CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 8Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Information and CryptographySemiconductor Quantum Structures and Devices

Understanding photonic quantum-logic gates: The road to fault tolerance

Open access
Weinhold, Till J., Gilchrist, Alexei, Resch, Kevin J., Doherty, Andrew C., O'Brien, Jeremy L., Pryde, Geoffrey J., White, Andrew G.·2008·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.0808.0794arXiv 0808.0794
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Fault-tolerant quantum computing requires gates which function correctly despite the presence of errors, and are scalable if the error probability-per-gate is below a threshold value. To date, no method has been described for calculating this probability from measurements on a gate. Here we introduce a technique enabling quantitative benchmarking of quantum-logic gates against fault-tolerance thresholds for any architecture. We demonstrate our technique experimentally using a photonic entangling-gate. The relationship between experimental errors and their quantum logic effect is non-trivial: revealing this relationship requires a comprehensive theoretical model of the quantum-logic gate. We show the first such model for any architecture, and find multi-photon emission--a small effect previously regarded as secondary to mode-mismatch--to be the dominant source of logic error. We show that reducing this will move photonic quantum computing to within striking distance of fault-tolerance.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.0808.0794

Cites

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?

  • Recently, several experiments were performed to identify and quantify experimental imperfections that contribute error to produced multi-photon states.

    “Recently, several experiments were performed to identify and quantify the experimental imperfections that contribute error to the produced multi-photon states (see Barbieri et al. 2009;Weinhold et al. 2008).”

    From Multiphoton entanglement and interferometry (2012) · cites this paper as Weinhold et al. 2008

    The Error Model section (pp. 4–5) identifies and quantifies experimental imperfections, including higher-order photon terms, loss, and mode mismatch. This paper measures their effects on a photonic quantum-logic gate, however, rather than directly quantifying errors in produced multi-photon states. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The majority of experimental demonstrations so far have relied on SPDC photons, which suffer from undesired higher-order photon emission, large bandwidth, and probabilistic photon pair emission.

    “The majority of experimental demonstrations so far have relied on the SPDC photons, which suffers from undesired higherorder photon emission (Weinhold et al. 2008, this has been considered as the major source of error for most experiments reviewed here, see Section IV.D.1), large bandwidth, and the probabilistic manner of photon pair emission.”

    From Multiphoton entanglement and interferometry (2012) · cites this paper as Weinhold et al. 2008

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. [1]M. A. Nielsen and I. J. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2000).
  2. [2]D. Deutsch, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 400 , 97-117 (1985).
  3. [3]P. W. Shor, in Proc. 35th Ann. Symp. Found. Comp. Sci. (ed. Goldwasser, S.) , 124-133 (IEEE Comp.Soc.Press, Los Alamitos, California, 1994).
  4. [7]S. Gasparoni, J.-W. Pan, P. Walther, T. Rudolph, and A. Zeilinger, Physical Review Letters 93 , 020504 (2004).
  5. Franson, Physical Review A 68 , 032316 (2003).
  6. [13]B. P. Lanyon, et al. , Physical Review Letters 99 , 200505 (2007).
  7. [14]C.-Y. Lu , D. E. Browne, T. Yang, and J.-W. Pan, Physical Review Letters 99 , 250504 (2007).
  8. [15]P. W. Shor, Physical Review A 52 , R2493-R2496 (1995).
  9. [16]A. Steane, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 452 , 2551-2577 (1996).
  10. [17]D. Gottesman, quant-ph/0701112 (2007). · arXiv
  11. [18]R. Dahl, The Gremlins (Random House Press, New York, 1943).
  12. [21]J. L. O'Brien, et al. , Physical Review Letters 93 , 080502 (2004).
  13. [22]A. Gilchrist, N. K. Langford, and M. A. Nielsen, Physical Review A 71 , 062310 (2005).
  14. [23]S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, L. Convex Optimization (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004).
  15. [24]M. Nielsen, Physical Review Letters 93, 040503 (2004).
  16. [25]N. K. Langford, Physical Review Letters 95 , 210504 (2005).
  17. [26]N. Kiesel, et al. , Physical Review Letters 95 , 210505 (2005).
  18. [27]R. Okamoto, et al. , Physical Review Letters 95 , 210506 (2005).
  19. [28]P. Kok, J. Lee, and J. P. Dowling, Physical Review A 66 , 063814 (2002).
  20. [29]K. Sanaka, et al. , Physical Review Letters 96 , 083601 (2006).
  21. [31]N. Sangouard, et al. , Physical Review A 76 , 050301(R) (2007).
  22. [32]For example, see special issue: Focus on Single Photons on Demand. New Journal of Physics 6 (2004).
  23. [33]For example, see special issue: Single-photon: detectors, applications, and measurement methods. Journal of Modern Optics 51 (2004).
  24. [34]P. P. Rohde and T. C. Ralph, Physical Review A 73 , 062312 (2006).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Weinhold, T. J., Gilchrist, A., Resch, K. J., Doherty, A. C., O'Brien, J. L., Pryde, G. J., & White, A. G.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2008
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.0808.0794
arXiv
0808.0794
OpenAlex
W1487554982
Cited by
8
References
0
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2012: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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 › Semiconductor Quantum Structures and Devices
Keywords
fault-tolerant quantum computing, quantum gates, photonic quantum computing, entangling gates, fault tolerance threshold, multiphoton emission, mode mismatch, error probability

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