 and $\Delta_{\rm st}$ denote manufacturing and stochastic errors, respectively. This formula can easily be extended to include more types of noise in the components, including correlated noise. In addition, we can include the economical cost for each component as a multiplier. Such a choice will favour devices with fewer components, *ceteris paribus*.

Now consider two quantum device implementations, $\mathscr{I}_1$ and $\mathscr{I}_2$. We can calculate the sensitivity matrices $S(\mathscr{I}_1)$ and $S(\mathscr{I}_2)$ for these implementations according to Eq. (\[eq:eouhgdfk\]) and $S = pI_Q$. Given two cost functions $R_1$ and $R_2$, we say that implementation $\mathscr{I}_1$ is better than implementation $\mathscr{I}_2$ if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:decision}
 \Tr{R_1\, S(\mathscr{I}_1)} < \Tr{R_2\, S(\mathscr{I}_2)}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the decision criterion in Eq. (\[eq:decision\]) depends on the choice of cost functions. For example, for the NS gate implementation we can choose values of $(\Delta\theta_1,\Delta\theta_2,\Delta\theta_3)$ and $(\Delta\xi_1,\Delta\xi_2,\Delta\xi_3)$ such that either the KLM NS gate or the Reverse NS gate is a easier to implement experimentally. The practically achievable tolerances are, not surprisingly, an integral part of the device analysis.

In general, we are forced to pick two different cost functions $R_1$ and $R_2$ when the components of the two implementations differ, and we must make sure that $R_1$ and $R_2$ are constructed using the same criteria. In other words, the beam splitter variations in $\mathscr{I}_1$ should be constructed according to the same physical principles as the beam splitter variations in $\mathscr{I}_2$, even though they may not result in identical numerical values (c.f., our example of the KLM and Reverse NS gates above). This gives a natural sense in which devices with more or harder to fabricate components are likely to perform worse than simpler, easier to fabricate devices. When all components (of the same type) have identical manufacturing tolerances
and $ \Delta_{\rm st}$ denote manufacturing and stochastic errors, respectively. This formula can easily be unfold to include more types of randomness in the components, admit correlated noise. In accession, we can include the economical monetary value for each component as a multiplier. Such a choice will favor devices with fewer part, * ceteris paribus *. 

 nowadays consider two quantum device implementations, $ \mathscr{I}_1 $ and $ \mathscr{I}_2$. We can calculate the sensitivity matrices $ S(\mathscr{I}_1)$ and $ S(\mathscr{I}_2)$ for these implementations harmonize to Eq.   (\[eq: eouhgdfk\ ]) and $ S = pI_Q$. Given two cost function $ R_1 $ and $ R_2 $, we say that implementation $ \mathscr{I}_1 $ is better than implementation $ \mathscr{I}_2 $ if $ $ \begin{aligned } 
 \label{eq: decisiveness } 
  \Tr{R_1\, S(\mathscr{I}_1) } < \Tr{R_2\, S(\mathscr{I}_2)}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the decisiveness criterion in Eq.   (\[eq: decision\ ]) depends on the choice of cost function. For example, for the NS gate implementation we can choose values of $ (\Delta\theta_1,\Delta\theta_2,\Delta\theta_3)$ and $ (\Delta\xi_1,\Delta\xi_2,\Delta\xi_3)$ such that either the KLM NS gate or the Reverse NS gate is a easier to implement experimentally. The much accomplishable allowance are, not surprisingly, an integral part of the device analysis. 

 In general, we are forced to peck two unlike cost functions $ R_1 $ and $ R_2 $ when the component of the two implementations differ, and we must make sure that $ R_1 $ and $ R_2 $ are manufacture use the same criteria. In early words, the beam splitter variations in $ \mathscr{I}_1 $ should be constructed according to the like physical principles as the beam splitter variations in $ \mathscr{I}_2 $, even though they may not result in identical numerical value (c.f. , our example of the KLM and Reverse NS gates above). This gives a natural common sense in which devices with more or harder to fabricate components are likely to perform worse than simpler, easier to fabricate device. When all components (of the like type) have identical manufacturing tolerances
 anf $\Delta_{\rm st}$ denote manunacturing and stochastir errora, respecgively. This formula can easipy be eztended to include mord types ov noise un tie components, inrmuding gjrremwted ioise. In additipn, we can hnclude the ecmnumncal cost for each component as a mujtipliet. Duch a choice rill savohg bevices with fewer components, *csteris karibus*.

Now considet two quantum device implelentwtions, $\mathscr{I}_1$ anf $\mathscr{I}_2$. Qe cwb calculate ghe sensitprity matricgs $S(\mathscr{I}_1)$ and $S(\mathscr{I}_2)$ for tfese nmplementatuobs wwcording to Eq. (\[eq:vouhgdfk\]) and $S = pI_Q$. Ghven twp cost functioks $R_1$ end $E_2$, we say that implemeitation $\mathscr{I}_1$ is fetter thdn implementation $\mqtyscr{I}_2$ if $$\tegiv{qlienes}
\lebem{eq:declsikn}
 \Tr{R_1\, S(\mafhscr{I}_1)} < \Tr{R_2\, S(\mathscr{I}_2)}.\end{alignec}$$ Gite that the secisijn criterion in Eq. (\[eq:decision\]) depends on tve dhoice of cost functionw. For example, for the NS gate ymplementation we can choose values of $(\Delta\theta_1,\Gelta\vhdta_2,\Bcjgq\tjeta_3)$ and $(\Delta\xi_1,\Delta\xi_2,\Delta\xi_3)$ such that eithqd uhe KLM NS gate ov the Reverse NS gstf of a easier to implemenf experimentally. Tje pracjicallt achievafle yolerances are, not surprisibgly, an inteyrao part of the deviee analysis.

Iu genetal, we are forced to pick two difrerent cost functiona $R_1$ and $R_2$ when thd cpm[onents of the two implemegtations viffex, and we musj make fure that $G_1$ and $R_2$ are constructed ksing tve same crlteria. In other words, the beam splitter variajiots pn $\mathscx{I}_1$ shomld be construceed according jo the saie phhsical prihciples as the beai splitter vaslations in $\methscr{I}_2$, eden rhouth they oay not result in identpccl numerixal values (c.f., our cxampus of the KLM anb Twverse NS gatex acovq). Nhix dhves a naturdl sdnsd in wfich devicew witn more or harder to xabrjcate components ate likely jo perfori worse than ximpler, easier to vabrirate dxvices. Whgn all components (of the same tgpe) have ldektical manufasturlng jolerances
and $\Delta_{\rm st}$ denote manufacturing and stochastic This can easily extended to include the including correlated noise. addition, we can the economical cost for each component a multiplier. Such a choice will favour devices with fewer components, *ceteris paribus*. consider two quantum device implementations, $\mathscr{I}_1$ and $\mathscr{I}_2$. We can calculate the sensitivity $S(\mathscr{I}_1)$ $S(\mathscr{I}_2)$ these according to Eq. (\[eq:eouhgdfk\]) and $S = pI_Q$. Given two cost functions $R_1$ and $R_2$, we that implementation $\mathscr{I}_1$ is better than implementation $\mathscr{I}_2$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:decision} \Tr{R_1\, S(\mathscr{I}_1)} \Tr{R_2\, S(\mathscr{I}_2)}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the criterion Eq. (\[eq:decision\]) on choice cost functions. For for the NS gate implementation we can choose values of $(\Delta\theta_1,\Delta\theta_2,\Delta\theta_3)$ and $(\Delta\xi_1,\Delta\xi_2,\Delta\xi_3)$ such that either the NS gate Reverse NS is easier implement experimentally. The tolerances are, not surprisingly, an integral device analysis. In general, we are forced to two different functions $R_1$ and $R_2$ when the of the two implementations differ, and we must sure that $R_1$ and $R_2$ are constructed using the same criteria. In other words, the variations in $\mathscr{I}_1$ should constructed according to same principles the splitter variations $\mathscr{I}_2$, even though they may not result in identical numerical values our example of the KLM and Reverse NS gates above). a sense in which with more or harder fabricate are likely to perform simpler, to all (of same type) have identical tolerances
 and $\Delta_{\rm st}$ denote manufacTuring and sTochaStiC erRoRs, reSpecTively. This formULa caN easily be extended to incLude mOrE TypeS Of Noise In the coMPoNENts, InClUdiNg COrRelatEd nOise. In aDdition, we cAn iNcLude the econoMIcAl cost for eAch Component as a MulTiplieR. SUch A ChoicE wiLl favOur devICes witH fewer comPoNEnts, *ceTEris parIBUs*.

now cOnsider two quantum DEvICe implementatiOns, $\matHsCR{I}_1$ AND $\maThsCr{I}_2$. We can caLcUlate THe sensiTIvITY MatRIces $S(\mathscr{I}_1)$ And $S(\mathscr{i}_2)$ For These iMpLemENtatioNs accOrDIng To Eq. (\[eq:eouhgDfk\]) aNd $S = pI_Q$. GivEn two cOSt functIOns $R_1$ and $r_2$, we say ThaT imPlemENtAtIon $\MaTHscR{i}_1$ iS beTTer Than implEmEnTatioN $\matHSCR{i}_2$ if $$\bEgiN{aliGned}
\lAbel{eq:decisioN}
 \Tr{r_1\, S(\maTHscR{I}_1)} < \Tr{R_2\, s(\mathScr{I}_2)}.\EnD{aligNed}$$ NotE that ThE decision criterIon iN Eq. (\[eq:deciSioN\]) dEpeNdS on thE Choice Of cOst FunctioNs. For exAMplE, fOR THe nS gate implementatiOn WE CaN choose vAlues oF $(\deLtA\Theta_1,\DelTa\TheTa_2,\DeLTA\thetA_3)$ and $(\dElTa\xi_1,\DeltA\xi_2,\DelTA\xI_3)$ sUch that EiTher thE KlM Ns gaTe or tHE RevErse NS Gate is a eAsier TO implement expeRImentally. The pRAcTICaLLy acHieVable toleraNces ARe, noT surPRiSinGLy, an iNtegrAl PArT Of the device analysis.

in GeneraL, we arE forced to pick Two differeNT COst functIons $r_1$ AnD $r_2$ when the componEnts oF the two impLEmentatiOns diFfer, and wE must make SURe that $R_1$ aNd $R_2$ Are ConStrUCTeD using the same CRIterIa. in other WorDs, the beAm sPliTteR vaRiAtions in $\mAthscr{I}_1$ sHoUlD bE cOnsTructED accordiNg To tHe SamE physICal priNciplEs as ThE bEAm sPlitter VArIATionS iN $\mAthsCr{I}_2$, EvEn thoUgh tHEy mAy not reSult in ideNtiCAl nuMeRiCal valuEs (c.f., our examplE oF the KLM and reVerSe NS gaTES above). ThIs gives a natural sense in wHIch deviCes With mOre oR harder to FabRicate ComPOnents Are likEly to PeRfoRM Worse THAn SimPlEr, easier to FABriCate dEvIces. when all Components (of the samE TypE) have identicaL maNufaCTUrIng TOlERanCeS
 and $\Delta_{\rm st}$ den ote manufa cturi ngand  s toch asti c errors, resp e ctiv ely. This formula caneasil yb e ex t en ded t o inclu d em o rety pe s o fn oi se in  th e compo nents, inc lud in g correlated no ise. In ad dit ion, we caninc lude t he  ec o nomic alcostfor ea c h comp onent asam ultipl i er. Suc h achoi ce will favour de v ic e s with fewer c ompone nt s ,* c ete ris  paribus*. 
Now c o nsidert wo q u ant u m device impl ementations ,  $\ mathsc r{ I}_ 1 $ and$\mat hs c r{I }_2$. We ca n ca lculate t he sen s itivity matrice s $S(\ mat hsc r{I} _ 1) $and  $ S (\m a th scr { I}_ 2)$ forth es e imp leme n t a t ions  ac cord ing t o Eq. (\[eq:e ouh gdfk \ ])and $ S = p I_Q$ .Given  two c ost f un ctions $R_1$ an d $R _2$, we s ayth atim pleme n tation  $\ mat hscr{I} _1$ isb ett er t h an  implementation $\ ma t h sc r{I}_2$if $$\ b eg in { aligned} 
\ lab el{e q : decis ion}  \ Tr{R_1\,  S(\ma t hs cr {I}_1)}  <  \Tr{R _2 \,S(\ maths c r{I} _2)}.\ end{alig ned}$ $  Note that the decision crit e ri o n  i n  Eq.  (\ [eq:decisio n\]) depe ndso nthe choic e ofco s tf unctions. For examp le , forthe N S gate implem entation w e c an choos e va l ue s  of $(\Delta\t heta_ 1,\Delta\t h eta_2,\D elta\ theta_3) $ and $(\ D e lta\xi_1 ,\D elt a\x i_2 , \ De lta\xi_3)$ su c h  tha teitherthe  KLM NS  ga teorthe  R everse NS  gate is  a  e as ie r t o imp l ement ex pe rim en tal ly. T h e prac tical ly a ch ie v abl e toler a nc e s  are ,no t su rpr is ingly , an int egral p art of th e d e vice  a na lysis.
In general,we  are force dtopick t w o  differe nt cost functions $R_1$ and $R_ 2$whenthecomponent s o f thetwo implem entati ons d if fer , and w e mu stma ke sure th a t  $R _1$ a nd  $R_ 2$ areconstructed usingt hesame criteria . I n ot h e rwor d s, the  b e ams p litter variatio ns in $\ma th s cr {I}_1$ sho u ldbe  constr ucted a ccord i ng to t he same p hysical p ri ncip l e s a s the beam  splitte r variati o ns in $\ maths cr{ I}_2$,  e ven  thou gh the y  ma y not  resul tin ide ntica lnumerica l values (c.f., our exa mple o f the  KL M and Rev ers e  NS  gates ab ove) . This giv esa n atura l s e nse i n wh i ch  de v iceswith more or h a rd ert o  f abricate co m p o nen ts ar e l i kely t o pe rform worse thans impler, easier  tof a bri cat e  dev ic es. When all c omp on e n ts (of t he  same type)  have id en t icalmanufa cturin g toler a n ce s 
 and_$\Delta_{\rm st}$_denote manufacturing and stochastic_errors, respectively._This_formula can_easily_be extended to_include more types_of noise in the_components, including correlated_noise._In addition, we can include the economical cost for each component as a multiplier._Such_a choice_will_favour_devices with fewer components, *ceteris_paribus*.

Now consider two quantum device_implementations, $\mathscr{I}_1$_and $\mathscr{I}_2$. We can calculate the sensitivity matrices_$S(\mathscr{I}_1)$_and $S(\mathscr{I}_2)$ for_these implementations according to Eq. (\[eq:eouhgdfk\]) and $S = pI_Q$._Given two cost functions $R_1$ and_$R_2$, we say_that_implementation_$\mathscr{I}_1$ is better than_implementation $\mathscr{I}_2$ if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:decision}
 \Tr{R_1\, S(\mathscr{I}_1)}_< \Tr{R_2\, S(\mathscr{I}_2)}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the_decision criterion in Eq. (\[eq:decision\]) depends on the_choice of cost functions. For example,_for the NS gate implementation_we can_choose values of $(\Delta\theta_1,\Delta\theta_2,\Delta\theta_3)$ and_$(\Delta\xi_1,\Delta\xi_2,\Delta\xi_3)$ such that_either the_KLM NS gate_or the Reverse NS gate is_a easier to_implement experimentally. The practically achievable tolerances_are,_not surprisingly, an_integral_part_of the_device analysis.

In general,_we_are forced_to_pick two different cost functions $R_1$_and_$R_2$ when the components of the two_implementations differ, and we_must_make sure that $R_1$_and $R_2$ are constructed using_the same criteria. In other words,_the beam_splitter variations_in $\mathscr{I}_1$ should be constructed according to the same physical principles_as the beam splitter variations in_$\mathscr{I}_2$, even though they_may not_result_in identical numerical_values_(c.f., our_example of the KLM and Reverse NS_gates above)._This gives a natural sense in_which devices with more_or_harder to fabricate components are likely_to perform worse than simpler, easier_to fabricate devices. When all_components_(of_the same type) have identical_manufacturing tolerances