Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Cluster state

In quantum information theory, a cluster state is a highly entangled multipartite quantum state formed by multiple qubits arranged according to an underlying graph structure, where each qubit is initialized in the equatorial state |+\rangle = \frac{|0\rangle + |1\rangle}{\sqrt{2}} and entangled with its neighbors through controlled-phase (CZ) gates applied along the graph's edges, resulting in a state that satisfies specific stabilizer equations such as \sigma_x^{(a)} \prod_{a' \in \text{ngbh}(a)} \sigma_z^{(a')} |\Phi\rangle_C = |\Phi\rangle_C for each qubit a and its neighbors.^[1] These states are characterized by their graph-dependent entanglement properties, which cannot generally be replicated as ground states of natural two-body interaction Hamiltonians, and they enable efficient classical simulation only for one-dimensional configurations, underscoring the computational power of two- or higher-dimensional lattices.^[2] Cluster states were first proposed in 2001 by Robert Raussendorf and Hans J. Briegel as a universal resource for one-way quantum computing, a measurement-based paradigm where arbitrary quantum algorithms are executed solely through adaptive single-qubit measurements in the X-Y plane, with measurement outcomes used to correct for randomness and propagate quantum information across the cluster without requiring further entangling operations.^[1] This approach contrasts with traditional gate-based models by pre-entangling all qubits upfront, offering advantages in scalability for photonic, ion-trap, and solid-state implementations, though generating large-scale cluster states remains experimentally challenging due to decoherence and fidelity requirements.^[2]

Fundamentals

Definition and Properties

A cluster state is a highly entangled multipartite quantum state formed by arranging qubits on a lattice and applying nearest-neighbor controlled-phase gates, also known as Ising-type interactions, to an initial product state of all qubits in the equatorial |+⟩ state.^[3] These states belong to the broader class of graph states, where the entanglement structure is dictated by the connectivity of an underlying graph, with lattice geometries providing a scalable framework for practical implementations.^[4] Introduced by Hans J. Briegel and Robert Raussendorf in 2001, cluster states were proposed as the foundational resource for one-way quantum computing, a paradigm that relies solely on local measurements to perform universal quantum operations without requiring dynamic quantum gates.^[3] This historical development marked a shift from gate-based models, emphasizing entanglement as a consumable resource in quantum information processing. In quantum information theory, cluster states serve as a prerequisite for scalable fault-tolerant computation, as their lattice architecture supports the integration of error-correcting codes and enables efficient propagation of quantum information across large numbers of qubits.^[4] Key properties of cluster states include their profound multipartite entanglement, which spans multiple particles in a way that cannot be decomposed into bipartite pairs, distinguishing them from simpler forms like Bell states.^[4] Unlike GHZ or W states, cluster states for four or more qubits occupy a distinct entanglement class and cannot be interconverted via local operations and classical communication (LOCC), underscoring their unique robustness and non-local correlations. They act as a universal resource for measurement-based quantum computation (MBQC), where local single-qubit measurements project the state onto new entangled configurations, preserving overall entanglement utility until the computation concludes.^[3] This measurement-induced persistence of entanglement, combined with scalability, positions cluster states as essential for advancing practical quantum technologies.^[4]

Mathematical Representation

Cluster states are a specific class of multipartite entangled states that can be formally described as stabilizer states associated with an undirected graph G = (V, E), where V is the set of vertices representing qubits and E is the set of edges representing interactions. The cluster state |\psi_G\rangle is the unique state (up to a global phase) that is stabilized by the set of operators \{ S_v \mid v \in V \}, satisfying S_v |\psi_G\rangle = |\psi_G\rangle for each v. Here, each stabilizer is given by S_v = X_v \prod_{u \in N(v)} Z_u, where X_v and Z_u are the Pauli-X and Pauli-Z operators acting on qubits v and u, respectively, and N(v) denotes the neighborhood of vertex v (i.e., the adjacent vertices connected by edges in E).^[4] The cluster state can be generated through a standard protocol starting from an unentangled product state. Specifically, initialize n = |V| qubits in the |+\rangle state, where |+\rangle = H |0\rangle and H is the Hadamard gate, yielding |+\rangle^{\otimes n}. Then, apply controlled-Z (CZ) gates across each edge in E:

|\psi_G\rangle = \prod_{(i,j) \in E} \mathrm{CZ}_{i,j} \, |+\rangle^{\otimes n}.

This unitary transformation entangles the qubits according to the graph structure, producing the cluster state. The CZ gate, defined as \mathrm{CZ} |ab\rangle = (-1)^{ab} |ab\rangle in the computational basis, introduces the necessary phase correlations captured by the stabilizers.^[4] For small-scale examples, such as a linear cluster state of n qubits corresponding to a path graph, the wavefunction takes an explicit form. For n=2, the state is

|\psi\rangle = \frac{1}{2} \left( |00\rangle + |01\rangle + |10\rangle - |11\rangle \right),

which is equivalent to a maximally entangled Bell state up to local Hadamard gates. In general, for a linear chain, the state |\psi_n\rangle = \prod_{j=1}^{n-1} \mathrm{[CZ](/page/CZ)}_{j,j+1} |+\rangle^{\otimes n} exhibits nearest-neighbor entanglement, with the full expansion involving $2^n terms modulated by phases determined by the parity of neighboring bit strings. This representation highlights the multipartite entanglement essential for applications like quantum computation.^[4] Cluster states are a subclass of graph states, which share the same stabilizer and generation formalism for arbitrary graphs. Under local Clifford operations—unitary transformations generated by the Clifford group acting independently on each qubit—two graph states (and thus cluster states) are equivalent if their underlying graphs are related by a sequence of local complementations, a graph-theoretic operation that inverts the neighborhood of a vertex. This equivalence preserves the entanglement structure up to local basis changes, allowing cluster states on different lattices to implement equivalent computational resources.

Types and Examples

Small-Scale Cluster States

Small-scale cluster states provide foundational examples of the entanglement structures central to the cluster state formalism, illustrating how controlled-phase (CZ) gates applied to arrays of single-qubit |+⟩ states generate multipartite entanglement. These states are defined via the underlying graph where vertices represent qubits and edges indicate CZ interactions. For pedagogical purposes, the two-, three-, and four-qubit cases highlight the progression from bipartite and tripartite entanglement familiar from other quantum resources to more complex, graph-specific forms.^[1] The two-qubit cluster state corresponds to a simple graph with a single edge. It is prepared by initializing both qubits in the |+⟩ state and applying a CZ gate between them, yielding a state locally equivalent to the Bell state |Φ⁺⟩ = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (|00⟩ + |11⟩) up to local Hadamard gates on one or both qubits. This equivalence underscores that the two-qubit cluster state does not introduce novel entanglement beyond standard maximally entangled pairs, serving primarily as a building block for larger structures.^[1] For three qubits arranged in a linear chain, the cluster state is generated by applying CZ gates between the first and second qubit, and between the second and third, starting from |+⟩^{\otimes 3}. The resulting state is locally equivalent to the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) state \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (|000⟩ + |111⟩), demonstrating that tripartite cluster entanglement reduces to this well-known form under local unitaries. This equivalence can be verified using the stabilizer formalism, where the state is the unique +1 eigenstate of operators like X_1 Z_2 Z_3, X_2 Z_1 Z_3, and X_3 Z_1 Z_2. Thus, the three-qubit case remains within the scope of simpler multipartite states without unique cluster properties.^[1] The four-qubit linear chain cluster state, prepared via CZ gates between consecutive qubits on |+⟩^{\otimes 4}, exhibits a more intricate entanglement structure given explicitly by \frac{1}{4} \sum_{x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4=0}^1 (-1)^{x_1 x_2 + x_2 x_3 + x_3 x_4} |x_1 x_2 x_3 x_4\rangle.^[1] Unlike the GHZ state, this form reveals a non-separable entanglement across all four parties that cannot be reduced to bipartite or tripartite resources via local operations. Measurements on one end qubit in the X basis, for instance, project the remainder into a three-qubit linear cluster state locally equivalent to the GHZ state, highlighting the irreversibility inherent to cluster states. For n ≤ 3, cluster states are locally equivalent to Bell or GHZ states, whereas for n ≥ 4, they possess genuine multipartite entanglement distinct to the cluster configuration, essential for scalable quantum information processing.^[1]

Lattice-Based Cluster States

Lattice-based cluster states extend the concept of finite cluster states to periodic, scalable geometries defined on regular lattices, enabling the creation of arbitrarily large entangled resources for quantum information processing. These states are constructed by entangling qubits arranged on lattice sites with controlled-phase interactions between nearest (or specified) neighbors, resulting in a graph state where the underlying graph is the lattice itself. The scalability of lattice cluster states arises from their translationally invariant structure, which facilitates the generation of extensive entanglement networks without the boundary effects prominent in small-scale configurations.^[5] In one dimension, lattice cluster states form linear chains of qubits, where each qubit interacts with its immediate neighbors via controlled-phase gates applied to an initial product state of |+⟩ qubits. This results in a state with nearest-neighbor entanglement that propagates along the chain, making it suitable for demonstrating basic measurement-based quantum computation (MBQC) tasks, such as simple quantum gates or error correction primitives. The one-dimensional cluster state serves as a foundational building block, illustrating how local measurements can propagate information unidirectionally along the lattice.^[5] Two-dimensional lattice cluster states, typically on square lattices, feature qubits at grid points connected to their four nearest neighbors, forming a planar graph with square plaquettes. These states exhibit a two-dimensional topology essential for universal MBQC, as the lattice allows for the implementation of arbitrary quantum circuits through adaptive measurements in the X-Y plane. The square lattice design ensures efficient resource usage, with entanglement links supporting the simulation of two-qubit gates via wire-like propagation across the grid. Higher-dimensional lattice cluster states, such as those on cubic lattices in three dimensions or hypercubic structures beyond, incorporate additional connectivity layers to enhance fault tolerance. In three dimensions, qubits connect to six nearest neighbors in a cubic arrangement, enabling topological error correction that thresholds against local noise levels up to approximately 1%. These structures support fault-tolerant MBQC by allowing defects or errors to be confined and corrected without disrupting the overall computation, with periodic boundary conditions further improving scalability for large-scale implementations.^[6] Topological properties of lattice cluster states manifest in their persistence of long-range entanglement, even under local perturbations, due to the global stabilizer structure that enforces correlations across the lattice. In two and higher dimensions, these states exhibit symmetry-protected topological (SPT) order, akin to phases in condensed matter systems, where deformations of the lattice can map to models hosting anyons or relate to surface code stabilizers for enhanced robustness. Such features underscore their utility in topological quantum computing paradigms.^[7]^[8]

Generation Methods

Theoretical Protocols

The standard theoretical protocol for generating a discrete-variable cluster state corresponding to an undirected graph G = (V, E) with |V| = n vertices begins by initializing each qubit in the equal superposition state |+\rangle^{\otimes n}, where |+\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0\rangle + |1\rangle).^[9] Controlled-phase (CZ) gates are then applied between every pair of qubits connected by an edge in E, entangling the qubits according to the graph structure.^[9] Optional local Clifford unitaries, such as Hadamard or phase gates, may follow to transform the state into the desired form while preserving its entanglement properties.^[9] This protocol yields a highly entangled resource state suitable for measurement-based quantum computation, with the resulting stabilizers K_v = X_v \prod_{u \in N(v)} Z_u validating the cluster state for each vertex v.^[9] For scalable generation of large-scale cluster states, particularly two-dimensional lattices, recursive construction methods employ fusion operations to combine smaller pre-entangled units into extended structures.^[10] In these approaches, elementary cluster states—such as linear or small lattice fragments—are fused via probabilistic two-qubit gates (type-I or type-II fusions), enabling exponential growth in size with linear resource overhead.^[10] Percolation-based protocols further enhance fault tolerance by probabilistically connecting nodes in a lattice above the percolation threshold (typically p_c \approx 0.5 for square grids), allowing the emergence of spanning clusters resilient to local losses or errors without full connectivity.^[11] Continuous-variable analogs of cluster states, known as Gaussian cluster states, are constructed theoretically by first generating multimode squeezed vacuum states using nonlinear optical squeezers.^[12] These are then interfered via an array of 50:50 beam splitters arranged according to the target graph, producing nullifiers \hat{u}_v = \hat{p}_v - \sum_{u \in N(v)} \hat{x}_u with low variance that encode the quadrature correlations essential for continuous-variable measurement-based computation.^[12] To integrate error correction, theoretical protocols embed cluster states within surface code lattices, where the cluster's graph is foliated into a three-dimensional structure that simulates transversal gates and topological protection against local errors.^[13] This embedding allows fault-tolerant operations with thresholds around 1% for depolarizing noise, making it adaptable to noisy intermediate-scale quantum devices by prioritizing short-depth measurements over perfect state preparation.^[13]

Experimental Realizations

Cluster states have been experimentally realized across diverse quantum platforms, with photonic systems providing early demonstrations of small-scale discrete-variable clusters. In 2005, a four-qubit linear cluster state was generated using polarization-entangled photons produced via spontaneous parametric down-conversion and manipulated with linear optical elements and interferometry, achieving a fidelity of approximately 87% to the ideal state.^[14] This milestone, performed by the Zeilinger group, marked the first photonic realization of a cluster state suitable for one-way quantum computing protocols. Subsequent advances in integrated photonics have enabled deterministic generation of larger structures; in 2025, a reconfigurable two-dimensional graph state, encompassing cluster configurations, was produced using a single solid-state quantum emitter in an optical integrated circuit, supporting up to 8 entangled photons with gigahertz repetition rates and fidelities exceeding 90%.^[15] In April 2025, a 60-mode cluster state was achieved on a photonic chip using quantum microcombs, demonstrating significant scaling in integrated 2D structures.^[16] Atomic systems, particularly trapped ions, have facilitated the creation of linear cluster states through controlled entangling interactions. In 2008, a linear cluster state of up to 6 ions was realized in a Paul trap using collective laser addressing to induce Ising-type couplings between ion spins, with state fidelities around 85%.^[17] More recent efforts with cold atomic ensembles in optical lattices leverage Rydberg interactions for stronger couplings; however, early demonstrations focused on smaller scales due to coherence limitations. By 2025, ion-trap experiments have scaled to rectangular cluster states involving 16 ions arranged in a 4x4 lattice, generated via sequential two-qubit gates along a linear chain, achieving overall entanglement fidelities of over 95%.^[18] Solid-state platforms, including superconducting qubits, have demonstrated cluster states using tunable couplers to mediate interactions. In 2019, a linear cluster state involving 12 qubits was prepared with transmon qubits, employing a sequence of controlled-phase gates to entangle the qubits with high fidelity.^[19] Ion traps complement this by routinely producing linear chains of 10-20 ions as building blocks for higher-dimensional clusters, with entangling operations based on shared motional modes. Continuous-variable cluster states, based on squeezed-light modes, offer scalability through Gaussian operations. In 2009, a four-mode tetrahedral cluster state was experimentally generated using two independent squeezed vacuum sources interfered on beam splitters, with squeezing levels of 6 dB and a fidelity of 0.72 to the ideal Gaussian state. These early realizations laid the groundwork for measurement-based quantum computation in the continuous-variable regime. In 2019, multimode Gaussian cluster states with over 1000 temporal modes were produced using time-domain multiplexing of squeezed light, enabling effective two-dimensional lattices with inseparability verified across multiple bipartitions.^[20] Despite these achievements, experimental realizations face significant challenges, including decoherence from environmental noise and scalability constraints. Photonic and atomic systems currently achieve linear clusters up to approximately 100 qubits, limited by photon loss or ion heating, while two-dimensional extensions remain below 20 qubits due to imperfect gate fidelities below 99.5%.^[21] Mitigation strategies, such as dynamical decoupling and error-corrected encoding, are essential for advancing toward fault-tolerant scales.^[22]

Applications

Measurement-Based Quantum Computation

Measurement-based quantum computation (MBQC), also known as one-way quantum computing, utilizes cluster states as a universal entangled resource for performing quantum algorithms through a sequence of single-qubit measurements. In this paradigm, a large-scale cluster state is first prepared offline, after which computation proceeds by adaptively measuring individual qubits in the X-Y plane of the Bloch sphere, with measurement outcomes feeding back to determine the bases for subsequent measurements; crucially, no entangling operations are required during the computation phase itself.^[4] The universality of MBQC on cluster states was established by showing that a two-dimensional (2D) cluster state suffices to simulate any quantum circuit, where single-qubit rotations and Clifford gates are enacted via measurements in appropriately chosen bases. Specifically, measuring a qubit in a basis rotated by an angle θ in the X-Y plane implements a rotation gate R_z(θ) on the logical qubit propagated through the cluster, while Pauli-X corrections based on measurement outcomes handle the non-deterministic aspects, enabling the full set of universal gates up to Hadamard and π/8 rotations.^[4] Resource efficiency in MBQC arises from the one-dimensional scaling of the cluster along the computation "time" direction, where the length of the cluster correlates directly with the depth of the target quantum circuit, while the width accommodates the number of logical qubits; this allows for compact resource states tailored to specific algorithms, such as the quantum Fourier transform, without overhead from intermediate entangling gates. For fault-tolerant implementations, three-dimensional (3D) cluster states extend this framework by incorporating topological error correction, achieving a noise threshold of approximately 0.75% per error source (including preparation, storage, gates, and measurements), below which error rates can be suppressed polynomially with increased lattice size.^[4]^[23] In contrast to the standard quantum circuit model, which applies sequential unitary gates to qubits, MBQC features a unidirectional flow of information: measurements progressively destroy the cluster state correlations, consuming the resource in a one-way manner that inherently supports massive parallelism, as non-adaptive measurements on disjoint qubits can be performed simultaneously with classical processing handling dependencies.^[4]

Quantum Simulation and Networks

Cluster states enable the simulation of complex quantum many-body systems by mapping the dynamics of lattice models, such as the Ising or Kitaev models, onto sequences of adaptive measurements performed on the cluster state resource. In this approach, the entanglement structure of the cluster state facilitates the efficient representation of local interactions and evolution operators, allowing for the emulation of phenomena like quantum phase transitions or topological order without requiring full circuit-model implementations. For instance, the translation-invariant Ising model can be simulated using a measurement-based protocol where spin interactions are encoded in the measurement basis choices on a linear or lattice cluster state, demonstrating potential quantum advantage in capturing critical behaviors beyond classical simulation capabilities.^[24] Theoretical protocols for generating cluster states in photonic systems have been proposed to mimic 1D spin chain dynamics, including Ising-like Hamiltonians with nearest-neighbor couplings, paving the way for scaling to higher-dimensional lattices like the Kitaev honeycomb model.^[25]^[26] In quantum networks, cluster states serve as robust resources for entanglement distribution over long distances, particularly through quantum repeater architectures that leverage their multipartite entanglement for fault-tolerant transmission. Fusion protocols, which involve Bell-state measurements to merge smaller cluster segments into larger ones, enable the creation of extended entangled chains between distant nodes, mitigating photon loss and decoherence in optical fibers. This approach has been experimentally demonstrated with deterministically generated photonic graph states, including fusions to form larger structures with high fidelity.^[27] For quantum metrology and sensing, the multipartite entanglement in cluster states enhances precision in parameter estimation tasks, such as phase detection in Ramsey interferometry, by enabling Heisenberg-limited scaling with the number of entangled particles. In these setups, measurements on a linear cluster state (equivalent to a GHZ state for small sizes) accumulate collective phase shifts across the ensemble, outperforming separable probes and providing robustness against certain noise channels. Experimental realizations with trapped ions or photons have demonstrated sub-shot-noise sensitivity in magnetic field sensing, where the cluster's graph structure allows tailored entanglement for multiparameter estimation.^[28]^[29] Advances in 2024 have focused on photonic graph states for quantum repeaters, with theoretical extensions to generalized repeater graph states derived from clusters to improve efficiency in entanglement distribution.^[27]^[30]

Characterization

Entanglement Measures

Cluster states, as a class of multipartite entangled graph states, possess highly symmetric entanglement structures that necessitate specialized quantitative measures to assess their genuine multipartite entanglement (GME). These measures distinguish cluster states from separable or partially separable states by quantifying the degree of correlations across all parties, often leveraging the stabilizer formalism inherent to graph states. Fidelity-based measures provide a straightforward approach, where the fidelity F = \langle \psi_G | \rho | \psi_G \rangle between a prepared state \rho and the ideal cluster state |\psi_G\rangle serves as a proxy for entanglement quality. Specifically, for stabilizer states like clusters, a fidelity exceeding $1/2 detects GME, as this threshold surpasses the maximum overlap achievable with any biseparable state, ensuring the presence of irreducible multipartite correlations.^[31] Entanglement witnesses offer a complementary operator-based quantification, defined as Hermitian operators W such that \operatorname{Tr}(W \rho) < 0 implies entanglement, while \operatorname{Tr}(W \sigma) \geq 0 for all separable \sigma. For graph states underlying cluster states, a canonical fully decomposable witness takes the form W = \frac{1}{2} I - |\psi_G\rangle\langle\psi_G|, where the $1/2 coefficient arises from the largest Schmidt coefficient across bipartitions being $1/\sqrt{2} for connected graphs. This witness detects GME in cluster states, including linear and two-dimensional lattices, with extensions incorporating stabilizer projectors for enhanced noise tolerance, approaching unity white-noise fidelity as system size increases.^[31] Multipartite entanglement metrics further characterize the depth and scaling of correlations in cluster states. The genuine multipartite concurrence, C_{\text{GME}}(\rho) = \min_{A|\bar{A}} \sqrt{2(1 - \operatorname{Tr}[\rho_A^2])}, minimized over bipartitions A|\bar{A}, evaluates the deviation from product states and saturates at 1 for ideal connected cluster states, reflecting maximal GME. Similarly, the multipartite negativity N_{\text{GME}}(\rho) = \min_{A|\bar{A}} \frac{1}{2} (\|\rho^{T_A}\|_1 - 1), based on the trace norm of the partial transpose, yields $1/2 for these states, quantifying the negativity across partitions. In lattice-based cluster states, entanglement entropy follows an area law, scaling with the boundary area rather than volume of subsystems, which underscores the efficient, local nature of their correlations compared to volume-law states.^[31] These measures collectively highlight that cluster states exhibit stronger GME than biseparable states, where metrics like concurrence and negativity vanish, while witnesses and fidelity thresholds confirm irreducible entanglement across all qubits, essential for applications in quantum information processing.^[31]

Verification Techniques

Verification of cluster states requires experimental techniques that confirm the presence of multipartite entanglement and non-local correlations without assuming local realism. Multipartite Bell inequalities, such as variants of the CHSH inequality extended to multiple parties, provide a key method to demonstrate non-locality. For instance, a tailored Bell inequality for the four-qubit linear cluster state, involving combinations of three- and four-particle correlations, was experimentally tested using polarization-entangled photons generated via spontaneous parametric down-conversion. The measured Bell parameter reached S = 2.59 \pm 0.08, exceeding the classical bound of 2 by more than 7 standard deviations, thus verifying genuine four-partite non-locality.^[32] Mermin inequalities adapted for cluster states offer another approach, particularly for n=4 qubits, where the classical bound is 2 and the maximum quantum violation is 4, similar to the GHZ state but with enhanced robustness to decoherence. These inequalities are constructed from stabilizer operators and have been shown to detect perfect correlations in graph states, including the four-qubit cluster, through measurements of Pauli correlations. Experimental violations confirm the multipartite entanglement essential for cluster state utility in quantum information tasks.^[33] Stabilizer tomography provides a direct verification method by measuring the expectation values of the stabilizer generators S_v = X_v \prod_{u \in N(v)} Z_u for each vertex v in the underlying graph, where N(v) denotes neighboring vertices; values close to \langle S_v \rangle = 1 indicate fidelity to the ideal cluster state. For small systems, full stabilizer tomography reconstructs the state by evaluating all $2^n generators, as demonstrated in a 2011 photonic experiment with a six-qubit linear cluster state, where all 64 stabilizers were measured using projective measurements in the Pauli bases, yielding an average fidelity of 0.84. This approach scales poorly for larger clusters due to the exponential number of measurements but remains standard for confirming entanglement in low-qubit realizations.^[34] For scalable verification beyond full tomography, fidelity estimation using entanglement witnesses is employed, focusing on lower bounds to the overlap with the target state via local measurements. These protocols project onto subspaces detecting deviations from separability, often derived from stabilizer expectations. In a 2014 photonic demonstration of a four-qubit box cluster state using linear optics and post-selection, fidelity was estimated from nine measurement settings, achieving F = 0.73 \pm 0.01, sufficient to certify multipartite entanglement while accounting for experimental noise from imperfect interferometers and detectors. Such witness-based methods enable verification of larger states by sampling a subset of stabilizers, providing confidence intervals for fidelity without complete state reconstruction. Recent advances include deterministic generation of two-dimensional multi-photon cluster states up to 8 qubits with fidelities exceeding 50%, verified using scalable fidelity estimation in photonic platforms as of 2025.^[35]^[36]

References

[1]
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0010033
[2]
[quant-ph/0504097] Cluster-state quantum computation - arXiv
Apr 13, 2005 · This article is a short introduction to and review of the cluster-state model of quantum computation, in which coherent quantum information processing is ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[3]
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.5188
[4]
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.68.022312
[5]
Measurement-based quantum computation with cluster states - arXiv
Jan 13, 2003 · A scheme of quantum computation that consists entirely of one-qubit measurements on a particular class of entangled states, the cluster states.
[6]
A fault-tolerant one-way quantum computer - ScienceDirect.com
We describe a fault-tolerant one-way quantum computer on cluster states in three dimensions. The presented scheme uses methods of topological error correction.
[7]
Generating topological order from a two-dimensional cluster state ...
We introduce a 2D duality transformation to map the 2D lattice cluster state into the topologically ordered Wen model.
[8]
Cluster-state code | Error Correction Zoo
Symmetry-protected topological (SPT) code— Cluster states defined on various lattices are representatives of SPT phases, and states realizing these phases ...Description · Cousins · Primary Hierarchy
[9]
A One-Way Quantum Computer | Phys. Rev. Lett.
May 28, 2001 · We present a scheme of quantum computation that consists entirely of one-qubit measurements on a particular class of entangled states, the cluster states.
[10]
Resource-efficient linear optical quantum computation - arXiv
May 26, 2004 · We follow the "cluster state" measurement based quantum computational approach, and show how cluster states may be efficiently generated from ...
[11]
Percolation, Renormalization, and Quantum Computing with ...
Sep 25, 2007 · ... quantum computing, exploiting ideas from percolation theory ... cluster state or one-way model of quantum computation [1] appears to ...
[12]
Universal Quantum Computation with Continuous-Variable Cluster ...
We describe a generalization of the cluster-state model of quantum computation to continuous-variable systems, along with a proposal for an optical ...
[13]
Topological fault-tolerance in cluster state quantum computation
We describe a fault-tolerant version of the one-way quantum computer using a cluster state in three spatial dimensions.
[14]
Experimental Analysis of a Four-Qubit Photon Cluster State
Linear-optics quantum logic operations enabled the observation of a four-photon cluster state. We prove genuine four-partite entanglement and study its ...Abstract · Article TextMissing: explicit | Show results with:explicit
[15]
Deterministic and reconfigurable graph state generation with a ...
May 9, 2025 · In this work, we demonstrate deterministic and reconfigurable graph state generation with optical solid-state integrated quantum emitters.
[16]
Creation of cluster states of trapped ions by collective addressing
Jul 14, 2008 · The proposed technique creates linear cluster states of N = 4 , 5, or 6 trapped ions in only two interaction steps, each using a pair of pulses ...
[17]
Verifiable measurement-based quantum random sampling with ...
Jan 2, 2025 · First, we generate rectangular n × m random cluster states of up to 16 ions by appropriately entangling the respective ions in a linear chain ...
[18]
Two-dimensional cluster-state preparation with linear ion traps
This paper presents methods to engineer spin-spin couplings suitable for generating two-dimensional cluster states, a prerequisite for one-way quantum ...
[19]
Generation of time-domain-multiplexed two-dimensional cluster state
Oct 18, 2019 · Universal quantum computing requires cluster states that are both large and possess (at least) a two-dimensional topology.
[20]
Challenges in Scaling-up the Control Interface of a Quantum ...
Aug 23, 2025 · The main challenge lies in realizing large multi-qubit systems with accurate control [13] to host the cluster states. A viable option to ...<|separator|>
[21]
[PDF] arXiv:2504.02500v1 [cond-mat.supr-con] 3 Apr 2025
Apr 3, 2025 · Entanglement presents significant challenges in re- alizing and scaling up quantum computers [27]. It is highly susceptible to decoherence, ...
[22]
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2504.02500
[23]
Quantum Supremacy for Simulating a Translation-Invariant Ising ...
Jan 27, 2017 · We introduce an intermediate quantum computing model built from translation-invariant Ising-interacting spins.
[24]
Photonic implementation for the topological cluster-state quantum ...
An implementation of the topological cluster-state quantum computer is suggested, in which the basic elements are linear optics, measurements, and a two- ...Missing: Ising experiments
[25]
Cluster state generation in one-dimensional Kitaev honeycomb ...
We propose a mean to obtain computationally useful resource states also known as cluster states, for measurement-based quantum computation.Missing: simulation Ising experiments
[26]
Fusion of deterministically generated photonic graph states - Nature
May 8, 2024 · Ring 25 and tree 26 graph states with up to eight qubits, with the names reflecting the entanglement topology, are efficiently fused from the photonic states ...
[27]
Preparation of metrological states in dipolar-interacting spin systems
Dec 22, 2022 · Here we develop a variational method to generate metrological states in small dipolar-interacting spin ensembles with limited qubit control.
[28]
The effects of symmetrical arrangement on quantum metrology - PMC
Parameter estimation with cluster states. Phys ... Scaling laws for precision in quantum interferometry and the bifurcation landscape of the optimal state.
[29]
Homepage of Quantum Flagship | Quantum Flagship
European Quantum Technologies Conference 2025 will be held at Øksnehallen, Copenhagen, Denmark, on 10-12 November! Registration is now open! Secure your spot ...Missing: 2024 | Show results with:2024
[30]
Generalized Quantum Repeater Graph States | Phys. Rev. Lett.
Generalized quantum repeater graph states (RGS) are a new class of RGS inspired by error-correcting codes, optimized to suppress erasure errors and make the ...
[31]
Entanglement Witnesses for Graph States: General Theory and ...
We present a general theory for the construction of witnesses that detect genuine multipartite entanglement in graph states.
[32]
Tensor Rank and Other Multipartite Entanglement Measures ... - arXiv
Sep 13, 2022 · We show that several multipartite extensions of bipartite entanglement measures are dichotomous for graph states based on the connectivity of the corresponding ...
[33]
Experimental Violation of a Cluster State Bell Inequality
- **Bell Inequality Used**: A Bell-type inequality tailored for cluster states, derived by Scarani et al. (Phys. Rev. A 71, 042325, 2005), uses a combination of three- and four-particle correlations.
[34]
Mermin inequalities for perfect correlations
### Summary of Mermin Inequality for 4-Qubit Cluster State from arXiv:0708.3208
[35]
Optimal verification of entanglement in a photonic cluster state ...
Mar 21, 2011 · The six-qubit cluster state is verified utilizing the same techniques as in the four-qubit case. All. 64 stabilizer operators were measured and ...
[36]
Experimental demonstration of a graph state quantum error ... - Nature
Apr 22, 2014 · Using nine measurement bases (see Methods), we obtain the fidelity of the box cluster state of F=0.73±0.01, consistent with the quality of the ...Resource State... · Encoding Logical States · Quantum Error Detection And...