- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

PRX Quantum

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

Minimizing Resource Overhead in Fusion-Based Quantum Computation Using Hybrid Spin-Photon Devices

Stephen C. Wein1, Timothée Goubault de Brugière1, Luka Music1, Pascale Senellart2, Boris Bourdoncle1,*, and Shane Mansfield1

  • *Contact author: boris.bourdoncle@quandela.com
PDF

PRX Quantum 6, 040362 – Published 12 December, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/8l5g-x3b7

Abstract

We present three schemes for constructing a (2,2)-Shor-encoded 6-ring photonic resource state for fusion-based quantum computing, each relying on a different type of photon source. We benchmark these architectures by analyzing their ability to achieve the loss tolerance threshold for fusion-based quantum computation using the target resource state. More precisely, we estimate their minimum hardware requirements for fault-tolerant quantum computation in terms of the number of photon sources to achieve on-demand generation of resource states with a desired generation period. Notably, we find that a group of 12 deterministic single-photon sources containing a single matter qubit degree of freedom can produce the target resource state near-deterministically by exploiting entangling gates that are repeated until success. The approach is fully modular, eliminates the need for lossy large-scale multiplexing, and reduces the overhead for resource-state generation by several orders of magnitude compared to architectures using heralded single-photon sources and probabilistic linear-optical entangling gates. Our work shows that the use of deterministic single-photon sources embedding a qubit substantially shortens the path toward fault-tolerant photonic quantum computation.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Popular Summary

Quantum computers promise to revolutionize the way we process information, but building ones that work reliably at scale is extremely challenging, because quantum information is fragile and can be affected by many sources of noise and errors. Several technologies are currently being investigated to create the best quantum computers. Photonics is one of them, and it has several advantages, such as a high rate, low decoherence, and easy interconnect. In a photonic quantum computer, the quantum information is encoded on photons. One way to carry out computations with photons is to create special arrangements of entangled photons, called resource states, and to perform so-called fusion operations on them. This paradigm is called fusion-based quantum computing.

This paper presents different ways to generate a particular resource state, made of 24 photons, which is one of the best resource states known to date for fusion-based quantum computing. The authors compare different sources of single photons and different schemes to process the photons that they emit. They show that, using single-photon sources that contain an additional matter-qubit degree of freedom, one can generate the required state with far fewer resources than using other types of sources and schemes. By reducing the resource overhead for fusion-based quantum computing, this work brings large-scale photonic quantum computing a step closer to reality.

Article Text

References (80)

  1. P. W. Shor, in Proceedings of 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE, Washington DC, USA, 1994), p. 124.
  2. A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 150502 (2009).
  3. S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015003 (2020).
  4. D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1997), p. 176.
  5. I. H. Kim, Y.-H. Liu, S. Pallister, W. Pol, S. Roberts, and E. Lee, Fault-tolerant resource estimate for quantum chemical simulations: Case study on li-ion battery electrolyte molecules, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023019 (2022).
  6. S. Bartolucci, P. Birchall, H. Bombin, H. Cable, C. Dawson, M. Gimeno-Segovia, E. Johnston, K. Kieling, N. Nickerson, M. Pant et al., Fusion-based quantum computation, Nat. Commun. 14, 912 (2023).
  7. S. Paesani and B. J. Brown, High-threshold quantum computing by fusing one-dimensional cluster states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 120603 (2023).
  8. G. de Gliniasty, P. Hilaire, P.-E. Emeriau, S. C. Wein, A. Salavrakos, and S. Mansfield, A spin-optical quantum computing architecture, Quantum 8, 1423 (2024).
  9. P. Hilaire, T. Dessertaine, B. Bourdoncle, A. Denys, G. de Gliniasty, G. Valentí-Rojas, and S. Mansfield, Enhanced fault-tolerance in photonic quantum computing: Floquet code outperforms surface code in tailored architecture, arXiv:2410.07065.
  10. M. L. Chan, T. J. Bell, L. A. Pettersson, S. X. Chen, P. Yard, A. S. Sørensen, and S. Paesani, Tailoring fusion-based photonic quantum computing schemes to quantum emitters, PRX Quantum 6, 020304 (2025).
  11. H. J. Briegel, D. E. Browne, W. Dür, R. Raussendorf, and M. Van den Nest, Measurement-based quantum computation, Nat. Phys. 5, 19 (2009).
  12. B. Pankovich, A. Kan, K. H. Wan, M. Ostmann, A. Neville, S. Omkar, A. Sohbi, and K. Brádler, High-photon-loss threshold quantum computing using ghz-state measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 050604 (2024).
  13. W. Song, N. Kang, Y.-S. Kim, and S.-W. Lee, Encoded-fusion-based quantum computation for high thresholds with linear optics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 050605 (2024).
  14. T. J. Bell, L. A. Pettersson, and S. Paesani, Optimizing graph codes for measurement-based loss tolerance, PRX Quantum 4, 020328 (2023).
  15. Y. Li, P. C. Humphreys, G. J. Mendoza, and S. C. Benjamin, Resource costs for fault-tolerant linear optical quantum computing, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041007 (2015).
  16. H. Bombın, C. Dawson, N. Nickerson, M. Pant, and J. Sullivan, Increasing error tolerance in quantum computers with dynamic bias arrangement, arXiv:2303.16122.
  17. H. Huet, P. R. Ramesh, S. C. Wein, N. Coste, P. Hilaire, N. Somaschi, M. Morassi, A. Lemaître, I. Sagnes, M. F. Doty, O. Krebs, L. Lanco, D. A. Fioretto, and P. Senellart, Deterministic and reconfigurable graph state generation with a single solid-state quantum emitter, Nat. Commun. 16, 4337 (2025).
  18. Y. L. Lim, A. Beige, and L. C. Kwek, Repeat-until-success linear optics distributed quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 030505 (2005).
  19. E. Meyer-Scott, C. Silberhorn, and A. Migdall, Single-photon sources: Approaching the ideal through multiplexing, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 91, 041101 (2020).
  20. S. I. Davis, A. Mueller, R. Valivarthi, N. Lauk, L. Narvaez, B. Korzh, A. D. Beyer, O. Cerri, M. Colangelo, K. K. Berggren et al., Improved heralded single-photon source with a photon-number-resolving superconducting nanowire detector, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 064007 (2022).
  21. S. Sempere-Llagostera, G. Thekkadath, R. Patel, W. Kolthammer, and I. Walmsley, Reducing g(2)(0) of a parametric down-conversion source via photon-number resolution with superconducting nanowire detectors, Opt. Express 30, 3138 (2022).
  22. D. Bonneau, G. J. Mendoza, J. L. O’Brien, and M. G. Thompson, Effect of loss on multiplexed single-photon sources, New J. Phys. 17, 043057 (2015).
  23. A. Kuhn, M. Hennrich, and G. Rempe, Deterministic single-photon source for distributed quantum networking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 067901 (2002).
  24. P. Senellart, G. Solomon, and A. White, High-performance semiconductor quantum-dot single-photon sources, Nat. Nanotechnol. 12, 1026 (2017).
  25. N. Somaschi, V. Giesz, L. De Santis, J. Loredo, M. P. Almeida, G. Hornecker, S. L. Portalupi, T. Grange, C. Anton, J. Demory et al., Near-optimal single-photon sources in the solid state, Nat. Photonics 10, 340 (2016).
  26. X. Ding, Y. He, Z.-C. Duan, N. Gregersen, M.-C. Chen, S. Unsleber, S. Maier, C. Schneider, M. Kamp, S. Höfling et al., On-demand single photons with high extraction efficiency and near-unity indistinguishability from a resonantly driven quantum dot in a micropillar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 020401 (2016).
  27. N. Margaria, F. Pastier, T. Bennour, M. Billard, E. Ivanov, W. Hease, P. Stepanov, A. F. Adiyatullin, R. Singla, M. Pont et al., Efficient fiber-pigtailed source of indistinguishable single photons, Nat. Commun. 16, 7553 (2025).
  28. S. E. Thomas, M. Billard, N. Coste, S. C. Wein, Priya, H. Ollivier, O. Krebs, L. Tazaïrt, A. Harouri, A. Lemaitre, I. Sagnes, C. Anton, L. Lanco, N. Somaschi, J. C. Loredo, and P. Senellart, Bright polarized single-photon source based on a linear dipole, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 233601 (2021).
  29. T. K. Bracht, M. Cosacchi, T. Seidelmann, M. Cygorek, A. Vagov, V. M. Axt, T. Heindel, and D. E. Reiter, Swing-up of quantum emitter population using detuned pulses, PRX Quantum 2, 040354 (2021).
  30. X. Ding, Y.-P. Guo, M.-C. Xu, R.-Z. Liu, G.-Y. Zou, J.-Y. Zhao, Z.-X. Ge, Q.-H. Zhang, H.-L. Liu, L.-J. Wang, M.-C. Chen, H. Wang, Y.-M. He, Y.-H. Huo, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, High-efficiency single-photon source above the loss-tolerant threshold for efficient linear optical quantum computing, Nat. Photonics 19, 387 (2025).
  31. C. Schön, E. Solano, F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, and M. M. Wolf, Sequential generation of entangled multiqubit states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 110503 (2005).
  32. C. Schön, K. Hammerer, M. M. Wolf, J. I. Cirac, and E. Solano, Sequential generation of matrix-product states in cavity QED, Phys. Rev. A 75, 032311 (2007).
  33. N. H. Lindner and T. Rudolph, Proposal for pulsed on-demand sources of photonic cluster state strings, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 113602 (2009).
  34. P. Thomas, L. Ruscio, O. Morin, and G. Rempe, Efficient generation of entangled multiphoton graph states from a single atom, Nature 608, 677 (2022).
  35. P. Thomas, L. Ruscio, O. Morin, and G. Rempe, Fusion of deterministically generated photonic graph states, Nature 629, 567 (2024).
  36. M. H. Appel, A. Tiranov, S. Pabst, M. L. Chan, C. Starup, Y. Wang, L. Midolo, K. Tiurev, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck et al., Entangling a hole spin with a time-bin photon: a waveguide approach for quantum dot sources of multiphoton entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 233602 (2022).
  37. N. Coste, D. Fioretto, N. Belabas, S. Wein, P. Hilaire, R. Frantzeskakis, M. Gundin, B. Goes, N. Somaschi, M. Morassi et al., High-rate entanglement between a semiconductor spin and indistinguishable photons, Nat. Photonics 17, 582 (2023).
  38. Y. Meng, M. L. Chan, R. B. Nielsen, M. H. Appel, Z. Liu, Y. Wang, N. Bart, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, L. Midolo et al., Deterministic photon source of genuine three-qubit entanglement, Nat. Commun. 15, 7774 (2024).
  39. Z.-E. Su, B. Taitler, I. Schwartz, D. Cogan, I. Nassar, O. Kenneth, N. Lindner, and D. Gershoni, Continuous and deterministic all-photonic cluster state of indistinguishable photons, Rep. Prog. Phys. 87, 077601 (2024).
  40. W. P. Grice, Arbitrarily complete bell-state measurement using only linear optical elements, Phys. Rev. A 84, 042331 (2011).
  41. P. Hilaire, L. Vidro, H. S. Eisenberg, and S. E. Economou, Near-deterministic hybrid generation of arbitrary photonic graph states using a single quantum emitter and linear optics, Quantum 7, 992 (2023).
  42. S. Simmons, Scalable fault-tolerant quantum technologies with silicon color centers, PRX Quantum 5, 010102 (2024).
  43. K. C. Chen, I. Christen, H. Raniwala, M. Colangelo, L. De Santis, K. Shtyrkova, D. Starling, R. Murphy, L. Li, K. Berggren et al., A scalable cavity-based spin–photon interface in a photonic integrated circuit, Opt. Quantum 2, 124 (2024).
  44. X. S. Ma, S. Zotter, J. Kofler, T. Jennewein, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental generation of single photons via active multiplexing, Phys. Rev. A 83, 043814 (2011).
  45. F. Kaneda and P. G. Kwiat, High-efficiency single-photon generation via large-scale active time multiplexing, Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw8586 (2019).
  46. S. Bartolucci, P. M. Birchall, M. Gimeno-Segovia, E. Johnston, K. Kieling, M. Pant, T. Rudolph, J. Smith, C. Sparrow, and M. D. Vidrighin, Creation of entangled photonic states using linear optics, arXiv:2106.13825.
  47. A. Russo, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Photonic graph state generation from quantum dots and color centers for quantum communications, Phys. Rev. B 98, 085303 (2018).
  48. A. Russo, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Generation of arbitrary all-photonic graph states from quantum emitters, New J. Phys. 21, 055002 (2019).
  49. B. Li, S. E. Economou, and E. Barnes, Photonic resource state generation from a minimal number of quantum emitters, Npj Quantum Inf. 8, 11 (2022).
  50. E. Takou, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Optimization complexity and resource minimization of emitter-based photonic graph state generation protocols, Npj Quantum Inf. 11, 108 (2025).
  51. S. D. Barrett and P. Kok, Efficient high-fidelity quantum computation using matter qubits and linear optics, Phys. Rev. A–At., Mol. Opt. Phys. 71, 060310(R) (2005).
  52. LC is a graph operation that corresponds to complementing the neighborhood of a vertex in a graph, and when two graphs can be obtained from one another by LC, the corresponding graph states can be obtained from one another by local Clifford operations [80].
  53. A. Cabello, L. E. Danielsen, A. J. López-Tarrida, and J. R. Portillo, Optimal preparation of graph states, Phys. Rev. A 83, 042314 (2011).
  54. https://github.com/sammorley-short/gsc.
  55. S.-H. Lee and H. Jeong, Graph-theoretical optimization of fusion-based graph state generation, Quantum 7, 1212 (2023).
  56. M. Fellous-Asiani, J. H. Chai, Y. Thonnart, H. K. Ng, R. S. Whitney, and A. Auffèves, Optimizing resource efficiencies for scalable full-stack quantum computers, PRX Quantum 4, 040319 (2023).
  57. S. Bartolucci, P. Birchall, D. Bonneau, H. Cable, M. Gimeno-Segovia, K. Kieling, N. Nickerson, T. Rudolph, and C. Sparrow, Switch networks for photonic fusion-based quantum computing, arXiv:2109.13760.
  58. A nonoptimal MUX may instead, for example, only be able to route one state if two are produced at the same time.
  59. N. Tomm, A. Javadi, N. O. Antoniadis, D. Najer, M. C. Löbl, A. R. Korsch, R. Schott, S. R. Valentin, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig et al., A bright and fast source of coherent single photons, Nat. Nanotechnol. 16, 399 (2021).
  60. 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., 12-photon entanglement and scalable scattershot boson sampling with optimal entangled-photon pairs from parametric down-conversion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 250505 (2018).
  61. K. Alexander et al., A manufacturable platform for photonic quantum computing, Nature 641, 876 (2025).
  62. F. Ewert and P. van Loock, 3/4-efficient bell measurement with passive linear optics and unentangled ancillae, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140403 (2014).
  63. F. Battistel, C. Chamberland, K. Johar, R. W. Overwater, F. Sebastiano, L. Skoric, Y. Ueno, and M. Usman, Real-time decoding for fault-tolerant quantum computing: Progress, challenges and outlook, Nano Futures 7, 032003 (2023).
  64. H. Bombin, I. H. Kim, D. Litinski, N. Nickerson, M. Pant, F. Pastawski, S. Roberts, and T. Rudolph, Interleaving: Modular architectures for fault-tolerant photonic quantum computing, arXiv:2103.08612.
  65. B. Pankovich, A. Neville, A. Kan, S. Omkar, K. H. Wan, and K. Brádler, Flexible entangled-state generation in linear optics, Phys. Rev. A 110, 032402 (2024).
  66. D. E. Browne and T. Rudolph, Resource-efficient linear optical quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 010501 (2005).
  67. N. Maring, A. Fyrillas, M. Pont, E. Ivanov, P. Stepanov, N. Margaria, W. Hease, A. Pishchagin, A. Lemaître, I. Sagnes et al., A versatile single-photon-based quantum computing platform, Nat. Photonics 18, 603 (2024).
  68. R. Uppu, F. T. Pedersen, Y. Wang, C. T. Olesen, C. Papon, X. Zhou, L. Midolo, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig et al., Scalable integrated single-photon source, Sci. Adv. 6, eabc8268 (2020).
  69. L. Zhai, G. N. Nguyen, C. Spinnler, J. Ritzmann, M. C. Löbl, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, A. Javadi, and R. J. Warburton, Quantum interference of identical photons from remote gaas quantum dots, Nat. Nanotechnol. 17, 829 (2022).
  70. T. Grange, N. Somaschi, C. Antón, L. De Santis, G. Coppola, V. Giesz, A. Lemaître, I. Sagnes, A. Auffèves, and P. Senellart, Reducing phonon-induced decoherence in solid-state single-photon sources with cavity quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 253602 (2017).
  71. L. Hanschke, K. A. Fischer, S. Appel, D. Lukin, J. Wierzbowski, S. Sun, R. Trivedi, J. Vučković, J. J. Finley, and K. Müller, Quantum dot single-photon sources with ultra-low multi-photon probability, Npj Quantum Inf. 4, 43 (2018).
  72. C. Taballione, M. C. Anguita, M. de Goede, P. Venderbosch, B. Kassenberg, H. Snijders, N. Kannan, W. L. Vleeshouwers, D. Smith, J. P. Epping et al., 20-mode universal quantum photonic processor, Quantum 7, 1071 (2023).
  73. A. Fyrillas, O. Faure, N. Maring, J. Senellart, and N. Belabas, Scalable machine learning-assisted clear-box characterization for optimally controlled photonic circuits, Optica 11, 427 (2024).
  74. C. M. Wilkes, X. Qiang, J. Wang, R. Santagati, S. Paesani, X. Zhou, D. A. Miller, G. D. Marshall, M. G. Thompson, and J. L. O’Brien, 60 db high-extinction auto-configured mach–zehnder interferometer, Opt. Lett. 41, 5318 (2016).
  75. L. Zaporski, N. Shofer, J. H. Bodey, S. Manna, G. Gillard, M. H. Appel, C. Schimpf, S. F. Covre da Silva, J. Jarman, G. Delamare et al., Ideal refocusing of an optically active spin qubit under strong hyperfine interactions, Nat. Nanotechnol. 18, 257 (2023).
  76. F. Thiele, N. Lamberty, T. Hummel, N. A. Lange, L. M. Procopio, A. Barua, S. Lengeling, V. Quiring, C. Eigner, C. Silberhorn and T. J. Bartley, Cryogenic feedforward of a photonic quantum state, Optica 12, 720 (2025).
  77. S. Braunstein and P. Van Loock, Quantum information with continuous variables, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 513 (2005).
  78. M. Hein, W. Dür, J. Eisert, R. Raussendorf, M. Van den Nest, and H.-J. Briegel, in Quantum Computers, Algorithms and Chaos (IOS Press, 2006), pp. 115–218.
  79. E. Annoni and S. C. Wein, Incoherent behavior of partially distinguishable photons, arXiv:2502.05047.
  80. M. Van den Nest, J. Dehaene, and B. De Moor, Graphical description of the action of local Clifford transformations on graph states, Phys. Rev. A 69, 022316 (2004).

Outline

Information

PRX Quantum 6, 040362– Published 12 December, 2025
  • Received 14 February 2025
  • Revised 20 September 2025
  • Accepted 17 November 2025
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