CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 434Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Information and CryptographyQuantum Mechanics and Applications

Phase-Programmable Gaussian Boson Sampling Using Stimulated Squeezed Light

Open access
Zhong, Han-Sen, Deng, Yu-Hao, Qin, Jian, Wang, Hui, Chen, Ming-Cheng, Peng, Li-Chao, Luo, Yi-Han, Wu, Dian +18 more·2021·Physical Review Letters
DOI 10.1103/physrevlett.127.180502
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We report phase-programmable Gaussian boson sampling (GBS) which produces up to 113 photon detection events out of a 144-mode photonic circuit. A new high-brightness and scalable quantum light source is developed, exploring the idea of stimulated emission of squeezed photons, which has simultaneously near-unity purity and efficiency. This GBS is programmable by tuning the phase of the input squeezed states. The obtained samples are efficiently validated by inferring from computationally friendly subsystems, which rules out hypotheses including distinguishable photons and thermal states. We show that our GBS experiment passes a nonclassicality test based on inequality constraints, and we reveal nontrivial genuine high-order correlations in the GBS samples, which are evidence of robustness against possible classical simulation schemes. This photonic quantum computer, Jiuzhang 2.0, yields a Hilbert space dimension up to ∼10^{43}, and a sampling rate ∼10^{24} faster than using brute-force simulation on classical supercomputers.

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/physrevlett.127.180502

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • There are two ways around the no-go result: give up programmability and build an ultralow loss fixed static interferometer, or give up universality while maintaining a high degree of multimode entanglement using long-ranged gates.

    “There are then two ways around this no-go result: one can either give up programmability and build an ultralow loss fixed static interferometer, as implemented in refs. 1,2, or give up universality while maintaining a high degree of multimode entanglement using long-ranged gates.”

    From Quantum computational advantage with a programmable photonic processor (2022) · cites this paper as [2]

    The citation is attached to the first option: giving up programmability to use a fixed interferometer. In the “Phase-programmable GBS” passage, the source says its interferometer is fixed but its sampling matrix can be reconfigured by changing the input phases, making the machine programmable. It therefore contradicts the claim that this implementation gives up programmability. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The significant third- and fourth-order cumulants observed in refs. 1,2 reflect that most of their inputs are vacuum and that their experiment lacks photon-number resolution.

    “Thus, the fact that significant third- and fourth-order cumulants are observed in refs. 1,2 is simply a reflection of the fact that most of their inputs are vacuum and that their experiment lacks photon-number resolution.”

    From Quantum computational advantage with a programmable photonic processor (2022) · cites this paper as [2]

    The discussion of Fig. 3(b)–(e) (section labeled Abstract; page unavailable) reports experimental truncated first- through fourth-order correlations, supporting the observation of third- and fourth-order correlations. Fig. 1(d) describes 25 pairs of squeezed inputs in a 144-mode interferometer and readout by single-photon detectors. The paper does not attribute the observed correlations to vacuum inputs or a lack of photon-number resolution; it describes them as nontrivial genuine high-order correlations. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Other architectures either give up programmability or suffer steep losses that, in the asymptotic limit of many modes, render the sampling task roughly simulable as the loss scales exponentially with the system size.

    “This is not the case for other architectures in which one either has to give up programmability1,2 or suffer steep losses that, in the asymptotic limit of many modes, render the sampling task roughly simulable as the loss scales exponentially with the system size31.”

    From Quantum computational advantage with a programmable photonic processor (2022) · cites this paper as [2]

    The passage headed “Limits on classical simulability of GBS” (page unavailable) says photon loss can degrade interference until sampling becomes classically simulable. It does not say that other architectures incur losses scaling exponentially with the number of modes, so it supports the loss–simulability link but not the claim’s architectural and asymptotic specifics. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Using the same assumptions, Fugaku would require 1.5 h, on average, to generate one sample from the experiment in ref. 2.

    “we estimate that Fugaku would require 1.5 h, on average, to generate one sample from the experiment in ref. 2”

    From Quantum computational advantage with a programmable photonic processor (2022) · cites this paper as [2]

  • Using the same assumptions, Fugaku would require 8,500 years for the 50 million samples generated in the experiment in ref. 2.

    “or 8,500 years for the 50 million generated in their experiment.”

    From Quantum computational advantage with a programmable photonic processor (2022) · cites this paper as [2]

    The classical computational cost passage (page not supplied) estimates simulation time using Sunway TaihuLight, not Fugaku. Searches for Fugaku, 8,500 years, and 50 million samples found no passage in our copy giving the claimed estimate or sample count. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 62

  1. [1]1. F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. Brandao, D. A. Buell et al., Nature (London) 574, 505 (2019).
  2. [2]2. H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y.-H. Deng, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y.-H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y. Hu et al., Science 370, 1460 (2020).
  3. [4]4. C. S. Hamilton, R. Kruse, L. Sansoni, S. Barkhofen, C. Silberhorn, and I. Jex, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 170501 (2017). 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021
  4. [5]5. J. S. Bell, Phys. Phys. Fiz. 1, 195 (1964).
  5. [6]6. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).
  6. [8]8. A. W. Harrow and A. Montanaro, Nature (London) 549, 203 (2017).
  7. [9]9. A. P. Lund, M. J. Bremner, and T. C. Ralph, Quantum Inf. 3, 1 (2017).
  8. [14]14. N. Quesada, J. M. Arrazola, T. Vincent, H. Qi, and R. García-Patrón, arXiv:2010.15595. · arXiv
  9. [15]15. Y. Zhou, E. M. Stoudenmire, and X. Waintal, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041038 (2020).
  10. [18]18. J. Gray and S. Kourtis, Quantum 5, 410 (2021).
  11. [19]19. P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 135 (2007).
  12. [20]20. E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, Nature (London) 409, 46 (2001).
  13. [21]21. A. P. Lund, A. Laing, S. Rahimi-Keshari, T. Rudolph, J. L. OBrien, and T. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 100502 (2014).
  14. [22]22. A. Deshpande, A. Mehta, T. Vincent, N. Quesada, M. Hinsche, M. Ioannou, L. Madsen, J. Lavoie, H. Qi, J. Eisert et al., arXiv:2102.12474. · arXiv
  15. [23]23. N. Quesada, J. M. Arrazola, and N. Killoran, Phys. Rev. A 98, 062322 (2018).
  16. [24]24. R. Kruse, C. S. Hamilton, L. Sansoni, S. Barkhofen, C. Silberhorn, and I. Jex, Phys. Rev. A 100, 032326 (2019).
  17. [25]25. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/ supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.180502 for de- tailed descriptions of stimulated parametric down- conversion sources, three-dimensional interferometer, single photon detectors, subsystem validation method, and phase locking, which includes Refs. [2,3,22-24,26-34].
  18. [26]26. A. Lamas-Linares, J. C. Howell, and D. Bouwmeester, Nature (London) 412, 887 (2001).
  19. [29]29. A. Christ, K. Laiho, A. Eckstein, K. N. Cassemiro, and C. Silberhorn, New J. Phys. 13, 033027 (2011).
  20. [30]30. W. Zhang, L. You, H. Li, J. Huang, C. Lv, L. Zhang, X. Liu, J. Wu, Z. Wang, and X. Xie, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 60, 1 (2017).
  21. [32]32. T. Jiang, Ann. Probability 34, 1497 (2006).
  22. [33]33. T. Jiang, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 50, 063302 (2009).
  23. [34]34. V. S. Shchesnovich, Int. J. Quantum. Inform. 18, 2050044 (2020).
  24. [35]35. H.-S. Zhong, L.-C. Peng, Y. Li, Y. Hu, W. Li, J. Qin, D. Wu, W. Zhang, H. Li, L. Zhang et al., Sci. Bull. 64, 511 (2019).
  25. [36]36. J. Arrazola, V. Bergholm, K. Brádler, T. Bromley, M. Collins, I. Dhand, A. Fumagalli, T. Gerrits, A. Goussev, L. Helt et al., Nature (London) 591, 54 (2021).
  26. [37]37. S. Paesani, Y. Ding, R. Santagati, L. Chakhmakhchyan, C. Vigliar, K. Rottwitt, L. K. Oxenløwe, J. Wang, M. G. Thompson, and A. Laing, Nat. Phys. 15, 925 (2019).
  27. [38]38. H. S. Eisenberg, G. Khoury, G. A. Durkin, C. Simon, and D. Bouwmeester, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 193901 (2004).
  28. [39]39. H. Wang, J. Qin, X. Ding, M.-C. Chen, S. Chen, X. You, Y.-M. He, X. Jiang, L. You, Z. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 250503 (2019).
  29. [40]40. S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, Quantum Inf. Comput. 14, 1383 (2014).
  30. [41]41. M. Bentivegna, N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, D. J. Brod, A. Crespi, F. Flamini, R. Ramponi, P. Mataloni, R. Osellame, E. F. Galvão et al., Int. J. Quantum. Inform. 12, 1560028 (2015).
  31. [42]42. N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, M. Bentivegna, D. J. Brod, A. Crespi, F. Flamini, S. Giacomini, G. Milani, R. Ramponi, P. Mataloni, R. Osellame, E. F. Galvão, and F. Sciarrino, Nat. Photonics 8, 615 (2014).
  32. [43]43. P. D. Drummond, B. Opanchuk, and M. D. Reid, arXiv: 2102.10341. · arXiv
  33. [44]44. T. Giordani, F. Flamini, M. Pompili, N. Viggianiello, N. Spagnolo, A. Crespi, R. Osellame, N. Wiebe, M. Walschaers, A. Buchleitner et al., Nat. Photonics 12, 173 (2018).
  34. [45]45. H. Qi, D. J. Brod, N. Quesada, and R. García-Patrón, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 100502 (2020).
  35. [46]46. R. García-Patrón, J. J. Renema, and V. Shchesnovich, Quantum 3, 169 (2019).
  36. [47]47. J. J. Renema, Phys. Rev. A 101, 063840 (2020).
  37. [51]51. D. S. Phillips, M. Walschaers, J. J. Renema, I. A. Walmsley, N. Treps, and J. Sperling, Phys. Rev. A 99, 023836 (2019).
  38. [52]52. M. Duneau, D. Iagolnitzer, and B. Souillard, Commun. Math. Phys. 31, 191 (1973).
  39. [57]57. M. A. Broome, A. Fedrizzi, S. Rahimi-Keshari, J. Dove, S. Aaronson, T. C. Ralph, and A. G. White, Science 339, 794 (2013).
  40. [58]58. J. B. Spring, B. J. Metcalf, P. C. Humphreys, W. S. Kolthammer, X.-M. Jin, M. Barbieri, A. Datta, N. Thomas-Peter, N. K. Langford, D. Kundys et al., Science 339, 798 (2013).
  41. [59]59. M. Tillmann, B. Dakić, R. Heilmann, S. Nolte, A. Szameit, and P. Walther, Nat. Photonics 7, 540 (2013).
  42. [60]60. A. Crespi, R. Osellame, R. Ramponi, D. J. Brod, E. F. Galvão, N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, E. Maiorino, P. Mataloni, and F. Sciarrino, Nat. Photonics 7, 545 (2013).
  43. [61]61. J. Carolan, C. Harrold, C. Sparrow, E. Martín-López, N. J. Russell, J. W. Silverstone, P. J. Shadbolt, N. Matsuda, M. Oguma, M. Itoh et al., Science 349, 711 (2015).
  44. [62]62. H. Wang, Y. He, Y.-H. Li, Z.-E. Su, B. Li, H.-L. Huang, X. Ding, M.-C. Chen, C. Liu, J. Qin et al., Nat. Photonics 11, 361 (2017).
  45. [63]63. J. C. Loredo, M. A. Broome, P. Hilaire, O. Gazzano, I. Sagnes, A. Lemaitre, M. P. Almeida, P. Senellart, and A. G. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 130503 (2017).
  46. [64]64. M. Bentivegna, N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, F. Flamini, N. Viggianiello, L. Latmiral, P. Mataloni, D. J. Brod, E. F. Galvão, A. Crespi et al., Sci. Adv. 1, e1400255 (2015).
  47. [65]65. H.-S. Zhong, Y. Li, W. Li, L.-C. Peng, Z.-E. Su, Y. Hu, Y.-M. He, X. Ding, W. Zhang, H. Li et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 250505 (2018).
  48. [66]66. H. Wang, W. Li, X. Jiang, Y.-M. He, Y.-H. Li, X. Ding, M.-C. Chen, J. Qin, C.-Z. Peng, C. Schneider et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 230502 (2018).
  49. [67]67. J. Carolan, J. D. Meinecke, P. J. Shadbolt, N. J. Russell, N. Ismail, K. Wörhoff, T. Rudolph, M. G. Thompson, J. L. O'brien, J. C. Matthews et al., Nat. Photonics 8, 621 (2014).
  50. [69]69. J. Huh, G. G. Guerreschi, B. Peropadre, J. R. McClean, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Nat. Photonics 9, 615 (2015).
  51. [70]70. J. Huh and M.-H. Yung, Sci. Rep. 7, 1 (2017).
  52. [71]71. S. Jahangiri, J. M. Arrazola, and A. Delgado, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 12, 1256 (2021).
  53. [72]72. J. M. Arrazola and T. R. Bromley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 030503 (2018).
  54. [73]73. J. M. Arrazola, T. R. Bromley, and P. Rebentrost, Phys. Rev. A 98, 012322 (2018).
  55. [74]74. K. Brádler, S. Friedland, J. Izaac, N. Killoran, and D. Su, Spec. Matrices 9, 166 (2021).
  56. [75]75. M. Schuld and N. Killoran, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 040504 (2019).
  57. [76]76. U. Chabaud, D. Markham, and A. Sohbi, Quantum 5, 496 (2021).
  58. [77]77. J. Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018).
  59. [78]78. N. C. Menicucci, P. Van Loock, M. Gu, C. Weedbrook, T. C. Ralph, and M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 110501 (2006).
  60. [79]79. D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. A 64, 012310 (2001).
  61. [80]80. D. Su, C. R. Myers, and K. K. Sabapathy, Phys. Rev. A 100, 052301 (2019).
  62. [81]81. Y. Wu et al., preceding Letter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 180501 (2021).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Zhong, H.-S., Deng, Y.-H., Qin, J., Wang, H., Chen, M.-C., Peng, L.-C., Luo, Y.-H., Wu, D., Gong, S.-Q., Su, H., Hu, Y., Hu, P., Yang, X.-Y., Zhang, W.-J., Li, H., Li, Y., Jiang, X., Gan, L., Yang, G., You, L., Wang, Z., Li, L., Liu, N.-L., Renema, J. J., Lu, C.-Y., & Pan, J.-W.
Affiliations
  • University of Science and Technology of China (CN)
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
  • Beijing National Research Center for Information Science and Technology (CN)
  • University of Twente (NL)
ORCID
Venue
Physical Review Letters
Publisher
American Physical Society (APS)
Published
2021-10-25
Volume
127
Issue
18
Pages
180502-180502
ISSN
  • 0031-9007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1079-7114
DOI
10.1103/physrevlett.127.180502
OpenAlex
W3176603110
Cited by
434
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 87 · 2024: 91 · 2023: 113 · 2022: 85 · 2021: 13
FWCI
26.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
link.aps.org/licenses/aps-default-license (vor)
Locations
  • Physical Review Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China (2019YFA0308700)
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences
  • Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (2019SHZDZX01)
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
  • Anhui Initiative in Quantum Information Technologies
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
Keywords
Gaussian boson sampling, photonic quantum computing, quantum advantage, Hilbert space dimension

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