AG-2026.06-1439·quant-ph·cross-listed: physics.optics
Characterization of nested Walsh parity-check filters in a single-photon eight-mode register on a cloud photonic processor
Authors
- Emma Tully
- Jonathan Washburn
- Megan Simons
Abstract
We characterize two nested Walsh parity-check filters implemented on Quandela's Belenos cloud photonic processor in a single-photon eight-mode spatial register. The modes are indexed by the vertices of the cube $Q_3$. The filters realize the classical $[8,7,2]$ single-parity-check code, the zero-sum neutral subspace $\mathcal{N}$ and the $[8,4,4]$ extended Hamming code, the parity-checked subspace $\mathcal{S}\subset\mathcal{N}$ with one DC and three face-parity syndrome channels. These are first-quantized path/mode encodings of classical codes: the experiment verifies leakage suppression and syndrome routing, not error correction or protection against photon loss, and all probabilities are conditional on postselected single-photon detections. Across more than 340,000 detections, neutral inputs show residual DC-port leakage of $0.02\%$-$1.1\%$ (mean $0.6\%$), corresponding to $\approx21\times$ suppression relative to the ideal $0.125$ DC-capture baseline and $31.6\times$ relative to the measured non-neutral control. Injected DC contamination gives a monotonic soft error signal, and the three face-parity syndrome channels route to their predicted ports with $94$-$99\%$ selectivity. A sector-preserving unitary core keeps leakage far below non-neutral controls over one to three applications, with differences dominated by calibration and compilation systematics rather than gate-cycle physics. We quantify these limits, including fixed-pattern separator bias, $\pm 0.02$ calibration offsets, and compilation scatter near the $10^{-3}$ leakage level, and report a Hong-Ou-Mandel degradation episode in which suppression vanished and recovered after recalibration.
Submitted
16 June 20263 days ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2606.18408
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.