Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 4 cited by

An entangled photon source for the telecom C-band based on a semiconductor-confined spin

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the first scalable cluster-state generation protocol using a telecom-compatible quantum emitter, entangling a quantum dot hole spin with sequentially emitted C-band photons.

desk verdict The first C-band three-qubit spin-photon entanglement attempt is real but statistically underpowered; the word “demonstrate” outruns the error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01648 v1 pith:CMFMAWR3 submitted 2025-07-02 quant-ph

Petros Laccotripes , Junyang Huang , Ginny Shooter , Andrea Barbiero , Matthew S. Winnel , David A. Ritchie , Andrew J. Shields , Tina Muller
show 1 more author
R. Mark Stevenson
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4081V80 PACS 03.67.Bg42.50.Ex
keywords entangledphotonsourcequantumdottelecomC-bandspin-photonentanglementclusterstatesholespinLindner-RudolphprotocolLarmorprecession
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper demonstrates that a semiconductor quantum dot can act as an entangler that emits photons directly at telecom C-band wavelengths, where optical fibre loss is lowest. Using an InAs/InP quantum dot and a resident heavy-hole spin, the authors implement a sequential protocol that entangles the spin with each emitted photon. They report a spin-photon entanglement fidelity of $59.5\pm 8.7\%$ and a lower bound of $52.7\pm 11.4\%$ for the three-qubit spin-photon-photon state. The significance is that previous such sources worked at short wavelengths incompatible with long-distance fibre links; native telecom emission removes the need for lossy frequency conversion.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Lindner-Rudolph protocol, implemented by alternating a spin-preserving photon-emission step (the CNOT gate) with a spin rotation step (the Hadamard gate). The CNOT is realised through longitudinal acoustic phonon-assisted excitation with a blue-detuned laser, which creates a trion that decays with polarisation entangled to the ground-state spin; the Hadamard is realised through Larmor precession of the hole spin in a weak in-plane magnetic field, with pulse delays set to a quarter of the precession period. The hole spin is chosen over the electron because its coherence time ($T_2^* > 4.8\pm 0.5$ ns, a lower bound limited by radiative decay) and its Land\'e g-factor ($g_h=0.229\pm0.001$) are both superior.

What would settle it

A direct Ramsey or spin-echo measurement of the hole spin coherence time in this quantum dot: if the true $T_2^*$ is close to 4.8 ns, the spin would be decohered to roughly a fifth at the time of the third pulse, making the reported three-qubit entanglement bound unreliable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a scalable cluster-state generation protocol can be realised with a quantum emitter that natively emits in the telecom C-band, closing the performance gap with short-wavelength quantum dot systems. The authors implement the Lindner-Rudolph protocol on an InAs/InP quantum dot, using a heavy-hole ground-state spin as the entangler and longitudinal acoustic phonon-assisted excitation to emit photons sequentially. They demonstrate two-qubit spin-photon entanglement with fidelity $59.5\pm 8.7\%$ and derive a lower bound of $52.7\pm 11.4\%$ for the three-qubit spin-photon-photon entangled state. The work establishes that all essential criteria for cluster-state generation—spin-preserving excitation, coherent spin rotation, and a spin coherence time exceeding the pulse sequence—are satisfied at telecom wavelengths.

Load-bearing premise

The experiment assumes that the true hole spin coherence time is longer than the measured lower bound of about 4.8 ns, so that the spin still retains significant coherence at the third pulse, which is delayed by about 6.2 ns from the first.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Native telecom C-band multi-photon entangled states become available, removing the need for external frequency conversion for fibre-based quantum networks.
  • The protocol scales in principle to longer photon strings by adding more excitation pulses, with each photon added to the cluster state.
  • The reported fidelities are lower bounds, so the actual entangled-state fidelity is at least as high as the quoted values.
  • With moderate device improvements—Purcell-enhanced emission and extended hole spin coherence—the authors project entangled strings of up to six qubits.
  • The results position solid-state emitters as competitive sources for all-photonic quantum repeaters operating in the telecom band.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the hole spin coherence time can be extended by nuclear-spin narrowing, the same device could test the generation of longer cluster states, and a direct measurement of a four-photon string with a graph-state witness would be a sharp test of the protocol's scalability.
  • Because the fidelity lower bound is computed after extra spin decoherence between two delay settings, full quantum state tomography of the three-qubit state would likely reveal a fidelity above the reported bound, clarifying the gap between experiment and ideal.
  • The telecom C-band operation suggests a natural compatibility with existing wavelength-division-multiplexed fibre infrastructure, where multiple emitters could be distinguished by wavelength in a network setting.
  • The observed advantage of holes over electrons for spin coherence at telecom wavelengths points to hole-spin devices as a preferred platform for long-distance entanglement distribution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a telecom C-band quantum dot source aiming at scalable cluster-state generation. The authors characterize electron and hole spin coherence times and g-factors, select the hole spin as the entangler, implement a Lindner-Rudolph sequence with LA-PA excitation, and measure conditional three-photon correlations to estimate a two-qubit (spin-photon) fidelity of 59.5±8.7% and a lower bound on a three-qubit (spin-photon-photon) fidelity of 52.7±11.4%. A Lindblad master-equation simulation using parameters measured in the same paper is used to model the results and to project the performance of an optimized system.

Significance. If the entanglement claim were established, this would be an important step: direct emission in the telecom C-band avoids frequency-conversion losses, and the protocol is scalable in principle. The paper's strengths include the master-equation simulation fed by independently measured spin coherence times and g-factors, direct correlation measurements rather than a fit of the entanglement metric, an honest discussion of experimental imperfections, and a quantitative comparison with shorter-wavelength quantum dot results. The principal weakness is statistical: the reported fidelities do not exclude the classical bound at conventional confidence, so the abstract's word 'demonstrate' is not supported by the data as presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Multi-qubit entanglement, Eqs. (7)-(8)] The central claim that two-qubit entanglement is demonstrated is not supported by the quoted statistics. Fs,p=59.5±8.7% exceeds the 50% classical bound by only (59.5-50)/8.7=1.09σ, and the constituent F2=40.0±15.5% is below the classical bound. Because F1 and F2 are combined into a lower-bound average rather than being independent estimates of the same measured fidelity, the manuscript should provide a proper hypothesis test against separable states, with confidence intervals computed from the raw three-photon coincidence counts, before using the word 'demonstrate' in the abstract.
  2. [Multi-qubit entanglement, Eq. (9) and Fig. 3(c)] The three-qubit lower bound Fs,p,p=52.7±11.4% is only 0.24σ above the 50% classical bound, and since η≤1 it is necessarily no larger than Fs,p; even setting η=1 would leave only the 1.09σ two-qubit excess. The derived bound therefore does not establish genuine three-qubit entanglement at conventional significance. Moreover, η is estimated from the same three-photon coincidence data that underlie the claim, so the bound is not an independent measurement; the manuscript should either present a direct three-qubit witness with adequate statistics or explicitly state that the three-qubit result is a consistency check rather than a demonstration.
  3. [Multi-qubit entanglement, conditional probabilities and Methods] The reported uncertainties appear to be symmetric Gaussian approximations to counting statistics, but some intervals exceed the physical range; for example, P(L2|R3)=0.95±0.21 in Fig. 3(c) has an upper endpoint above unity. No raw three-photon coincidence counts or acquisition times are given, so the statistical significance cannot be independently assessed. Please report the raw counts, use binomial confidence intervals (e.g., Wilson or Clopper-Pearson), and propagate those intervals through Eqs. (7)-(9); this is essential for deciding whether the deviations from 50% are significant rather than artifacts of the error model.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Results, 'Multi-qubit entanglement'] The statement that the hole spin 'retains significant coherence' throughout the three-pulse sequence is qualitative; with T2* lower-bounded by 4.8 ns and a total delay t12+t23≈6.24 ns, the worst-case Gaussian coherence factor is exp(-(6.24/4.8)^2)≈0.18. I do not regard this as fatal, because the simulation already uses the lower bound T2*=4.8 ns and still predicts a non-classical three-qubit fidelity, but the text should quantify the actual coherence at the third pulse.
  2. [Discussion, Fig. 4] The sentence 'The simulation also predicts a non-classical three-qubit state (2 photons, 1 spin) fidelity, for a system with no experimental errors' is confusing because the simulation includes finite spin coherence, finite lifetime, and post-selection; please clarify what 'no experimental errors' means here.
  3. [Figure 1 caption] There are typos in the caption: 'Hadmard' should be 'Hadamard' and 'T elecom' should be 'Telecom'.
  4. [Abstract and Eq. (8)] The abstract reports the two-qubit value as 'a fidelity of 59.5±8.7%' without the qualifier 'lower bound', although the text correctly states Fs,p is a lower bound; please make the wording consistent.
  5. [Data Availability] The statement that data are available 'upon reasonable request' is less transparent than depositing the raw coincidence datasets; for a central quantitative claim of this kind, the underlying counts and analysis scripts should be provided.
  6. [Methods, 'Experimental setup'] In the synchronization description, 'arbitrary wavefunction generator' should be 'arbitrary waveform generator'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two-qubit fidelity is computed directly from measured correlations, and the three-qubit bound is a stated lower-bound construction using an external theorem.

full rationale

The paper's central two-qubit spin-photon fidelity is obtained directly from the measured conditional probabilities reported in the text via Eqs. (7) and (8), with no fitting of a model to the entanglement data and no parameter renamed as a prediction. The three-qubit fidelity is explicitly presented as a lower bound, Fs,p,p = Fs,p × η, using an external inequality from reference [16]; η is a separately described physical quantity estimated from circular-basis coincidences, and although it shares some data with the F2 term, the bound is a derived inequality rather than a fitted prediction or a definition of the target quantity. The master-equation simulation in the Discussion uses parameters measured earlier in the paper (coherence times, g-factors, trion lifetime) and does not fit the experimental fidelities, so it does not close a circular loop. Self-citations such as [26] are contextual and not load-bearing for the main derivation. Overall, no step in the claimed derivation chain reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central fidelity is a direct measurement, not derived from a fitted parameter. However, the three-qubit bound rests on a multiplicative factor estimated from the same data, and the interpretation of the truth tables as entanglement assumes the optical selection rules and spin-preserving excitation are exactly as stated.

free parameters (6)
  • Magnetic field B = ~40 mT
    Hand-chosen compromise between phonon indistinguishability and spin coherence; offsets from this value reduce fidelity in simulations.
  • Post-selection window = 300 ps
    Chosen to mitigate excited-state spin precession; finite window disrupts intended pi/2 Larmor rotation.
  • Pulse delays t12 and t23 = t12=2.08 ns, t23=t12 or 2t12
    Set to realize pi/2 and pi rotations; deviations from splicing imperfections contribute to infidelity.
  • Eta (eta) = 88.5 +/- 14.2%
    Estimated from the same three-photon coincidences used for Fs,p; multiplicative use to derive three-qubit fidelity is not independently verified.
  • Hole/electron g-factors = gh=0.229 +/- 0.001, ge=0.096 +/- 0.004
    Extracted from fits to DCP oscillations; used in simulation and in setting the magnetic field.
  • Spin coherence times = T2*(h)>4.8 +/- 0.5 ns, T2*(e)=0.8 +/- 0.1 ns
    Fitted from DCP decay envelopes; the hole value is a radiative-limited lower bound.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Optical selection rules (Eq. 1): R/L polarization of emitted photon is tied to ground-state spin projection for X+ trion.
    Invoked in Results and Methods; if broken, the spin-photon entanglement interpretation fails.
  • domain assumption LA-PA excitation is spin-preserving, enabling cycling.
    Stated in Results; required for the CNOT gate implementation. Any spin-flip during excitation would reduce fidelity.
  • standard math Lindner-Rudolph protocol: alternating CNOT and Hadamard gates produce a 1D cluster state.
    From ref [11]; assumed valid. The physical implementation maps emission to CNOT and Larmor precession to Hadamard.
  • domain assumption For the three-qubit bound, the spin is maximally mixed at the start and the system emits two same-polarization photons as t12 approaches 0 (from [16]).
    Used in Eq. (9) to derive the three-qubit fidelity lower bound; stated as an assumption from prior work.
  • standard math Lindblad master equation with experimentally measured parameters describes the system.
    Used for simulations in Fig. 4; assumes Markovian noise and independent error sources.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An entangled photon source for the telecom C-band based on a semiconductor-confined spin." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CMFMAWR3

@misc{pith2026250701648,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An entangled photon source for the telecom C-band based on a semiconductor-confined spin},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CMFMAWR3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01648}
}
abstract

Multiphoton entangled states are a key resource for quantum networks and measurement-based quantum computation. Scalable protocols for generating such states using solid-state spin-photon interfaces have recently emerged, but practical implementations have so far relied on emitters operating at short wavelengths, incompatible with low-loss fibre transmission. Here, we take a key step towards the generation of telecom wavelength multi-qubit entangled states using an InAs/InP quantum dot. After establishing that all essential criteria for generating cluster states using a ground state spin as the entangler are satisfied, we implement a scalable protocol to entangle the resident spin with sequentially emitted photons directly in the telecom C-band. We demonstrate a two-qubit (spin-photon) entanglement fidelity of $59.5\pm 8.7\%$ and a lower bound of three-qubit (spin-photon-photon) entanglement fidelity of $52.7\pm 11.4\%$. Our results close the performance gap between short-wavelength quantum dot systems and the existing telecom infrastructure, establishing a route towards practical large photonic cluster states for fibre-based quantum network applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01648 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Telecom C-band entangled photon source. (a) Circuit diagram of Lindner-Rudolph protocol for one dimensional cluster state generation. The Hadmard gate, H, implements spin rotation by 90◦ , and the CNOT gate, N , realises the spin preserving emission and entanglement generation. (b) Energy level diagram of a positively charged trion system under longitudinal acoustic phonon-assisted excitation showing optical selecti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Characterisation of an electron and a hole spin in a magnetic field. Polarisation￾sensitive time-resolved photoluminescence emission from the (a) negative and (b) positive trion tran￾sitions under 0 T and 0.5 T magnetic field. At 0 T (top panels), the R-polarised emission (dark red) dominates over the L-polarised emission (light blue), as expected by the optical selection rules. (c) and (d) Time-resolved degree of c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Multi-photon entanglement generation. (a) Excitation pulse sequence using LA-PA pulses (orange arrows) and the emitted single photons (purple decays). Pulse spacing (e.g. t12) is set to a quarter of the heavy-hole spin precession period Th. Three consecutive photons are detected, and their polarisations are projected onto the R, L, H, and V bases. The delay t23 is either set to t12 or 2t12. (b) and (c) Truth tables … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spin and k-photon entanglement fidelity as a function of the total number of qubits (one stationary hole spin and k emitted photons). The dashed horizontal line marks the 50 % classical bound. Orange-filled circles show our experimental data; open squares and triangles…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Industry-ready spin-photon interfaces for hybrid photonic quantum computing

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Thousands of foundry-fabricated quantum-dot spin-photon interfaces demonstrate state-of-the-art efficiency, stable near-unity purity, seven-partite entanglement, and cross-source indistinguishability.

  2. Asymmetric two-photon response of an incoherently driven quantum emitter

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In a phonon-assisted pumped quantum dot, the first of two photons emitted under one pulse is red-shifted, yielding the Rabi frequency and enabling spectral suppression of multiphoton noise.

  3. Photonic Cluster State Generation from a Quantum Dot Emitting in the Telecom C-band

    quant-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    A hole spin in a telecom C-band InAs quantum dot under magnetic field deterministically emits linear photonic cluster states with process fidelity 0.71 and photon indistinguishability of 83%.

  4. Deterministic Generation of Linear Photonic Cluster States with Semiconductor Quantum Dots: A Detailed Comparison of Different Schemes

    quant-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    Spin-precession cluster-state schemes scale with cavity enhancement and resist phonons; optical-control schemes win at short coherence times and need high cycling cooperativity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [26]

    et al.Spin-photon entanglement with direct photon emission in the telecom c-band

    Laccotripes, P. et al.Spin-photon entanglement with direct photon emission in the telecom c-band. Nature Communications 15, 9740 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    & Hanson, R

    Wehner, S., Elkouss, D. & Hanson, R. Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead. Science 362, eaam9288 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

    & Briegel, H

    Hein, M., Eisert, J. & Briegel, H. J. Multiparty entanglement in graph states. Physical Review A 69, 062311 (2004)

    work page 2004

  4. [3]

    Aghaee Rad, H. et al. Scaling and networking a modular photonic quantum computer. Nature 1–8 (2025)

    work page 2025

  5. [4]

    Varnava, M., Browne, D. E. & Rudolph, T. Loss tolerance in one-way quantum computation via counterfactual error correction. Physical Review Letters97, 120501 (2006)

    work page 2006

  6. [5]

    & Lo, H.-K

    Azuma, K., Tamaki, K. & Lo, H.-K. All-photonic quantum repeaters. Nature Communications 6, 6787 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [6]

    & Economou, S

    Buterakos, D., Barnes, E. & Economou, S. E. Deterministic generation of all-photonic quantum repeaters from solid-state emitters. Physical Review X7, 041023 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [7]

    Walther, P. et al. Experimental one-way quantum computing. Nature 434, 169–176 (2005)

    work page 2005

Show all 47 references
  1. [8]

    et al.Experimental construction of optical multiqubit cluster states from bell states

    Zhang, A.-N. et al.Experimental construction of optical multiqubit cluster states from bell states. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics73, 022330 (2006)

    2006

  2. [9]

    Zhong, H.-S. et al. 12-photon entanglement and scalable scattershot boson sampling with optimal entangled-photon pairs from parametric down-conversion. Physical Review Letters121, 250505 (2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    & Rempe, G

    Thomas, P., Ruscio, L., Morin, O. & Rempe, G. Fusion of deterministically generated photonic graph states. Nature 629, 567–572 (2024)

    2024

  4. [11]

    Lindner, N. H. & Rudolph, T. Proposal for pulsed on-demand sources of photonic cluster state strings. Physical Review Letters103, 113602 (2009). 14

    2009

  5. [12]

    Lee, J. P. et al. A quantum dot as a source of time-bin entangled multi-photon states. Quantum Science and Technology4, 025011 (2019)

    2019

  6. [13]

    Schwartz, I. et al. Deterministic generation of a cluster state of entangled photons. Science 354, 434–437 (2016)

    2016

  7. [14]

    Appel, M. H. et al. Entangling a hole spin with a time-bin photon: A waveguide approach for quantum dot sources of multiphoton entanglement. Physical Review Letters128, 233602 (2022)

    2022

  8. [15]

    & Gershoni, D

    Cogan, D., Su, Z.-E., Kenneth, O. & Gershoni, D. Deterministic generation of indistinguishable photons in a cluster state. Nature Photonics 17, 324–329 (2023)

    2023

  9. [16]

    Coste, N. et al. High-rate entanglement between a semiconductor spin and indistinguishable photons. Nature Photonics 17, 582–587 (2023)

    2023

  10. [17]

    Su, Z.-E. et al. Continuous and deterministic all-photonic cluster state of indistinguishable pho- tons. Reports on Progress in Physics87, 077601 (2024)

    2024

  11. [18]

    Meng, Y. et al. Deterministic photon source of genuine three-qubit entanglement. Nature Com- munications 15, 7774 (2024)

    2024

  12. [19]

    Huet, H. et al. Deterministic and reconfigurable graph state generation with a single solid-state quantum emitter. Nature Communications 16, 4337 (2025)

    2025

  13. [20]

    et al.Sequential generation of multiphoton entanglement with a Rydberg superatom

    Yang, C.-W. et al.Sequential generation of multiphoton entanglement with a Rydberg superatom. Nature Photonics 16, 658–661 (2022)

    2022

  14. [21]

    & Rempe, G

    Thomas, P., Ruscio, L., Morin, O. & Rempe, G. Efficient generation of entangled multiphoton graph states from a single atom. Nature 608, 677–681 (2022)

    2022

  15. [22]

    Zaske, S. et al. Visible-to-telecom quantum frequency conversion of light from a single quantum emitter. Physical Review Letters109, 147404 (2012)

    2012

  16. [23]

    & De Riedmatten, H

    Albrecht, B., Farrera, P., Fernandez-Gonzalvo, X., Cristiani, M. & De Riedmatten, H. A waveg- uide frequency converter connecting rubidium-based quantum memories to the telecom c-band. Nature Communications 5, 3376 (2014)

    2014

  17. [24]

    Sittig, R. et al. Thin-film ingaas metamorphic buffer for telecom c-band inas quantum dots and optical resonators on gaas platform. Nanophotonics 11, 1109–1116 (2022)

    2022

  18. [25]

    Dusanowski, L. et al. Optical charge injection and coherent control of a quantum-dot spin-qubit emitting at telecom wavelengths. Nature Communications 13, 748 (2022). 15

    2022

  19. [27]

    Peniakov, G. et al. Initialization of neutral and charged exciton spin states in a telecom-emitting quantum dot. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20497(2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    Uysal, M. T. et al. Spin-photon entanglement of a single Er 3+ ion in the telecom band. Physical Review X 15, 011071 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Coste, N. et al. Probing the dynamics and coherence of a semiconductor hole spin via acoustic phonon-assisted excitation. Quantum Science and Technology8, 025021 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    & Chamarro, M

    Testelin, C., Bernardot, F., Eble, B. & Chamarro, M. Hole–spin dephasing time associated with hyperfine interaction in quantum dots. Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 79, 195440 (2009)

    2009

  23. [31]

    Tartakovskii, A. I. et al. Nuclear spin switch in semiconductor quantum dots. Physical Review Letters 98, 026806 (2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    Ramesh, P. R. et al. The impact of hole g-factor anisotropy on spin-photon entanglement gener- ation with InGaAs quantum dots. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07627(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Cogan, D. et al. Depolarization of electronic spin qubits confined in semiconductor quantum dots. Physical Review X8 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Gerardot, B. D. et al. Optical pumping of a single hole spin in a quantum dot. Nature 451, 441–444 (2008)

    2008

  27. [35]

    A., Bulaev, D

    Fischer, J., Coish, W. A., Bulaev, D. V. & Loss, D. Spin decoherence of a heavy hole coupled to nuclear spins in a quantum dot. Physical Review B78 (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    et al.Hole-nuclear spin interaction in quantum dots

    Eble, B. et al.Hole-nuclear spin interaction in quantum dots. Physical Review Letters102, 146601 (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    B., Moehring, D

    Blinov, B. B., Moehring, D. L., Duan, L.-M. & Monroe, C. Observation of entanglement between a single trapped atom and a single photon. Nature 428, 153–157 (2004)

    2004

  30. [38]

    Observation of entanglement between a quantum dot spin and a single photon

    Gao, W. Observation of entanglement between a quantum dot spin and a single photon. Nature 491, 426–430 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    Barbiero, A. et al. Design study for an efficient semiconductor quantum light source operating in the telecom C-band based on an electrically-driven circular bragg grating. Optics express 30, 10919–10928 (2022). 16

    2022

  32. [40]

    & Heindel, T

    Rickert, L., Betz, F., Plock, M. & Heindel, T. High-performance designs for fiber-pigtailed quantum-light sources based on quantum dots in electrically-controlled circular Bragg gratings. Optics express 31, 14750–14770 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Nawrath, C. et al. Bright source of Purcell–enhanced, triggered, single photons in the telecom C–band. Advanced Quantum Technologies6 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Joos, R. et al. Coherently and incoherently pumped telecom C-band single-photon source with high brightness and indistinguishability. Nano letters 24, 8626–8633 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Holewa, P. et al. High-throughput quantum photonic devices emitting indistinguishable photons in the telecom C-band. Nature communications15, 3358 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    et al.Two-photon interference from an InAs quantum dot emitting in the telecom C-band

    Kim, J. et al.Two-photon interference from an InAs quantum dot emitting in the telecom C-band. arXiv preprint arXiv.2501.15970(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Barbiero, A. et al. Purcell enhanced and tunable single-photon emission at telecom wavelengths from InAs quantum dots in circular photonic crystal resonators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11069 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    Gangloff, D. et al. Quantum interface of an electron and a nuclear ensemble. Science 364, 62–66 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    Zaporski, L. et al. Ideal refocusing of an optically active spin qubit under strong hyperfine interactions. Nature Nanotechnology18, 257–263 (2023). Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the usage of wafer material developed during earlier projects in partnership...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.