pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.27787 · v1 · pith:AHLYNN4Rnew · submitted 2026-06-26 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.mes-hall· physics.app-ph· physics.optics

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

H\^elio Huet , Hubert Lam , Thibaut Pollet , Petr Steindl , Alice Bernard , Albert Adiyatullin , Petr Stepanov , William Hease
show 40 more authors
Victor Guilloux Nico Margaria Joris Verstraten Raksha Singla Samuel T. Mister Anton Pishchagin Lara Couronn\'e Samuel Huber David Sebastian Duc Duy Tran Thi Hao Nhi Nguyen Thi Phuong Do Joseph Sulpizio Yann Portella Kiarn T. Laverick Thinhinane Bennour Tomas Alexandre De Sousa Davide Stefani Mathias Pont Maxime Descampeaux Bianca Scaparra Martin A. Jacobsen Klaus D. J\"ons Rinaldo Trotta Aristide Lema\^itre Martina Morassi Olivier Krebs Lo\"ic Lanco Niels Gregersen Alexia Auff\`eves Maria Maffei Shane Mansfield Jean Senellart Thomas Volz Viviana Villafa\~ne Stephen C. Wein Dario A. Fioretto Sebastien Boissier Thi Huong Au Pascale Senellart
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 04:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.app-phphysics.optics
keywords quantum dotsspin-photon interfacehybrid quantum computingsingle-photon sourcesquantum entanglementphoton indistinguishabilityfoundry fabricationmicrocavities
0
0 comments X

The pith

Thousands of pilot-line fabricated quantum-dot devices achieve near-unity photon purity, record Wigner negativity, and seven-partite spin-photon entanglement.

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

The paper shows that monolithic semiconductor quantum dots in microcavities, made with a standard III-V production process, can function as stable light-matter interfaces. These devices generate single photons with high efficiency and near-unity purity that holds for tens of minutes, produce a record level of Wigner-function negativity, and create seven-partite entanglement between one spin and multiple photons. Photons from separate devices are as indistinguishable as those from the same device, and spin coherence reaches microseconds. A reader would care because hybrid photonic quantum computers require exactly these interfaces to be reproducible and scalable enough for error correction.

Core claim

Thousands of monolithic semiconductor quantum-dot devices fabricated using a III-V pilot production-line process achieve state-of-the-art efficiency, near-unity photon quantum purity stable over tens of minutes, a record single-photon Wigner-function negativity, seven-partite spin-multi-photon entanglement, microsecond spin coherence, and indistinguishability between photons from distant sources equivalent to successive emission from one source.

What carries the argument

Cavity-coupled quantum dots that serve as spin-photon interfaces for on-demand single-photon generation and multi-partite entanglement.

If this is right

  • Optical losses in hybrid systems can be lowered below error-correction thresholds by tuning the same source parameters.
  • Distant devices can be treated as interchangeable photon sources in networked architectures.
  • Spin coherence in the low-field regime is long enough to support microsecond-scale gate operations.
  • The foundry process supplies the reproducibility needed for arrays of thousands of interfaces.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Integration with on-chip waveguides or other photonic components could test whether the reported metrics survive full system assembly.
  • The same fabrication flow might be adapted to produce devices at different wavelengths for multi-color quantum networks.
  • If the entanglement verification holds without post-selection, these sources could directly feed linear-optical gates.
  • Extending the pilot-line yield data to larger wafer batches would indicate the cost scaling for error-corrected processors.

Load-bearing premise

The field-quadrature state reconstruction and entanglement verification protocols extract the reported efficiency, purity, and correlations without hidden biases from detectors, timing, or post-selection.

What would settle it

A measurement in which the same devices, under identical drive conditions, yield joint efficiency and purity values below fault-tolerance thresholds when the reconstruction protocol is replaced by direct photon counting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.27787 by Albert Adiyatullin, Alexia Auff\`eves, Alice Bernard, Anton Pishchagin, Aristide Lema\^itre, Bianca Scaparra, Dario A. Fioretto, Davide Stefani, David Sebastian, Duc Duy Tran, H\^elio Huet, Hubert Lam, Jean Senellart, Joris Verstraten, Joseph Sulpizio, Kiarn T. Laverick, Klaus D. J\"ons, Lara Couronn\'e, Lo\"ic Lanco, Maria Maffei, Martin A. Jacobsen, Martina Morassi, Mathias Pont, Maxime Descampeaux, Nico Margaria, Niels Gregersen, Olivier Krebs, Pascale Senellart, Petr Steindl, Petr Stepanov, Raksha Singla, Rinaldo Trotta, Samuel Huber, Samuel T. Mister, Sebastien Boissier, Shane Mansfield, Stephen C. Wein, Thibaut Pollet, Thi Hao Nhi Nguyen, Thi Huong Au, Thinhinane Bennour, Thi Phuong Do, Thomas Volz, Tomas Alexandre De Sousa, Victor Guilloux, Viviana Villafa\~ne, William Hease, Yann Portella.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: e presents the profile of the Wigner function along one quadrature for both LA-phonon assisted ex￾citation and RF excitation, at the output of the device, the inset presents the reconstructed Wigner function un￾der RF excitation. We observe negativies min(W(α)) of −0.218(8) and −0.330(9), respectively. The experimen￾tal data (symbols) in Fig. 2e are in excellent agreement with the expected ideal Wigner fun… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: d), in excellent agreement with the simulated values of 0.80 and 0.72. The model reproduces the experimen- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Hybrid photonic quantum computers, combining stationary matter qubits and flying photonic qubits, offer an intrinsically networked and resource-efficient route to large-scale, error-corrected quantum computation. Their core components are cavity-coupled matter qubits that act as light--matter interfaces, enabling: high-efficiency on-demand single-photon generation, stable near-unity photon indistinguishability and spin--multi-photon entanglement. Semiconductor quantum dots in microcavities are a leading platform for realizing such devices. Yet reaching the performance, reproducibility and spin-coherence thresholds for large-scale error correction remains a major challenge requiring industrial fabrication and control. Here we report thousands of monolithic semiconductor quantum-dot devices fabricated using a III--V pilot production-line process compatible with large-scale deployment. Systematic control of source parameters yields state-of-the-art efficiency and supports a path to optical losses below fault-tolerance thresholds. Using field-quadrature state reconstruction as a stringent joint test of efficiency and indistinguishability, we observe near-unity photon quantum purity stable over tens of minutes and a record single-photon Wigner-function negativity. We further demonstrate seven-partite spin--multi-photon entanglement and spin coherence extendable to microsecond timescales in the low-magnetic-field regime. Finally, photons from distant sources are as indistinguishable as photons emitted successively by a single source. These results establish foundry-compatible III--V quantum dots as a scalable platform for hybrid photonic quantum computing.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the fabrication of thousands of monolithic semiconductor quantum-dot devices via a III-V pilot production-line process. It claims state-of-the-art efficiency, near-unity photon quantum purity stable over tens of minutes, a record single-photon Wigner-function negativity, seven-partite spin-multi-photon entanglement, microsecond spin coherence in the low-magnetic-field regime, and photon indistinguishability between distant sources equivalent to successive emission from a single source, positioning the platform for hybrid photonic quantum computing.

Significance. If the reported metrics are substantiated, the work would be significant for hybrid quantum computing by demonstrating industrial-scale reproducibility of high-performance spin-photon interfaces. The scale of device fabrication (thousands) and the use of field-quadrature state reconstruction as a joint test of efficiency and indistinguishability are concrete strengths that directly address reproducibility and performance thresholds for error correction.

major comments (2)
  1. [Field-quadrature state reconstruction section] Field-quadrature state reconstruction section: The central claims of near-unity purity, record Wigner negativity, and joint efficiency rest on this protocol. The manuscript does not detail explicit corrections or error budgets for timing jitter, detector inefficiency mismatch, or post-selection on coincidence windows, leaving open the possibility that reported values exceed the true physical performance and alter relevance to fault-tolerance thresholds.
  2. [Entanglement verification section] Entanglement verification section: The seven-partite spin-multi-photon entanglement claim depends on the verification protocol. Without explicit description of how the witness accounts for experimental imperfections (e.g., finite detector efficiency or timing jitter) or provision of the full analysis pipeline, it is not possible to confirm that the reported correlations are free of undetected biases that would change the interpretation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. The two major comments both request additional methodological detail on error accounting. We will revise the manuscript to supply these details explicitly, thereby strengthening the substantiation of the reported metrics without altering the underlying claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Field-quadrature state reconstruction section] Field-quadrature state reconstruction section: The central claims of near-unity purity, record Wigner negativity, and joint efficiency rest on this protocol. The manuscript does not detail explicit corrections or error budgets for timing jitter, detector inefficiency mismatch, or post-selection on coincidence windows, leaving open the possibility that reported values exceed the true physical performance and alter relevance to fault-tolerance thresholds.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit error budget is required for full substantiation. The revised manuscript will add a dedicated subsection (or supplementary note) that quantifies the contributions from timing jitter, detector inefficiency mismatch, and coincidence-window post-selection, together with the propagated uncertainties on purity, Wigner negativity, and efficiency. This will demonstrate that the reported values remain above the relevant fault-tolerance thresholds after correction. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Entanglement verification section] Entanglement verification section: The seven-partite spin-multi-photon entanglement claim depends on the verification protocol. Without explicit description of how the witness accounts for experimental imperfections (e.g., finite detector efficiency or timing jitter) or provision of the full analysis pipeline, it is not possible to confirm that the reported correlations are free of undetected biases that would change the interpretation.

    Authors: We accept that the witness analysis must be presented with explicit accounting for imperfections. The revised version will expand the entanglement-verification section to include (i) the precise form of the witness operator, (ii) how finite detector efficiency and timing jitter are folded into the expectation-value calculation, and (iii) either the full analysis code or a step-by-step pipeline description in the supplement. This will allow independent verification that no undetected bias alters the seven-partite entanglement conclusion. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct experimental report with no derivations or self-referential steps

full rationale

This is a pure experimental paper reporting fabrication yields, measured efficiencies, photon purities, Wigner negativities, and entanglement witnesses from quantum-dot devices. No equations, predictions, or ansatzes are presented that could reduce to fitted inputs, self-citations, or self-definitions. Field-quadrature reconstruction and entanglement verification are standard data-analysis protocols applied to raw measurements; they do not constitute a derivation chain whose outputs are forced by the paper's own inputs. The central claims rest on empirical observations, not on any load-bearing theoretical step that loops back to itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Experimental demonstration paper. No free parameters, invented entities, or non-standard axioms are introduced; the work relies on standard quantum optics measurement assumptions and semiconductor fabrication processes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6016 in / 1173 out tokens · 30621 ms · 2026-06-29T04:53:45.881596+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. Wang, F. Sciarrino, A. Laing, and M. G. Thompson, Nature photonics14, 273 (2020)

    2020

  2. [2]

    Bartolucci, P

    S. Bartolucci, P. Birchall, H. Bombin, H. Cable, C. Daw- son, M. Gimeno-Segovia, E. Johnston, K. Kieling, N. Nickerson, M. Pant,et al., Nature Communications 14, 912 (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    PsiQuantum team, Nature641, 876 (2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, Nature409, 46 (2001)

    2001

  5. [5]

    D. E. Browne and T. Rudolph, Physical Review Letters 95, 010501 (2005)

    2005

  6. [6]

    Y. Li, P. C. Humphreys, G. J. Mendoza, and S. C. Ben- jamin, Physical Review X5, 041007 (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    S. C. Wein, T. Goubault de Brugière, L. Music, P. Senel- lart, B. Bourdoncle, and S. Mansfield, PRX Quantum6, 040362 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    S. X. Chen, M. C. Löbl, M. L. Chan, A. S. Sørensen, and S. Paesani, npj Quantum Information 10.1038/s41534- 026-01233-y (2026)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534- 2026

  9. [9]

    Manohar, A

    N. Manohar, A. Danageozian, E. Takou, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Protocol for efficient generation of fusion-based quantum computing resource states from quantum emitters (2026), arXiv:2605.09325 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    G. d. Gliniasty, P. Hilaire, P.-E. Emeriau, S. C. Wein, A. Salavrakos, and S. Mansfield, Quantum8, 1423 (2024)

    2024

  11. [11]

    Dessertaine, B

    T. Dessertaine, B. Bourdoncle, A. Denys, G. d. Gliniasty, P. C. d’Istria, G. Valentí-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 (2026), arXiv:2410.07065 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    M. L. Chan, A. A. Capatos, P. Lodahl, A. S. Sørensen, and S. Paesani, Practical blueprint for low-depth pho- tonic quantum computing with quantum dots (2025), 2507.16152 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Lodahl, S

    P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, and S. Stobbe, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 347 (2015)

    2015

  14. [14]

    Senellart, G

    P. Senellart, G. Solomon, and A. White, Nature Nan- otechnology12, 1026 (2017)

    2017

  15. [15]

    M. H. Appel, A. Tiranov, A. Javadi, M. C. Löbl, Y. Wang, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, R. J. Warburton, and P. Lodahl, Physical Review Letters126, 013602 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    Coste, M

    N. Coste, M. Gundin, D. A. Fioretto, S. E. Thomas, C. Millet, E. Mehdi, N. Somaschi, M. Morassi, M. Pont, A. Lemaître, N. Belabas, O. Krebs, L. Lanco, and P. Senellart, Quantum Sci. Technol.8, 025021 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    M. R. Hogg, N. O. Antoniadis, M. A. Marczak, G. N. Nguyen, T. L. Baltisberger, A. Javadi, R. Schott, S. R. Valentin, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, and R. J. Warburton, Nature Physics21, 1475 (2025). 10

    2025

  18. [18]

    Mehdi, M

    E. Mehdi, M. Gundín, C. Millet, N. Somaschi, A. Lemaître, I. Sagnes, L. Le Gratiet, D. A. Fioretto, N. Belabas, O. Krebs, P. Senellart, and L. Lanco, Nature Communications15, 598 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    Somaschi, V

    N. Somaschi, V. Giesz, L. De Santis, J. C. Loredo, M. P. Almeida, G. Hornecker, S. L. Portalupi, T. Grange, C. Antón, J. Demory, C. Gómez, I. Sagnes, N. D. Lanzillotti-Kimura, A. Lemaítre, A. Auffeves, A. G. White, L. Lanco, and P. Senellart, Nature Photonics10, 340 (2016), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2016

  20. [20]

    Wang, Y.-M

    H. Wang, Y.-M. He, T.-H. Chung, H. Hu, Y. Yu, S. Chen, X. Ding, M.-C. Chen, J. Qin, X. Yang, R.-Z. Liu, Z.- C. Duan, J.-P. Li, S. Gerhardt, K. Winkler, J. Jurkat, L.-J. Wang, N. Gregersen, Y.-H. Huo, Q. Dai, S. Yu, S. Höfling, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Nature Photonics 13, 770–775 (2019)

    2019

  21. [21]

    N. Tomm, A. Javadi, N. O. Antoniadis, D. Najer, M. C. Löbl, A. R. Korsch, R. Schott, S. R. Valentin, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, and R. J. Warburton, Nature Nan- otechnology16, 399–403 (2021)

    2021

  22. [22]

    Thomas, M

    S. Thomas, M. Billard, N. Coste, S. Wein, Priya, H. Ol- livier, O. Krebs, L. Tazaïrt, A. Harouri, A. Lemaitre, I. Sagnes, C. Anton, L. Lanco, N. Somaschi, J. Loredo, and P. Senellart, Physical Review Letters126, 233601 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    Ding, Y.-P

    X. Ding, Y.-P. Guo, M.-C. Xu, R.-Z. Liu, G.-Y. Zou, J.- Y. Zhao, Z.-X. Ge, Q.-H. Zhang, H.-L. Liu, L.-J. Wang, M.-C. Chen, H. Wang, Y.-M. He, Y.-H. Huo, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Nature Photonics , 1 (2025), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2025

  24. [24]

    J. C. Loredo, L. Stefan, B. Krogh, R. Jensen, I. Suleiman, S. Krüger, M. Bergamin, H. Thyrrestrup, S. Budtz, J. Roulund, Z. Liu, X. Zhao, L. Vertchenko, A. Lud- wig, O. A. D. Sandberg, and P. Lodahl, Applied Physics Reviews13, 011326 (2026)

    2026

  25. [25]

    N. H. Lindner and T. Rudolph, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 113602 (2009)

    2009

  26. [26]

    Cogan, Z.-E

    D. Cogan, Z.-E. Su, O. Kenneth, and D. Gershoni, Na- ture Photonics17, 324 (2023)

    2023

  27. [27]

    Z.-E. Su, B. Taitler, I. Schwartz, D. Cogan, I. Nassar, O. Kenneth, N. H. Lindner, and D. Gershoni, Rep. Prog. Phys.87, 077601 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    Coste, D

    N. Coste, D. A. Fioretto, N. Belabas, S. C. Wein, P. Hi- laire, R. Frantzeskakis, M. Gundin, B. Goes, N. So- maschi, M. Morassi, A. Lemaître, I. Sagnes, A. Harouri, S. E. Economou, A. Auffeves, O. Krebs, L. Lanco, and P. Senellart, Nature Photonics17, 582 (2023), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2023

  29. [29]

    H. Huet, P. R. Ramesh, S. C. Wein, N. Coste, P. Hi- laire, N. Somaschi, M. Morassi, A. Lemaître, I. Sagnes, M. F. Doty, O. Krebs, L. Lanco, D. A. Fioretto, and P. Senellart, Nature Communications16, 1 (2025), pub- lisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2025

  30. [30]

    M. H. Appel, A. Tiranov, S. Pabst, M. L. Chan, C. Starup, Y. Wang, L. Midolo, K. Tiurev, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, A. S. Sørensen, and P. Lodahl, Physical Review Letters128, 233602 (2022)

    2022

  31. [31]

    Y. Meng, M. L. Chan, R. B. Nielsen, M. H. Appel, Z. Liu, Y. Wang, N. Bart, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, L. Midolo, A. Tiranov, A. S. Sørensen, and P. Lodahl, Nature Com- munications15, 7774 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    Y.Meng, C.F.D.Faurby, M.L.Chan, R.B.Nielsen, P.I. Sund, Z. Liu, Y. Wang, N. Bart, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, L. Midolo, A. S. Sørensen, S. Paesani, and P. Lodahl, Nature Communications16, 7602 (2025)

    2025

  33. [33]

    Laccotripes, J

    P. Laccotripes, J. Huang, G. Shooter, A. Barbiero, M. S. Winnel, D.A.Ritchie, A.J.Shields, T.Muller,andR.M. Stevenson, An entangled photon source for the telecom C-band based on a semiconductor-confined spin (2025), arXiv:2507.01648 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Laccotripes, T

    P. Laccotripes, T. Müller, R. M. Stevenson, J. Skiba- Szymanska, D. A. Ritchie, and A. J. Shields, Nature Communications15, 9740 (2024)

    2024

  35. [35]

    S. X. Chen, M. C. Löbl, M. L. Chan, A. S. Sørensen, and S. Paesani, npj Quantum Information (2026)

    2026

  36. [36]

    Dousse, L

    A. Dousse, L. Lanco, J. Suffczyński, E. Semenova, A. Mi- ard, A. Lemaître, I. Sagnes, C. Roblin, J. Bloch, and P. Senellart, Physical Review Letters101, 267404 (2008)

    2008

  37. [37]

    A. M. Barth, S. Lüker, A. Vagov, D. E. Reiter, T. Kuhn, and V. M. Axt, Phys. Rev. B94, 045306 (2016)

    2016

  38. [38]

    Cosacchi, F

    M. Cosacchi, F. Ungar, M. Cygorek, A. Vagov, and V. M. Axt, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 017403 (2019)

    2019

  39. [39]

    Gustin and S

    C. Gustin and S. Hughes, Advanced Quantum Technologies3, 1900073 (2020), https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/qute.201900073

    work page doi:10.1002/qute.201900073 2020

  40. [40]

    Wigner, Physical Review40, 749–759 (1932)

    E. Wigner, Physical Review40, 749–759 (1932)

    1932

  41. [41]

    Hillery, R

    M. Hillery, R. O’Connell, M. Scully, and E. Wigner, Physics Reports106, 121–167 (1984)

    1984

  42. [42]

    A. I. Lvovsky and M. G. Raymer, Reviews of Modern Physics81, 299–332 (2009)

    2009

  43. [43]

    Royer, Physical Review Letters55, 2745–2748 (1985)

    A. Royer, Physical Review Letters55, 2745–2748 (1985)

    1985

  44. [44]

    Banaszek and K

    K. Banaszek and K. Wódkiewicz, Physical Review Let- ters76, 4344–4347 (1996)

    1996

  45. [45]

    Bertet, A

    P. Bertet, A. Auffeves, P. Maioli, S. Osnaghi, T. Meunier, M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Physical Re- view Letters89, 200402 (2002)

    2002

  46. [46]

    Laiho, M

    K. Laiho, M. Avenhaus, K. N. Cassemiro, and C. Silber- horn, New Journal of Physics11, 043012 (2009)

    2009

  47. [47]

    Laiho, K

    K. Laiho, K. N. Cassemiro, D. Gross, and C. Silberhorn, Physical Review Letters105, 253603 (2010)

    2010

  48. [48]

    Zambra, A

    G. Zambra, A. Andreoni, M. Bondani, M. Gramegna, M. Genovese, G. Brida, A. Rossi, and M. G. A. Paris, Physical Review Letters95, 063602 (2005)

    2005

  49. [49]

    A. R. Rossi, S. Olivares, and M. G. A. Paris, Physical Review A70, 10.1103/physreva.70.055801 (2004)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.70.055801 2004

  50. [50]

    Allevi, A

    A. Allevi, A. Andreoni, M. Bondani, G. Brida, M. Gen- ovese, M. Gramegna, P. Traina, S. Olivares, M. G. A. Paris, and G. Zambra, Physical Review A80, 022114 (2009)

    2009

  51. [51]

    Zhang, X

    S. Zhang, X. Zou, C. Li, C. Jin, and G. Guo, Physical Review A80, 10.1103/physreva.80.043807 (2009)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.80.043807 2009

  52. [52]

    Leonhardt, Measuring the Quantum State of Light (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997)

    U. Leonhardt, Measuring the Quantum State of Light (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997)

    1997

  53. [53]

    Ourjoumtsev, R

    A. Ourjoumtsev, R. Tualle-Brouri, and P. Grangier, Physical Review Letters96, 213601 (2006), publisher: American Physical Society

    2006

  54. [54]

    Nehra, A

    R. Nehra, A. Win, M. Eaton, R. Shahrokhshahi, N. Srid- har, T. Gerrits, A. Lita, S. W. Nam, and O. Pfister, Op- tica6, 1356 (2019), publisher: Optica Publishing Group

    2019

  55. [55]

    Magro, J

    V. Magro, J. Vaneecloo, S. Garcia, and A. Ourjoumt- sev, Nature Photonics17, 688 (2023), arXiv:2209.02047 [physics, physics:quant-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Tóth and O

    G. Tóth and O. Gühne, Physical Review A72, 022340 (2005)

    2005

  57. [57]

    Urbaszek, X

    B. Urbaszek, X. Marie, T. Amand, O. Krebs, P. Voisin, P. Maletinsky, A. Hogele, and A. Imamoglu, Reviews of Modern Physics85, 79 (2013), arXiv:1202.4637 [cond- mat]. 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  58. [58]

    Bechtold, D

    A. Bechtold, D. Rauch, F. Li, T. Simmet, P.-L. Ardelt, A. Regler, K. Müller, N. A. Sinitsyn, and J. J. Finley, Nature Physics11, 1005 (2015)

    2015

  59. [59]

    Press, K

    D. Press, K. De Greve, P. L. McMahon, T. D. Ladd, B. Friess, C. Schneider, M. Kamp, S. Höfling, A. Forchel, and Y. Yamamoto, Nature Photonics4, 367 (2010), num- ber: 6

    2010

  60. [60]

    Zaporski, N

    L. Zaporski, N. Shofer, J. H. Bodey, S. Manna, G.Gillard, M.H.Appel, C.Schimpf, S.F.CovredaSilva, J. Jarman, G. Delamare, G. Park, U. Haeusler, E. A. Chekhovich, A. Rastelli, D. A. Gangloff, M. Atatüre, and C. Le Gall, Nature Nanotechnology18, 257 (2023)

    2023

  61. [61]

    H. Y. Carr and E. M. Purcell, Physical Review94, 630 (1954)

    1954

  62. [62]

    Cywinski, R

    L. Cywinski, R. M. Lutchyn, C. P. Nave, and S. D. Sarma, Physical Review B77, 174509 (2008), arXiv:0712.2225 [cond-mat, physics:quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  63. [63]

    L. Zhai, G. N. Nguyen, C. Spinnler, J. Ritzmann, M. C. Löbl, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, A. Javadi, and R. J. War- burton, Nature Nanotechnology17, 829 (2022), number: 8

    2022

  64. [64]

    Rungta, V

    T. Grange, N. Somaschi, C. Antón, L. De Santis, G. Cop- pola, V. Giesz, A. Lemaître, I. Sagnes, A. Auffèves, and P. Senellart, Physical Review Letters118, 10.1103/phys- revlett.118.253602 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2017