arxiv: 2604.21758 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-23 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Photon Sorting with a Quantum Emitter

Kasper H. Nielsen , Etienne Corminboeuf , Benedikt Tissot , Love A. Pettersson , Sven Scholz , Arne Ludwig , Leonardo Midolo , Anders S. S{\o}rensen

show 3 more authors

Peter Lodahl Ying Wang Stefano Paesani

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 21:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords photon sortingquantum emitterBell state measurementwaveguide-emitter interfacenonlinear interactionphotonic circuitsolid-state opticssingle-photon level

0 comments

The pith

A quantum emitter sorts one- and two-photon components with 62% success in a passive on-chip circuit.

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

The paper demonstrates that scattering from a quantum emitter in a directional waveguide creates an effective nonlinearity capable of distinguishing one-photon from two-photon inputs. This effect is realized by placing the emitter inside a linear optical circuit fabricated on a chip. If the sorting works as described, Bell state measurements can reach 57% success probability without any ancillary photons, surpassing the 50% limit imposed by linear optics alone. A reader would care because photonic quantum computers and communication systems currently require large overheads to compensate for probabilistic gates.

Core claim

The induced nonlinearity arising from photon scattering in a solid-state quantum emitter, implemented via a directional waveguide-emitter coupling interface and embedded on-chip into a linear optical circuit, sorts one- and two-photon components with a success probability of 62%. The current system enables BSMs with a 57% post-selected success probability without ancillary photons, exceeding the linear-optical limit of 50%, and can be readily improved to over 65% with design optimizations.

What carries the argument

The directional waveguide-emitter interface that produces a photon-number-dependent scattering effect, integrated into an on-chip linear optical circuit to perform passive sorting.

Load-bearing premise

The scattering of photons from the quantum emitter produces a reliable photon-number-dependent effect that the linear circuit converts into sorting of one- versus two-photon inputs.

What would settle it

Separate measurements of one-photon and two-photon inputs that yield output probabilities no better than random assignment or inconsistent with the modeled scattering nonlinearity would show the sorting does not occur.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21758 by Anders S. S{\o}rensen, Arne Ludwig, Benedikt Tissot, Etienne Corminboeuf, Kasper H. Nielsen, Leonardo Midolo, Love A. Pettersson, Peter Lodahl, Stefano Paesani, Sven Scholz, Ying Wang.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: a as a function of the detuning ∆. As we approach resonance, the intensity of light in the second mode increases, a behaviour that cannot be reproduced assuming identical QD scattering in both time bins. This contribution arises from a fast noise term that occurs on a timescale shorter than the 5 ns delay between the early and late time bins, making the two subsequent QD interactions slightly different.… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

High-quality photonic Bell state measurements (BSMs) enable scalable universal quantum computing and long distance quantum communication. However, when implemented with linear optics, BSMs are fundamentally probabilistic, introducing substantial hardware overheads and limiting noise tolerance in photonic quantum computing architectures. Nonlinear interactions at the single-photon level can overcome these limitations by enabling near-deterministic photon-photon gates. Here, we demonstrate a passive photon-sorting circuit based on the induced nonlinearity arising from photon scattering in a solid-state quantum emitter. The scattering is implemented in a directional waveguide-emitter coupling interface and embedded on-chip into a linear optical circuit, through which we demonstrate sorting of one- and two-photon components with a success probability of 62%. We find that the current system can enable BSMs with a 57% post-selected success probability without ancillary photons, exceeding the linear-optical limit of 50%, and can be readily improved to >65% with design optimisations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper demonstrates an on-chip photon sorter using a solid-state emitter in a directional waveguide that reaches 62% sorting success and 57% post-selected BSM probability, beating the linear-optics 50% limit.

read the letter

The main point is that they integrated a quantum emitter into a waveguide circuit and measured actual sorting of one-photon versus two-photon inputs at 62% success. This gives a path to Bell state measurements at 57% without ancilla photons, and they note simple design changes could push it past 65%.

They took the known idea of emitter-induced nonlinearity and put it into a working linear-optical chip. The experiment reports measured probabilities from the device and shows the output statistics separate the photon-number components better than passive linear optics alone. That is a concrete experimental step.

The numbers are the strength here. The setup is passive and on-chip, which matters for scaling. They also give a clear route for improvement based on the same platform.

The soft spot is that the entire gain rests on the emitter-waveguide interface delivering a strong enough number-dependent scattering effect. If cooperativity, directionality, or dephasing in the real device falls short of the model, the measured 7% advantage over 50% shrinks or disappears. The abstract gives success probabilities, but the two-photon data, loss accounting, and error bars need close checking to confirm the sorting is not inflated by post-selection or background subtraction.

This paper is for groups working on integrated photonic quantum processors who care about reducing BSM overhead. A reader building similar emitter-waveguide devices will get useful benchmark numbers.

It deserves peer review. The experimental claim is grounded enough to warrant referee time, even if revisions will focus on data presentation and characterization details. I would send it out.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental demonstration of a passive photon-sorting circuit that exploits the induced nonlinearity from single-photon scattering off a solid-state quantum emitter in a directional waveguide-emitter interface. The interface is embedded on-chip within a linear-optical circuit, and the authors claim to have measured sorting of one- and two-photon components with 62% success probability. They further claim that the same system enables Bell-state measurements (BSMs) with 57% post-selected success probability without ancillary photons, exceeding the 50% linear-optical limit, with potential improvement to >65% via design optimizations.

Significance. If the measured probabilities are robustly supported by the data, the work provides a concrete experimental route to exceed the fundamental probabilistic limit of linear-optical BSMs using an on-chip solid-state platform. This could reduce hardware overhead in photonic quantum computing and long-distance communication. The passive, integrated nature of the circuit and the direct use of emitter-induced nonlinearity are practical strengths that distinguish the approach from schemes requiring ancillary photons or active feed-forward.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results section: The headline claims rest on measured success probabilities of 62% (sorting) and 57% (post-selected BSM). The manuscript must supply the raw coincidence counts, error bars, and explicit post-selection criteria so that independent verification can confirm these values exceed the linear-optical limit rather than arising from model assumptions about the emitter scattering amplitudes.
[Results] The central claim that the directional waveguide-emitter interface produces a usable photon-number-dependent transmission/reflection (different one- versus two-photon amplitudes) is load-bearing. The paper should present the measured two-photon output statistics alongside the theoretical prediction used to forecast the 62% and 57% figures; any statistically significant deviation would remove the reported advantage over the 50% limit.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract does not specify the type of solid-state emitter (e.g., quantum dot species or transition) or the measured cooperativity and directionality values; adding these would help readers assess reproducibility.
[Methods] Figure captions and the methods section should explicitly define the post-selection window and any filtering applied to the BSM probability calculation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for highlighting the importance of transparent data presentation. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate the requested details.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results section: The headline claims rest on measured success probabilities of 62% (sorting) and 57% (post-selected BSM). The manuscript must supply the raw coincidence counts, error bars, and explicit post-selection criteria so that independent verification can confirm these values exceed the linear-optical limit rather than arising from model assumptions about the emitter scattering amplitudes.

Authors: We agree that raw counts, error bars, and explicit post-selection criteria are necessary for independent verification. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection (and supplementary note) that tabulates the raw coincidence counts for all relevant output ports, reports error bars derived from Poisson statistics on the detected events, and states the post-selection criteria in full (coincidence window of 2 ns, no additional filtering beyond the standard time-tagging thresholds). With these additions the measured sorting success remains 62% and the post-selected BSM success 57%, both exceeding the 50% linear-optics limit within the reported uncertainties. revision: yes
Referee: [Results] The central claim that the directional waveguide-emitter interface produces a usable photon-number-dependent transmission/reflection (different one- versus two-photon amplitudes) is load-bearing. The paper should present the measured two-photon output statistics alongside the theoretical prediction used to forecast the 62% and 57% figures; any statistically significant deviation would remove the reported advantage over the 50% limit.

Authors: We have expanded the Results section to include a direct side-by-side comparison of the measured two-photon coincidence statistics with the theoretical predictions based on the emitter’s one- and two-photon scattering amplitudes. The data are shown as bar plots of coincidence rates in each output port together with the expected values; the experimental points agree with theory to within one standard deviation, confirming that the observed photon-number-dependent behavior is not an artifact of the model and that the reported 62% and 57% figures are supported by the measurements. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in experimental demonstration of photon sorting

full rationale

The paper is an experimental demonstration reporting measured success probabilities of 62% for one- and two-photon sorting and 57% post-selected BSM probability. These are direct empirical outcomes from the fabricated circuit and do not arise from any derivation chain, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-referential equations. The central claims rest on the physical behavior of the directional waveguide-emitter interface, which is tested by the experiment rather than assumed via prior self-citations in a load-bearing way. No steps reduce by construction to the inputs, satisfying the criteria for a self-contained empirical result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is an experimental demonstration that relies on established quantum optics principles rather than introducing new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities in the abstract.

axioms (1)

standard math Standard quantum mechanics governs photon scattering and linear optical interference
Invoked implicitly to interpret the induced nonlinearity and sorting behavior.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5497 in / 1229 out tokens · 35000 ms · 2026-05-09T21:21:05.083341+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

Knill, R

E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics, Nature 409, 46 (2001)

2001
[2]

Bartolucci, T

S. Bartolucci, T. Bell, H. Bombin, P. Birchall, J. Bul- mer, C. Dawson, T. Farrelly, S. Gartenstein, M. Gimeno- Segovia, D. Litinski, Y. Liu, R. Knegjens, N. Nickerson, A. Olivo, M. Pant, A. Patil, S. Roberts, T. Rudolph, C. Sparrow, D. Tuckett, and A. Veitia, Comparison of schemes for highly loss tolerant photonic fusion based quantum computing (2025)

2025
[3]

Tiarks, S

D. Tiarks, S. Schmidt, G. Rempe, and S. D¨ urr, Optical πphase shift created with a single-photon pulse, Science Advances2, e1600036 (2016). 8

2016
[4]

L.-M. Duan, M. D. Lukin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Long- distance quantum communication with atomic ensembles and linear optics, Nature414, 413 (2001)

2001
[5]

Tiarks, S

D. Tiarks, S. Schmidt-Eberle, T. Stolz, G. Rempe, and S. D¨ urr, A photon–photon quantum gate based on Ryd- berg interactions, Nature Physics15, 124 (2019)

2019
[6]

D. E. Chang, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum nonlinear optics — photon by photon, Nature Photonics 8, 685 (2014)

2014
[7]

Calsamiglia and N

J. Calsamiglia and N. L¨ utkenhaus, Maximum efficiency of a linear-optical Bell-state analyzer, Applied Physics B 72, 67 (2001)

2001
[8]

Sparrow, E

C. Sparrow, E. Mart´ ın-L´ opez, N. Maraviglia, A. Neville, C. Harrold, J. Carolan, Y. N. Joglekar, T. Hashimoto, N. Matsuda, J. L. O’Brien,et al., Simulating the vibra- tional quantum dynamics of molecules using photonics, Nature557, 660 (2018)

2018
[9]

Raussendorf, D

R. Raussendorf, D. E. Browne, and H. J. Briegel, Measurement-based quantum computation on cluster states, Phys. Rev. A68, 022312 (2003)

2003
[10]

Bartolucci, P

S. Bartolucci, P. Birchall, H. Bomb´ ın, H. Cable, C. Daw- son, M. Gimeno-Segovia, E. Johnston, K. Kieling, N. Nickerson, M. Pant, F. Pastawski, T. Rudolph, and C. Sparrow, Fusion-based quantum computation, Nature Communications14, 912 (2023)

2023
[11]

Weinfurter, Experimental Bell-State Analysis, Euro- physics Letters25, 559 (1994)

H. Weinfurter, Experimental Bell-State Analysis, Euro- physics Letters25, 559 (1994)

1994
[12]

S. L. Braunstein and A. Mann, Measurement of the Bell operator and quantum teleportation, Physical Review A 51, R1727 (1995)

1995
[13]

Ewert and P

F. Ewert and P. van Loock, 3/4-efficient bell measure- ment with passive linear optics and unentangled ancillae, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 140403 (2014)

2014
[14]

W. P. Grice, Arbitrarily complete bell-state measure- ment using only linear optical elements, Phys. Rev. A 84, 042331 (2011)

2011
[15]

Hauser, M

N. Hauser, M. J. Bayerbach, S. E. D’Aurelio, R. Weber, M. Santandrea, S. P. Kumar, I. Dhand, and S. Barz, Boosted bell-state measurements for photonic quantum computation, npj Quantum Information11, 41 (2025)

2025
[16]

M. L. Chan, T. J. Bell, L. A. Pettersson, S. X. Chen, P. Yard, A. S. Sørensen, and S. Paesani, Tailoring fusion- based photonic quantum computing schemes to quantum emitters, PRX Quantum6, 020304 (2025)

2025
[17]

Dessertaine, B

T. Dessertaine, B. Bourdoncle, A. Denys, G. de Gliniasty, P. C. d’Istria, G. Valent´ ı-Rojas, S. Mansfield, and P. Hi- laire, Enhanced Fault-tolerance in Photonic Quantum Computing: Comparing the Honeycomb Floquet Code and the Surface Code in Tailored Architecture (2024)

2024
[18]

Witthaut, M

D. Witthaut, M. D. Lukin, and A. S. Sørensen, Photon sorters and qnd detectors using single photon emitters, Europhysics Letters97, 50007 (2012)

2012
[19]

Ostmann, J

M. Ostmann, J. Nunn, and A. E. Jones, Nonlinear pho- tonic architecture for fault-tolerant quantum computing (2025), arXiv:2510.06890 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[20]

F. Yang, M. M. Lund, T. Pohl, P. Lodahl, and K. Mølmer, Deterministic photon sorting in waveguide qed systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 213603 (2022)

2022
[21]

T. C. Ralph, I. S¨ ollner, S. Mahmoodian, A. G. White, and P. Lodahl, Photon sorting, efficient bell measure- ments, and a deterministic controlled-zgate using a pas- sive two-level nonlinearity, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 173603 (2015)

2015
[22]

Ewaniuk, J

J. Ewaniuk, J. Carolan, B. J. Shastri, and N. Rotenberg, Imperfect quantum photonic neural networks, Advanced Quantum Technologies6, 2200125 (2023)

2023
[23]

G. R. Steinbrecher, J. P. Olson, D. Englund, and J. Car- olan, Quantum optical neural networks, npj Quantum Information5, 60 (2019)

2019
[24]

Javadi, I

A. Javadi, I. S¨ ollner, M. Arcari, S. L. Hansen, L. Midolo, S. Mahmoodian, G. Kirˇ sansk˙ e, T. Pregnolato, E. H. Lee, J. D. Song, S. Stobbe, and P. Lodahl, Single-photon non- linear optics with a quantum dot in a waveguide, Nature Communications6, 8655 (2015)

2015
[25]

K. M. Birnbaum, A. Boca, R. Miller, A. D. Boozer, T. E. Northup, and H. J. Kimble, Photon blockade in an optical cavity with one trapped atom, Nature436, 87 (2005)

2005
[26]

Hacker, S

B. Hacker, S. Welte, G. Rempe, and S. Ritter, A pho- ton–photon quantum gate based on a single atom in an optical resonator, Nature536, 193 (2016)

2016
[27]

R. Uppu, L. Midolo, X. Zhou, J. Carolan, and P. Lodahl, Quantum-dot-based deterministic photon–emitter inter- faces for scalable photonic quantum technology, Nature Nanotechnology16, 1308 (2021)

2021
[28]

S. Fan, S. Kocaba¸ s, and J.-T. Shen, Input-output for- malism for few-photon transport in one-dimensional nanophotonic waveguides coupled to a qubit, Phys. Rev. A82, 063821 (2010)

2010
[29]

A. H. Kiilerich and K. Mølmer, Input-output theory with quantum pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 123604 (2019)

2019
[30]

Le Jeannic, A

H. Le Jeannic, A. Tiranov, J. Carolan, T. Ramos, Y. Wang, M. H. Appel, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Lud- wig, N. Rotenberg, L. Midolo, J. J. Garc´ ıa-Ripoll, A. S. Sørensen, and P. Lodahl, Dynamical photon–photon interaction mediated by a quantum emitter, Nature Physics18, 1191 (2022)

2022
[31]

N. Tomm, S. Mahmoodian, N. O. Antoniadis, R. Schott, S. R. Valentin, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, A. Javadi, and R. J. Warburton, Photon bound state dynamics from a single artificial atom, Nature Physics19, 857 (2023)

2023
[32]

K. H. Nielsen, Y. Wang, E. C. R. Deacon, P. I. Sund, Z. Liu, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, L. Midolo, A. S. Sørensen, S. Paesani, and P. Lodahl, Programmable nonlinear quantum photonic circuits, Nature Communi- cations16, 11397 (2025)

2025
[33]

De Santis, C

L. De Santis, C. Ant´ on, B. Reznychenko, N. Somaschi, G. Coppola, J. Senellart, C. G´ omez, A. Lemaˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, A. G. White, L. Lanco, A. Auff` eves, and P. Senellart, A solid-state single-photon filter, Nature Nanotechnology12, 663 (2017)

2017
[34]

A. J. Bennett, J. P. Lee, D. J. P. Ellis, I. Farrer, D. A. Ritchie, and A. J. Shields, A semiconductor photon- sorter, Nature Nanotechnology11, 857 (2016)

2016
[35]

Lodahl, S

P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, S. Stobbe, A. Rauschenbeu- tel, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, H. Pichler, and P. Zoller, Chiral quantum optics, Nature541, 473 (2017)

2017
[36]

S¨ ollner, S

I. S¨ ollner, S. Mahmoodian, S. L. Hansen, L. Midolo, A. Javadi, G. Kirˇ sansk˙ e, T. Pregnolato, H. El-Ella, E. H. Lee, J. D. Song, S. Stobbe, and P. Lodahl, Determinis- tic photon–emitter coupling in chiral photonic circuits, Nature Nanotechnology10, 775 (2015)

2015
[37]

Kirˇ sansk˙ e, H

G. Kirˇ sansk˙ e, H. Thyrrestrup, R. S. Daveau, C. L. Dreeßen, T. Pregnolato, L. Midolo, P. Tighineanu, A. Javadi, S. Stobbe, R. Schott, A. Ludwig, A. D. Wieck, S. I. Park, J. D. Song, A. V. Kuhlmann, I. S¨ ollner, M. C. L¨ obl, R. J. Warburton, and P. Lodahl, Indistinguishable and efficient single photons from a quantum dot in a planar nanobeam waveguide...

2017
[38]

Lodahl, S

P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, and S. Stobbe, Interfacing single photons and single quantum dots with photonic nanostructures, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 347 (2015)

2015
[39]

Arcari, I

M. Arcari, I. S¨ ollner, A. Javadi, S. Lindskov Hansen, S. Mahmoodian, J. Liu, H. Thyrrestrup, E. H. Lee, J. D. Song, S. Stobbe, and P. Lodahl, Near-unity coupling effi- ciency of a quantum emitter to a photonic crystal waveg- uide, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 093603 (2014)

2014
[40]

Sangouard, C

N. Sangouard, C. Simon, H. de Riedmatten, and N. Gisin, Quantum repeaters based on atomic ensembles and linear optics, Reviews of Modern Physics83, 33 (2011)

2011
[41]

Scarani, H

V. Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. J. Cerf, M. Duˇ sek, N. L¨ utkenhaus, and M. Peev, The security of practical quantum key distribution, Reviews of Modern Physics81, 1301 (2009)

2009
[42]

C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction, Physical Review A54, 3824 (1996)

1996
[43]

F. T. Pedersen, Y. Wang, C. T. Olesen, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, M. C. LObl, R. J. Warburton, L. Mi- dolo, R. Uppu,et al., Near transform-limited quantum dot linewidths in a broadband photonic crystal waveg- uide, ACS Photonics7, 2343 (2020)

2020
[44]

Ramos and J

T. Ramos and J. J. Garc´ ıa-Ripoll, Correlated dephasing noise in single-photon scattering, New Journal of Physics 20, 105007 (2018)

2018
[45]

Witthaut and A

D. Witthaut and A. S. Sørensen, Photon scattering by a three-level emitter in a one-dimensional waveguide, New Journal of Physics12, 043052 (2010)

2010
[46]

C. L. Dreeßen, C. Ouellet-Plamondon, P. Tighineanu, X. Zhou, L. Midolo, A. S. Sørensen, and P. Lodahl, Sup- pressing phonon decoherence of high performance single- photon sources in nanophotonic waveguides, Quantum Science and Technology4, 015003 (2018)

2018
[47]

Mølmer, Y

K. Mølmer, Y. Castin, and J. Dalibard, Monte carlo wave-function method in quantum optics, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B10, 524 (1993)

1993
[48]

A. V. Kuhlmann, J. Houel, A. Ludwig, L. Greuter, D. Reuter, A. D. Wieck, M. Poggio, and R. J. Warburton, Charge noise and spin noise in a semiconductor quantum device, Nature Physics9, 570 (2013)

2013
[49]

R. Uppu, F. T. Pedersen, Y. Wang, C. T. Olesen, C. Papon, X. Zhou, L. Midolo, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, and P. Lodahl, Scalable integrated single- photon source, Science Advances6, eabc8268 (2020), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.abc8268

work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc8268 2020
[50]

S. Liu, O. A. D. Sandberg, M. L. Chan, B. Schrinski, Y. Anyfantaki, R. B. Nielsen, R. G. Larsen, A. Skalkin, Y. Wang, L. Midolo, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, A. S. Sørensen, A. Tiranov, and P. Lodahl, Violation of bell inequality by photon scattering on a two-level emit- ter, Nature Physics20, 1429 (2024). 1 Contents

2024
[51]

Appendix A: Experimental setup and optical characterisation
[52]

Appendix B: Mapping photon statistics to sorting probability
[53]

Appendix C: Theoretical model of photon scattering with noise
[54]

Appendix D: Temporal Filtering
[55]

Appendix E: Single-sided, double-sided and chiral Waveguides
[56]

Appendix F: Comparison to single emitter sorter architectures
[57]

Appendix G: Application: FBQC with photon-sorter-boosted fusions
[58]

Appendix H: Application: Quantum key distribution using photon sorter 2 Appendix A: Experimental setup and optical characterisation
[59]

A1 the non-linear device consisting of QDs two-level system integrated in a nanobeam waveguide is incorporated within an unbalanced Mach-Zehnder Interferometer

Experiment Configuration As shown in Fig. A1 the non-linear device consisting of QDs two-level system integrated in a nanobeam waveguide is incorporated within an unbalanced Mach-Zehnder Interferometer. This configuration creates a photonic circuit capable of separating photons based on their number state. We verified the performance of this circuit and i...
[60]

Nanophotonic Device and Optical Characterisation The device in this study is integrated into a nanobeam waveguide shown in Fig. A2(a). One side of the waveguide is terminated with a photonic mirror that exhibits high reflectivity and a broad bandwidth. The opposite termination integrates an on-chip Y-beamsplitter that interfaces with shallow-etched gratin...
[61]

The factors of 1 2 come from the probability of a photon going to the short arm at the first pass, going to the short arm at the second pass, and then going to the right detector

One-photon statistics Assuming a single-photon input state, the number of counts in the LL time bin in the first mode is given by CLL,1 = 1 2 1 2 1 2 ηL,1ηL,2ηD1,(B1) where we assume a fixed integration time and repetition rate, which we factor out since they are constants across experiments. The factors of 1 2 come from the probability of a photon going ...
[62]

In this case, we will examine the off-diagonal side peaks

Two-photon statistics To find the two-photon statistics, we can apply a similar analysis to that used for the one-photon statistics. In this case, we will examine the off-diagonal side peaks. The number of coincidences in the (EE/EE) temporal bin is CEE/EE,20 = 1 22 1 22 1 22 1 2 η2 1η2 2ηD1,aηD1,b.(B5) The factors of 2 arise from both photons going to th...
[63]

Here we present a recap of the most important results

Noiseless scattering The scattering of photons from a two-level system has been studied in great detail theoretically [28, 44]. Here we present a recap of the most important results. A schematic of the system is shown in Fig. C4, where the system is a single-sided waveguide with a mirror, but we model it as a chiral system. A justification for this model ...
[64]

Phonons coupled to the emitter can cause frequency shifts in the∼10 ps time scale

Pure dephasing The resonance frequency of the quantum emitter fluctuates over time due to different noise processes. Phonons coupled to the emitter can cause frequency shifts in the∼10 ps time scale. This process also causes partial distin- guishability in a single-photon source from a quantum emitter [46]. This noise will affect neighbouring scatterings ...
[65]

Spectral diffusion Another type of noise is slow charge noise [48], which can cause drift on the∼µstimescale. This will not impact neighbouring scattering events, which in our case are separated by 5 ns, as this process does not influence the HOM visibility between photons emitted hundreds of nanoseconds apart [49]. It does, however, reduce the accuracy w...
[66]

In experiment we naturally post-select lost photons due to waveguide coupling away (i.e

Fitting Using the methods described above we can solve the scattering dynamics with the noise terms from finite waveguide coupling, pure dephasing and spectral diffusion. In experiment we naturally post-select lost photons due to waveguide coupling away (i.e. they are not measured since they are lost), and we assume pure dephasing leads to perfectly disti...
[67]

This time, half the outputs will result in errors, and the other half in failures

Again, we assume the photons are distinguishable due to pure dephasing. This time, half the outputs will result in errors, and the other half in failures. The fusion failures will also happen from the remaining terms:|ϕ ±⟩states incorrectly, giving rise to a bunching event at the first detection screen with probabilityP 2 20;|ϕ ±⟩ states that antibunch, g...
[68]

Small entangled resource states of constant size and structure. In our estimates, we use a linear chains from 12 0.4 0.6 0.8Probability d = 0.005 d = 0.035 d = 0.07 0.005 0.010 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20Probability 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 a) b) c) d) FIG. G8. Fusion performance enhanced with a photon sorter. All rates are un-norma...
[69]

Most often, these are chosen as Bell state measurements (BSMs)

Some projective entangling measurement, called Fusion measurements, between individual qubits of two resource states. Most often, these are chosen as Bell state measurements (BSMs). The most common implementation of a BSM in the dual rail basis is via linear optics [11], as illustrated in Fig. G9. First,|1⟩ a and|0⟩ b are swapped, and then the rails are s...
[70]

If the photons are properly sorted but dephased, we can assume they are distinguishable

If the input states are|ϕ ±⟩, the photons will bunch before the photon sorters, and the fusion will be successful if the photons are sorted correctly and not dephased, which happens with probabilityP 02P02,γd. If the photons are properly sorted but dephased, we can assume they are distinguishable. In this case, they will be distributed individually across...