- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Applied

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Measurement-based quantum compiling via gauge invariance

Sebastiano Corli

Enrico Prati*

  • *Contact author: enrico.prati@unimi.it
PDF

Phys. Rev. Applied 25, 044068 – Published 23 April, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/lpkt-zgfn

Abstract

The measurement-based architecture is a paradigm of quantum computing, relying on the entanglement of a cluster of qubits and the measurements of a subset of it, conditioning the state of the unmeasured output qubits. While methods to map the gate model circuits into the measurement-based are already available via intermediate steps, we introduce a paradigm for quantum compiling directly converting any quantum circuit to a class of graph states, independently from its size. This method relies on the stabilizer formalism to describe the register of the input qubits. An equivalence class between graph states able to implement the same circuit is defined, giving rise to a gauge freedom when compiling in the MBQC frame. The graph state can be rebuilt from the circuit and the input by employing a set of graphical rules. A system of equations describes the overall process. Compared with measurement calculus, the ancillary qubits are reduced by 50% on the quantum Fourier transform and 75% on the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm, still preserving similar scaling laws for the number of entangling gates.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (63)

  1. R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A one-way quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188 (2001).
  2. J. Wang, F. Sciarrino, A. Laing, and M. G. Thompson, Integrated photonic quantum technologies, Nat. Photonics 14, 273 (2020).
  3. G. Panichi, S. Corli, and E. Prati, Quantum physics-informed neural networks for multivariable partial differential equations, Phys. Rev. Appl. 25, 014001 (2026).
  4. S. Corli, L. Moro, D. Dragoni, M. Dispenza, and E. Prati, Quantum machine learning algorithms for anomaly detection: A review, Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 166, 107632 (2025).
  5. V. Dunjko, E. Kashefi, and A. Leverrier, Blind quantum computing with weak coherent pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 200502 (2012).
  6. A. Kissinger and J. van de Wetering, Universal MBQC with generalised parity-phase interactions and Pauli measurements, Quantum 3, 134 (2019).
  7. J. Joo, C.-W. Lee, S. Kono, and J. Kim, Logical measurement-based quantum computation in circuit-QED, Sci. Rep. 9, 16592 (2019).
  8. J. R. Scott and K. C. Balram, Timing constraints imposed by classical digital control systems on photonic implementations of measurement-based quantum computing, IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng. 3, 1 (2022).
  9. M. Proietti, F. Cerocchi, and M. Dispenza, Native measurement-based quantum approximate optimization algorithm applied to the Max K-Cut problem, Phys. Rev. A 106, 022437 (2022).
  10. S. C. Benjamin, D. E. Browne, J. Fitzsimons, and J. J. Morton, Brokered graph-state quantum computation, New J. Phys. 8, 141 (2006).
  11. M. Zwerger, H. Briegel, and W. Dür, Hybrid architecture for encoded measurement-based quantum computation, Sci. Rep. 4, 5364 (2014).
  12. C. Kruszynska, A. Miyake, H. J. Briegel, and W. Dür, Entanglement purification protocols for all graph states, Phys. Rev. A 74, 052316 (2006).
  13. W. Dür, H. Aschauer, and H.-J. Briegel, Multiparticle entanglement purification for graph states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 107903 (2003).
  14. H. Aschauer, W. Dür, and H.-J. Briegel, Multiparticle entanglement purification for two-colorable graph states, Phys. Rev. A 71, 012319 (2005).
  15. S. Glancy, E. Knill, and H. M. Vasconcelos, Entanglement purification of any stabilizer state, Phys. Rev. A 74, 032319 (2006).
  16. A. Bera, F. A. Wudarski, G. Sarbicki, and D. Chruściński, Class of Bell-diagonal entanglement witnesses in C4⊗C4: Optimization and the spanning property, Phys. Rev. A 105, 052401 (2022).
  17. N. C. Menicucci, Fault-tolerant measurement-based quantum computing with continuous-variable cluster states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 120504 (2014).
  18. M. V. Larsen, X. Guo, C. R. Breum, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, Deterministic generation of a two-dimensional cluster state, Science 366, 369 (2019).
  19. R. Raussendorf, J. Harrington, and K. Goyal, Topological fault-tolerance in cluster state quantum computation, New J. Phys. 9, 199 (2007).
  20. A. Mantri, T. F. Demarie, and J. F. Fitzsimons, Universality of quantum computation with cluster states and (X,Y)-plane measurements, Sci. Rep. 7, 42861 (2017).
  21. S. Corli, D. Dragoni, M. Proietti, M. Dispenza, C. Cavazzoni, and E. Prati, Benchmarking the emulation of measurement-based quantum computing through the max k-cut algorithm, Quantum Inf. Process. 24, 396 (2025).
  22. V. Danos, E. Kashefi, and P. Panangaden, The measurement calculus, J. ACM 54, 8 (2007).
  23. E. Pius, in High Performance Computing (Edinburgh, 2010), https://static.epcc.ed.ac.uk/dissertations/hpc-msc/2009-2010/Einar%20Pius.pdf.
  24. R. Duncan and S. Perdrix, in International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (Springer, 2010), p. 285, https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/30783752/gflow-libre.pdf?1391869645=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DRewriting_measurement_based_quantum_comp.pdf&Expires=1764940561&Signature=ODUW8g3DmQy4FVr3aF5HuUcUVZiGQTQfmuwLqZZPIfA0ZjLHVJGLe46z5zqmU3k0HeBcFLxme-IczhybIs3PI1-NYbdroP13R50IdRIlJorvAgjHjPYBTYCnfKGygGlXUXxVjJX66geIyfClQ3t9Owh9N92dNJcpsXIWZkhe2HHio-xhWDhrwn4tWU3X9MJzbJZoRuTnKay1∼KtOBmrg56GB4vfAxFZXY7olLEcsKxm4BzoT66x5KD269viubhB46YJIZg2EPQrDzmx1wUZf7NTQiONEZI∼zl8SwPbR7aqUMQBMt2R-ZDAYtwluH∼laCmu6z59wJWBfgv3JQBIa71w__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA.
  25. W. Simmons, Relating measurement patterns to circuits via Pauli flow, arXiv:2109.05654.
  26. J. Miyazaki, M. Hajdušek, and M. Murao, Analysis of the trade-off between spatial and temporal resources for measurement-based quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 91, 052302 (2015).
  27. M. Backens, H. Miller-Bakewell, G. de Felice, L. Lobski, and J. van de Wetering, There and back again: A circuit extraction tale, Quantum 5, 421 (2021).
  28. B. Kraus, Local unitary equivalence of multipartite pure states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 020504 (2010).
  29. N. Claudet and S. Perdrix, STACS: 42nd International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (2025).
  30. M. K. Vijayan, A. Paler, J. Gavriel, C. R. Myers, P. P. Rohde, and S. J. Devitt, Compilation of algorithm-specific graph states for quantum circuits, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9, 025005 (2024).
  31. R. R. Ferguson, L. Dellantonio, A. A. Balushi, K. Jansen, W. Dür, and C. A. Muschik, Measurement-based variational quantum eigensolver, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 220501 (2021).
  32. F. K. Marqversen and N. T. Zinner, Applications and resource reductions in measurement-based variational quantum eigensolvers, Quantum Sci. Technol. 8, 045001 (2023).
  33. T. N. Kaldenbach and M. Heller, Mapping quantum circuits to shallow-depth measurement patterns based on graph states, Quantum Sci. Technol. 10, 015010 (2025).
  34. H. Poulsen Nautrup and H. J. Briegel, Measurement-based quantum computation from clifford quantum cellular automata, Phys. Rev. A 110, 062617 (2024).
  35. J. Ruh and S. Devitt, Quantum circuit optimisation and mbqc scheduling with a pauli tracking library, IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng. (2025).
  36. A. Paler, S. J. Devitt, K. Nemoto, and I. Polian, Software Pauli tracking for quantum computation, arXiv:1401.5872.
  37. S. Sunami and M. Fukushima, Graphix: Optimizing and simulating measurement-based quantum computation on local-Clifford decorated graph, arXiv:2212.11975.
  38. Y. Li, A. Pawar, Z. Mo, Y. Zhang, J. Yang, and X. Tang, in Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 4 (ACM Digital Library, New York, 2024), p. 111.
  39. S. Liu, N. Benchasattabuse, D. Q. Morgan, M. Hajdušek, S. J. Devitt, and R. Van Meter, in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 1 (IEEE, 2023), p. 870, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=10313779.
  40. J. van de Wetering, ZX-calculus for the working quantum computer scientist, arXiv:2012.13966.
  41. D. Browne and H. Briegel, One-way Quantum Computation, Quantum information: From foundations to quantum technology applications, arXiv:quant-ph/0603226.
  42. G. Wong, R. Raussendorf, and B. Czech, The gauge theory of measurement-based quantum computation, Quantum 8, 1397 (2024).
  43. S. Corli and E. Prati, in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 3017 (IOP Publishing, 2025), p. 012043.
  44. S. Corli and E. Prati, in Quantum 2.0 (Optica Publishing Group, San Francisco, 2025), p. QW4B–5.
  45. S. Corli and E. Prati, in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Rebooting Computing (ICRC) (IEEE, 2022), p. 1, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.12102.pdf.
  46. N. Khaneja and S. J. Glaser, Cartan decomposition of SU(2n) and control of spin systems, Chem. Phys. 267, 11 (2001).
  47. V. Saravanan and S. M. Saeed, in 2021 22nd International Symposium on Quality Electronic Design (ISQED) (IEEE, 2021), p. 73, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9424311.
  48. A. Rodriguez, KAK decomposition in quantum computing (Lamar University-Beaumont, 2012), https://www.proquest.com/openview/4a4aef1b8c2c4abc7a91f4d525ea3920/1?casa_token=PqbeLo7V-WsAAAAA:jOjh9XINQISevf5u9V5Lxy0hPDJ2O57M6isuMyCpHNRmps4vdqE1ghACtLSBeAaNz83gsVFeqD3I&cbl=18750&pq-origsite=gscholar&parentSessionId=Z12ToMLMJBPXbZCcwyfFbg4zmo9tch7t9rdeC%2B9KLIk%3D.
  49. L. Lao, A. Korotkov, Z. Jiang, W. Mruczkiewicz, T. E. O’Brien, and D. E. Browne, Software mitigation of coherent two-qubit gate errors, Quantum Sci. Technol. 7, 025021 (2022).
  50. S. S. Bullock and G. K. Brennen, Canonical decompositions of n-qubit quantum computations and concurrence, J. Math. Phys. 45, 2447 (2004).
  51. T. N. Kaldenbach, I. D. Smith, H. P. Nautrup, M. Heller, and H. J. Briegel, Efficient preparation of resource states for Hamiltonian simulation and universal quantum computation, arXiv:2509.05404.
  52. J. C. Adcock, C. Vigliar, R. Santagati, J. W. Silverstone, and M. G. Thompson, Programmable four-photon graph states on a silicon chip, Nat. Commun. 10, 3528 (2019).
  53. D. E. Browne, E. Kashefi, M. Mhalla, and S. Perdrix, Generalized flow and determinism in measurement-based quantum computation, New J. Phys. 9, 250 (2007).
  54. D. Markham and E. Kashefi, Entanglement, flow and classical simulatability in measurement based quantum computation, Horizons of the Mind. A Tribute to Prakash Panangaden: Essays Dedicated to Prakash Panangaden on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, arXiv:1311.3610.
  55. N. M. Linke, D. Maslov, M. Roetteler, S. Debnath, C. Figgatt, K. A. Landsman, K. Wright, and C. Monroe, Experimental comparison of two quantum computing architectures, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 3305 (2017).
  56. J. Dehaene and B. De Moor, Clifford group, stabilizer states, and linear and quadratic operations over GF (2), Phys. Rev. A 68, 042318 (2003).
  57. M. Van den Nest, J. Dehaene, and B. De Moor, Local unitary versus local Clifford equivalence of stabilizer states, Phys. Rev. A 71, 062323 (2005).
  58. S. Anders and H. J. Briegel, Fast simulation of stabilizer circuits using a graph-state representation, Phys. Rev. A 73, 022334 (2006).
  59. N. Rengaswamy, R. Calderbank, S. Kadhe, and H. D. Pfister, Logical Clifford synthesis for stabilizer codes, IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng. 1, 1 (2020).
  60. P. Kok, in Theoretical Foundations of Quantum Information Processing and Communication: Selected Topics (Springer, Heidelberg, 2009), p. 187.
  61. C. G. Brell, Generalized cluster states based on finite groups, New J. Phys. 17, 023029 (2015).
  62. D. B. West, Introduction to Graph Theory (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2001), Vol. 2, https://www.academia.edu/download/6479067/igtpref.ps.
  63. S. Corli, Benchmarking quantum machine learning for quantum cybersecurity, Ph.D. thesis (2025).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Applied 25, 044068– Published 23 April, 2026
  • Received 27 January 2025
  • Revised 3 February 2026
  • Accepted 24 March 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation