resource costs of implementing diagonal quadratic operators (exemplified by U = exp(-i t φ_x²) for a uniform discretization of a real scalar field) using either one logical d-level qudit or n_b = ⌈log₂ d⌉ logical qubits. It analyzes both product-formula and LCU/block-encoding settings, expressing qudit constructions via embedded two-level SU(2) rotations due to unknown tight synthesis bounds for general single-qudit rotations, and derives explicit finite-d break-even conditions as compiler targets. A secondary idealized negligible-overhead code-switching analysis provides absolute T-count comparisons.

Significance. If the constructive models hold, the work usefully identifies low-d regimes with constant-factor savings for qudits (especially in LCU) while showing that product formulas require exponentially stronger per-primitive synthesis advantages for qudits to compete asymptotically and that qubits are cheaper in d for LCU. The explicit constructions, reproducible resource counts, and provision of falsifiable finite-d thresholds as compiler targets are clear strengths that advance understanding of qudit vs. qubit trade-offs in fault-tolerant lattice field theory simulations.

minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract and introduction would benefit from an explicit early statement of the precise resource metric (number of non-Clifford gates after synthesis) and how it is counted in each setting.
  2. A short table or summary listing the derived break-even d thresholds for representative parameter values would improve accessibility of the finite-d results.
  3. Notation for the number of qubits n_b and the discretization parameter could be introduced with a brief reminder in the LCU section to aid readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of the manuscript, the accurate summary of our contributions, and the recommendation for minor revision. We are pleased that the explicit finite-d break-even conditions and reproducible resource counts are highlighted as strengths.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivations are self-contained

full rationale

The paper derives explicit finite-d break-even conditions and asymptotic scalings for qudit vs. qubit resource costs directly from standard gate synthesis models and constructive embeddings of qudit operations into two-level SU(2) rotations. These steps use idealized but explicitly qualified models for code-switching without fitting parameters to the target results or reducing predictions to self-referential inputs. No load-bearing self-citation chains, ansatzes smuggled via prior work, or renamings of known results appear in the central comparison; the LCU and product-formula analyses remain independent of the paper's own fitted values or definitions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard assumptions about non-Clifford gate costs after synthesis into a discrete logical gate set and on the validity of expressing general qudit rotations via embedded two-level rotations. No new physical entities are postulated.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Tight synthesis bounds for general single-qudit rotations are not known, so constructions are expressed via embedded two-level SU(2) rotations.
    Invoked to derive explicit finite-d break-even conditions; stated in the abstract as the reason for the modeling choice.
  • domain assumption Idealized negligible-overhead qubit-qudit code-switching model for absolute T-count comparison.
    Used in the secondary LCU analysis; presented as an idealized model with the overhead budget reinterpreted as allowable per-switch cost.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5853 in / 1687 out tokens · 38206 ms · 2026-05-21T09:31:38.444098+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 84 canonical work pages · 24 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Oracle Definitions Lemma 5.The squared field operatorϕ 2 x admits a unique expansion in the generalized Pauli basis as ϕ2 x = d−1X r=0 βrZ r d,(76) with β0 =ϕ 2 max d+ 1 3(d−1) , βr = 2ϕ2 max (d−1) 2 eiπr/d cos(πr/d) sin2(πr/d) , r= 1, . . . , d−1. (77) This decomposition is irreducible in the sense thatβ r ̸= 0 for allr∈ {1, . . . , d−1}, soϕ 2 x has ful...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The SELECT Oracle With the index and system registers encoded asd-level qudits, the entangling part of SELECT (84), d−1X r=0 |r⟩⟨r| ⊗Z r d,(89) is the (Clifford) qudit generalized controlled-Z[35, 67]. The only non-Clifford cost in SELECT therefore arises from the diagonal phases that accompany the LCU coef- ficients, i.e., D=|0⟩⟨0|+ d−1X r=1 eiθr |r⟩⟨r|....

    work page

  3. [3]

    phase equalization

    The PREP Oracle Lemma 8.The PREP oracle for the qudit LCU decom- position, PREPϕ2x :|0⟩ 7− → d−1X r=1 r |βr| Λ |r⟩,(93) requires at most2 nb −1single-qubitR z rotations, up to Cliffords, when the index is encoded in ann b =⌈log 2 d⌉ qubit register. Proof.By Lemma 5,ϕ 2 x has full support on the non- trivial generalized Pauli operators{Z r d}d−1 r=1. Thus ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Required number of queries Given an LCU decomposition ˆH= LX j=1 αj ˆUj, α= LX j=1 |αj|,(105) qubitization-based simulation ofe −iHt to errorε sim uses Q(α;t, ε sim) =O α t+ log(1/ε sim) (106) queries to a block-encoding of ˆH[15], whereα= P j |αj| is the LCU coefficient 1-norm. A single query consists of one application of the block-encoding unitary W= (...

    work page

  5. [5]

    As in Sec

    Fixed-Encoding Model We first study the fixed-encoding model and ask how favorable the qudit synthesis prefactor must be for a fully qudit implementation to match or beat the qubit baseline in total non-Clifford cost. As in Sec. III D, we consider primedfor the qudit construction, model the synthesis cost of an embedded two-levelSU(2) rotation as Cprim(δ)...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Innovation in Data Intensive Science

    Idealized Code-Switching Model We turn to the code-switching model. Using the end- to-end proxiesT qb/qd tot (d) and the ratioR tot(d) defined in Sec. IV D 1, we consider the idealized hybrid setting in which then b-qubit index register can be code-switched to a singled-level qudit (and back) to implement the controlled-Zd interaction. Figure 2 shows the ...

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys.21, 467 (1982)

    work page 1982

  8. [8]

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

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

    work page 1996

  9. [9]

    Simulating quantum field theory with a quantum computer

    J. Preskill, Simulating quantum field theory with a quantum computer, PoSLA TTICE2018, 024 (2018), arXiv:1811.10085 [hep-lat]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum sim- ulation, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 153 (2014)

    work page 2014

  11. [11]

    Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. John- son, M. Kieferov´ a, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Per- opadre, N. P. D. Sawaya, S. Sim, L. Veis, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum com- puting, Chemical Reviews119, 10856 (2019)

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    H. Ma, M. Govoni, and G. Galli, Quantum simulations of materials on near-term quantum computers, npj Com- putational Materials6, 85 (2020)

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    Troyer and U.-J

    M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese, Computational complex- ity and fundamental limitations to fermionic Quantum Monte Carlo simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 170201 (2005)

    work page 2005

  14. [14]

    Approaches to the sign problem in lattice field theory

    C. Gattringer and K. Langfeld, Approaches to the sign problem in lattice field theory, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A31, 1643007 (2016), arXiv:1603.09517 [hep-lat]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  15. [15]

    Nagata,Finite-density lattice QCD and sign problem: Current status and open problems, Prog

    K. Nagata, Finite-density lattice QCD and sign prob- lem: current status and open problems, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.127, 103991 (2022), arXiv:2108.12423 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    H. F. Trotter, On the product of semi-groups of opera- tors, Proc. Am. Math. Soc.10, 545 (1959)

    work page 1959

  17. [17]

    Suzuki, Fractal decomposition of exponential opera- tors with applications to many-body theories and Monte Carlo simulations, Phys

    M. Suzuki, Fractal decomposition of exponential opera- tors with applications to many-body theories and Monte Carlo simulations, Phys. Lett. A146, 319 (1990)

    work page 1990

  18. [18]

    A. M. Childs and Y. Su, Nearly optimal lattice simula- tion by product formulas, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 050503 (2019)

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    A. M. Childs and N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian simulation us- ing linear combinations of unitary operations, Quant. Inf. Comput.12, 901 (2012), arXiv:1202.5822 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  20. [20]

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, Simulating Hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated Taylor series, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 090502 (2015)

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization, Quantum3, 163 (2019), arXiv:1610.06546 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: Exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics

    A. Gily´ en, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, Quan- tum singular value transformation and beyond: expo- nential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics, inProceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Sym- posium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2019)(Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, 2019) pp. 193–204, arXiv:1806.01838 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Quantum algorithms for quantum field theories, Science336, 1130 (2012), arXiv:1111.3633 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  24. [24]

    Digitization of Scalar Fields for Quantum Computing

    N. Klco and M. J. Savage, Digitization of scalar fields for quantum computing, Phys. Rev. A99, 052335 (2019), arXiv:1808.10378 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    Digital lattice gauge theories

    E. Zohar, A. Farace, B. Reznik, and J. I. Cirac, Digital lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. A95, 023604 (2017), arXiv:1607.08121 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    Digital quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories in three spatial dimensions

    J. Bender, E. Zohar, A. Farace, and J. I. Cirac, Digi- tal quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories in three spatial dimensions, New J. Phys.20, 093001 (2018), arXiv:1804.02082 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    N. Klco, J. R. Stryker, and M. J. Savage, SU(2) non- Abelian gauge field theory in one dimension on digital quantum computers, Phys. Rev. D101, 074512 (2020), arXiv:1908.06935 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Y. Ji, H. Lamm, and S. Zhu, Gluon field digitization via group space decimation for quantum computers, Phys. Rev. D102, 114513 (2020), arXiv:2005.14221 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    M. Illa, C. E. P. Robin, and M. J. Savage, Qu8its for quantum simulations of lattice quantum chromodynam- ics, Phys. Rev. D110, 014507 (2024), arXiv:2403.14537 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    J. B. Kogut and L. Susskind, Hamiltonian formulation of Wilson’s lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D11, 395 (1975)

    work page 1975

  31. [31]

    Quantum Link Models: A Discrete Approach to Gauge Theories

    S. Chandrasekharan and U.-J. Wiese, Quantum link models: a discrete approach to gauge theories, Nucl. Phys. B492, 455 (1997), arXiv:hep-lat/9609042

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  32. [32]

    Quantum Simulations of Lattice Gauge Theories using Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices

    E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, Quantum simu- lations of lattice gauge theories using ultracold atoms in optical lattices, Rep. Prog. Phys.79, 014401 (2016), arXiv:1503.02312 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls, R. Blatt, J. Catani, A. Celi, J. I. Cirac, M. Dalmonte, L. Fallani, K. Jansen, M. Lewenstein, S. Montangero, C. A. Muschik, B. Reznik, E. Rico, L. Tagliacozzo, K. Van Acoleyen, F. Verstraete, U.-J. Wiese, M. Wingate, J. Zakrzewski, and P. Zoller, Sim- ulating lattice gauge theories within quantum technolo- gies, Eur. Phys. J. D74, 165 (202...

    work page arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Macridin, P

    A. Macridin, P. Spentzouris, J. Amundson, and R. Harnik, Electron-phonon systems on a universal quan- tum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 110504 (2018), arXiv:1802.07347 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    A cold-atom quantum simulator for SU(2) Yang-Mills lattice gauge theory

    E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, Cold-atom quan- tum simulator for SU(2) Yang-Mills lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 125304 (2013), arXiv:1211.2241 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  36. [36]

    E. A. Martinez, C. A. Muschik, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, A. Erhard, M. Heyl, P. Hauke, M. Dalmonte, T. Monz, P. Zoller, and R. Blatt, Real-time dynamics of lattice gauge theories with a few-qubit quantum computer, Na- ture534, 516 (2016), arXiv:1605.04570 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  37. [37]

    F. M. Surace, P. P. Mazza, G. Giudici, A. Lerose, A. Gambassi, and M. Dalmonte, Lattice gauge theories and string dynamics in Rydberg atom quantum simula- tors, Phys. Rev. X10, 021041 (2020), arXiv:1902.09551 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    work page arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, T

    D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, T. V. Zache, J. Carrasco, B. Kraus, and P. Zoller, Hardware efficient quantum simulation of non-abelian gauge theories with qudits on ryd- berg platforms, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 160501 (2022), arXiv:2203.15541 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Y. Wang, Z. Hu, B. C. Sanders, and S. Kais, Qudits and high-dimensional quantum computing, Front. Phys. 8, 589504 (2020), arXiv:2008.00959 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    Gottesman, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with higher-dimensional systems, inQuantum Computing and 23 Quantum Communications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol

    D. Gottesman, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with higher-dimensional systems, inQuantum Computing and 23 Quantum Communications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1509, edited by C. P. Williams (Springer,

    work page

  41. [41]

    Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation with Higher-Dimensional Systems

    pp. 302–313, arXiv:quant-ph/9802007 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    Stabilizer states and Clifford operations for systems of arbitrary dimensions, and modular arithmetic

    E. Hostens, J. Dehaene, and B. De Moor, Stabilizer states and Clifford operations for systems of arbitrary dimen- sions, and modular arithmetic, Phys. Rev. A71, 042315 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0408190 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  43. [43]

    J. M. Farinholt, An ideal characterization of the Clifford operators, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.47, 305303 (2014), arXiv:1307.5087 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  44. [44]

    E. T. Campbell, H. Anwar, and D. E. Browne, Magic- state distillation in all prime dimensions using quan- tum Reed-Muller codes, Phys. Rev. X2, 041021 (2012), arXiv:1205.3104 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  45. [45]

    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 Phys.18, 1053 (2022), arXiv:2109.06903 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    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, and J. M. Martinis, Emulation of a Quantum Spin with a Superconducting Phase Qudit, Science325, 722 (2009)

    work page 2009

  47. [47]

    L. B. Nguyen, N. Goss, K. Siva, Y. Kim, E. Younis, B. Qing, A. Hashim, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, Em- powering a qudit-based quantum processor by traversing the dual bosonic ladder, Nat. Commun.15, 7117 (2024)

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Erhard, M

    M. Erhard, M. Malik, M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger, Ad- vances in high-dimensional quantum entanglement, Nat. Rev. Phys.2, 365 (2020)

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computa- tion with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0403025 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2005

  50. [50]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A86, 032324 (2012), arXiv:1208.0928 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  51. [51]

    A Game of Surface Codes: Large-Scale Quantum Computing with Lattice Surgery

    D. Litinski, A game of surface codes: Large-scale quan- tum computing with lattice surgery, Quantum3, 128 (2019), arXiv:1808.02892 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  52. [52]

    Katabarwa, K

    A. Katabarwa, K. Gratsea, A. Caesura, and P. D. Johnson, Early fault-tolerant quantum computing, PRX Quantum5, 020101 (2024), arXiv:2311.14814 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    N. J. Ross and P. Selinger, Optimal ancilla-free Clifford+Tapproximation of Z rotations, Quant. Inf. Comput.16, 0901 (2016), arXiv:1403.2975 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  54. [54]

    Fast and efficient exact synthesis of single qubit unitaries generated by Clifford and T gates

    V. Kliuchnikov, D. Maslov, and M. Mosca, Fast and ef- ficient exact synthesis of single-qubit unitaries generated by Clifford and T gates, Quant. Inf. Comput.13, 0607 (2013), arXiv:1206.5236 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  55. [55]

    D. M. Kurkcuoglu, H. Lamm, and G. Maestri, Qudit gate decomposition dependence for lattice gauge theories (2024), arXiv:2410.16414 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Quantum com- putation of scattering in scalar quantum field theories, Quant. Inf. Comput.14, 1014 (2014), arXiv:1112.4833 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  57. [57]

    J. D. Watson, J. Bringewatt, A. F. Shaw, A. M. Childs, A. V. Gorshkov, and Z. Davoudi, Quantum algorithms for simulating nuclear effective field theories (2023), arXiv:2312.05344 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    Byrnes and Y

    T. Byrnes and Y. Yamamoto, Simulating lattice gauge theories on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. A73, 022328 (2006)

    work page 2006

  59. [59]

    A. F. Shaw, P. Lougovski, J. R. Stryker, and N. Wiebe, Quantum algorithms for simulating the lattice Schwinger model, Quantum4, 306 (2020), arXiv:2002.11146 [quant- ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  60. [60]

    W. C. Chung, J. de Hond, J. Xiang, E. Cruz-Col´ on, and W. Ketterle, Tunable single-ion anisotropy in spin-1 mod- els realized with ultracold atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 163203 (2021), arXiv:2101.01316 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    work page arXiv 2021

  61. [61]

    Jaksch, C

    D. Jaksch, C. Bruder, J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, Cold bosonic atoms in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 3108 (1998)

    work page 1998

  62. [62]

    McArdle, A

    S. McArdle, A. Mayorov, X. Shan, S. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Digital quantum simulation of molecular vi- brations, Chem. Sci.10, 5725 (2019)

    work page 2019

  63. [63]

    Y. Su, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, N. Rubin, and R. Bab- bush, Fault-tolerant quantum simulations of chemistry in first quantization, PRX Quantum2, 040332 (2021)

    work page 2021

  64. [64]

    Spagnoli, C

    L. Spagnoli, C. Lissoni, and A. Roggero, Quantum sim- ulation of nuclear dynamics in first quantization (2025), arXiv:2507.22814 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    E. J. Gustafson, Prospects for simulating a qudit-based model of (1+1)D scalar QED, Phys. Rev. D103, 114505 (2021)

    work page 2021

  66. [66]

    Prakash, A

    S. Prakash, A. R. Kalra, and A. Jain, A normal form for single-qudit Clifford+T operators, Quantum Inf. Process. 20, 341 (2021), arXiv:2011.07970 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  67. [67]

    K. L. Manders and L. Adleman, NP-complete decision problems for binary quadratics, J. Comput. Syst. Sci.16, 168 (1978)

    work page 1978

  68. [68]

    E. J. Gustafson, H. Lamm, D. Liu, E. M. Murairi, and S. Zhu, Synthesis of single-qutrit circuits from Clifford+R gates, Phys. Rev. A112, 062414 (2025)

    work page 2025

  69. [69]

    A. M. Childs, Y. Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, Theory of Trotter error with commutator scaling, Phys. Rev. X11, 011020 (2021)

    work page 2021

  70. [70]

    A. W. Harrow, B. Recht, and I. L. Chuang, Efficient dis- crete approximations of quantum gates, J. Math. Phys. 43, 4445 (2002)

    work page 2002

  71. [71]

    Hardy, P

    A. Hardy, P. Mukhopadhyay, M. S. Alam, R. Konik, L. Hormozi, E. Rieffel, S. Hadfield, J. A. Barata, R. Venu- gopalan, D. E. Kharzeev, and N. Wiebe, Scattering pro- cesses from quantum simulation algorithms for scalar field theories, PRX Quantum7, 010343 (2026)

    work page 2026

  72. [72]

    Watrous,The Theory of Quantum Information(Cam- bridge University Press, 2018)

    J. Watrous,The Theory of Quantum Information(Cam- bridge University Press, 2018)

    work page 2018

  73. [73]

    Chakraborty, Implementing any linear combination of unitaries on intermediate-term quantum computers, Quantum8, 1496 (2024)

    S. Chakraborty, Implementing any linear combination of unitaries on intermediate-term quantum computers, Quantum8, 1496 (2024)

    work page 2024

  74. [74]

    Kar´ acsony, L

    M. Kar´ acsony, L. Oroszl´ any, and Z. Zimbor´ as, Effi- cient qudit based scheme for photonic quantum comput- ing, SciPost Phys. Core7, 032 (2024), arXiv:2302.07357 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    M¨ ott¨ onen, J

    M. M¨ ott¨ onen, J. J. Vartiainen, V. Bergholm, and M. M. Salomaa, Transformation of quantum states using uni- formly controlled rotations, Quant. Inf. Comput.5, 467–473 (2005)

    work page 2005

  76. [76]

    Bergholm, J

    V. Bergholm, J. J. Vartiainen, M. M¨ ott¨ onen, and M. M. Salomaa, Quantum circuits with uniformly controlled one-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. A71, 052330 (2005)

    work page 2005

  77. [77]

    Babbush, C

    R. Babbush, C. Gidney, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, J. Mc- Clean, A. Paler, A. Fowler, and H. Neven, Encoding elec- tronic spectra in quantum circuits with linear T complex- ity, Phys. Rev. X8, 041015 (2018). 24

    work page 2018

  78. [78]

    A Note on Optimality of Quantum Circuits over Metaplectic Basis

    A. Bocharov, A note on optimality of quantum circuits over metaplectic basis, Quant. Inf. Comput.18, 0001 (2018), arXiv:1606.02315 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  79. [79]

    Selinger, Efficient Clifford+T approximation of single- qubit operators, Quant

    P. Selinger, Efficient Clifford+T approximation of single- qubit operators, Quant. Inf. Comput.15, 159–180 (2015)

    work page 2015

  80. [80]

    J. E. Moussa, Quantum circuits for qubit fusion, Quant. Inf. Comput.16, 1113 (2016), arXiv:1512.06132 [quant- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

Showing first 80 references.