CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 236Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Information and CryptographyQuantum many-body systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measurement-based quantum computation beyond the one-way model

Open access
Gross, D., Eisert, J., Schuch, N., Perez-Garcia, D.·2007·Physical Review A
DOI 10.1103/physreva.76.052315
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We introduce schemes for quantum computing based on local measurements on entangled resource states. This work elaborates on the framework established in Gross and Eisert [Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 220503 (2007); quant-ph/0609149]. Our method makes use of tools from many-body physics---matrix product states, finitely correlated states, or projected entangled pairs states---to show how measurements on entangled states can be viewed as processing quantum information. This work hence constitutes an instance where a quantum information problem---how to realize quantum computation---was approached using tools from many-body theory and not vice versa. We give a more detailed description of the setting and present a large number of examples. We find computational schemes, which differ from the original one-way computer, for example, in the way the randomness of measurement outcomes is handled. Also, schemes are presented where the logical qubits are no longer strictly localized on the resource state. Notably, we find a great flexibility in the properties of the universal resource states: They may, for example, exhibit nonvanishing long-range correlation functions or be locally arbitrarily close to a pure state. We discuss variants of Kitaev's toric code states as universal resources, and contrast this with situations where they can be efficiently classically simulated. This framework opens up a way of thinking of tailoring resource states to specific physical systems, such as cold atoms in optical lattices or linear optical systems.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physreva.76.052315

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 61 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. R. Raussendorf, 2002, Quantum Inf. Comput., 6, 433
  2. 2005, Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” on “Quantum Computers, Algorithms and Chaos,”
  3. R. Jozsa, 2006, Quantum Information Proceedings
  4. I. Affleck, 1987, Commun. Math. Phys., 59, 799
  5. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.220601 · DOI · Paper page
  6. D. Gottesman, 1999, Proceedings of the XXII International Coll. Group Theor. Meth. Phys.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–236 of 236

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Gross, D., Eisert, J., Schuch, N., & Perez-Garcia, D.
Affiliations
  • London Institute for Mathematical Sciences (GB)
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
ORCID
Venue
Physical Review A
Publisher
American Physical Society (APS)
Published
2007-11-19
Volume
76
Issue
5
ISSN
  • 0556-2791 (ISSN-L)
  • 1050-2947
  • 1094-1622
DOI
10.1103/physreva.76.052315
OpenAlex
W2077225059
Cited by
236
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 17
FWCI
18.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
link.aps.org/licenses/aps-default-license (vor)
Locations
  • Physical Review A (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Library Open Repository (Universidad Complutense Madrid) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Microsoft Research
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
Keywords
measurement-based quantum computation, one-way quantum computation, local measurements, matrix product states, projected entangled pair states, toric code, long-range correlations, classical simulation, ultracold atoms in optical lattices, linear optical systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review