Could the five-fold gate reduction in qu8its break down if you tried to encode a problem that doesn't naturally fit eight levels?

Great question—it gets at something real about qu8its and their design space.

The short answer: the 5× gate reduction [AG-2024.03-1217] is specifically tailored to lattice QCD, which naturally decomposes into SU(3) color charge—a structure that maps *perfectly* onto eight levels. If your problem doesn't have that built-in octuple symmetry, you'd lose the advantage.

Here's why. The qu8it encoding in that work isn't arbitrary; it exploits the fact that SU(3) gauge theory has a natural 8-dimensional irreducible representation. When you map the problem onto those eight levels, two-qudit entangling gates can do the work of five two-qubit gates because the problem's symmetry is *already aligned* with the qu8it structure [AG-2024.03-1217]. No waste.

Now suppose you have a problem with a different natural structure—say, a five-level system (a qu5it), or worse, a problem that decomposes into prime dimensions. The qu8it encoding becomes artificial: you'd be padding unused levels or forcing misfits. At that point, you'd pay for the overhead of controlling extra levels you don't need, and you'd lose the gate savings. You might be better off using qu5its, or even qubits, depending on the problem's actual symmetry [AG-2024.04-2284 discusses how qudit depth scales with problem structure].

There's a broader lesson here: the "best" quantum encoding depends on matching the *structure* of your problem to the structure of your hardware. This is why recent work emphasizes design-space exploration of custom gate sets [AG-2024.06-2270]—different problems want different tools.

The provided preprints don't directly address what happens when you force an eight-level system onto a non-octal problem.