Quick Navigation

Topics

Bosonic Continuous Variable Quantum Computing

Cavity-QED tools for MBQC with optical binomial-codes

arXiv
Authors: G. P. Teja, Radim Filip

Year

2026

Paper ID

3519

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

104

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Measurement-based quantum computation (MBQC) offers a promising paradigm for photonic quantum computing, but its implementation requires the generation of specific non-Gaussian resource states. While continuous-variable encodings such as the highly complex (GKP) states have been widely studied, the much simpler binomial codes offer an experimentally accessible alternative, though they demand a distinct set of operational tools. Here, we present a toolkit for MBQC using optical binomial codes, detailing a cavity-QED protocol for conditional generation of cluster states and the implementation of Pauli measurements. Our work proposes the first steps for existing optical atom-cavity architectures to lay the groundwork for their use in quantum computation.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Bosonic & Continuous-Variable Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2026 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • Measurement-based quantum computation (MBQC) offers a promising paradigm for photonic quantum computing, but its implementation requires the generation of specific non-Gaussian...

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #3519

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.