Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 49 references

Faithful quantum teleportation via a nanophotonic nonlinear Bell state analyzer

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A nonlinear Bell state analyzer based on sum-frequency generation teleports time-bin qubits from spectrally distinct photons with average fidelity at least 94%, down to the single-photon level.

desk verdict Solid experimental demonstration of SFG-heralded teleportation with spectrally distinct photons, but the abstract's 'no fundamental limit' framing goes beyond what the data actually show. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15437 v1 pith:CJTFQ3LA submitted 2024-11-23 quant-ph physics.optics

Joshua Akin , Yunlei Zhao , Paul G. Kwiat , Elizabeth A. Goldschmidt , Kejie Fang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.optics PACS 03.67.Hk42.50.Ex
keywords quantumteleportationnonlinearBellstateanalyzersum-frequencygenerationnanophotoniccavitytime-binqubitsmultiphotonsuppressionInGaPmicroringresonatorentanglementswapping
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 tries to prove that quantum teleportation can be made faithful without the usual requirements of linear optics: identical photons and heavy suppression of multiphoton emission. The authors built a chip-scale nonlinear Bell state analyzer that uses sum-frequency generation in a nanophotonic ring to combine Alice's photon with one photon from an entangled source, and treats detection of the upconverted photon as the teleportation herald. With this analyzer, time-bin qubits from spectrally distinct photons are teleported with average fidelity 94.4% at the highest tested intensity and at least 94% down to a mean cavity photon number of 0.8, well above the 2/3 classical bound. If the claim holds, quantum repeaters and networks could use independently produced, non-identical photons and drive entangled sources harder without the usual fidelity collapse.

What carries the argument

The key object is a triply-resonant In0.5Ga0.5P microring cavity whose χ(2) nonlinearity implements the three-wave-mixing Hamiltonian H/ℏ = g(a†b†c + abc†) between two telecom TE00 modes and one 780 nm TM00 mode, with single-photon coupling g/2π ≈ 14 MHz. This carries out the Bell state measurement: Alice's photon and one signal photon in the same time bin are upconverted, and projecting the sum-frequency photon in the |Σ±⟩ basis discriminates the |Φ±⟩ Bell states, transferring Alice's remaining time-bin phase to the idler. The central figure of merit is the single-photon SFG probability pSFG = 4g²/(κa κc) ≈ 4×10⁻⁵, which sets the herald rate while remaining small enough that the weak-coupling expansion $e^{{−iHt/ℏ}}$ ≈ 1 − iHt/ℏ used in the fidelity derivation is valid. A second SFG element with appropriate time delays is shown to distinguish all four Bell states, something passive linear optics cannot do.

What would settle it

Measure non-postselected teleportation fidelity while driving Alice to a mean photon number where pSFG is no longer small, near 10⁻³ rather than 4×10⁻⁵; a departure from Eq. (1) would reveal where multiphoton SFG events break the claimed immunity. Alternatively, use a sub-Poissonian single-photon source instead of SPDC and compare the measured fidelity with the thermal-statistics formula.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an SFG-based nonlinear Bell state analyzer in an In0.5Ga0.5P microring performs faithful quantum teleportation of time-bin qubits between spectrally distinct photons, with measured average fidelities of 94.4±1.8% at a cavity photon number of 80 and at least 94% down to 0.8, plus 90.5±1.6% after a 4 km fiber spool. The analyzer upconverts an Alice photon at 1541 nm and a signal photon at 1565 nm into a 777 nm sum-frequency photon; measuring that photon in the |Σ+⟩/|Σ−⟩ basis heralds teleportation of the time-bin state to the idler photon. Because same-source multiphoton pairs do not satisfy the SFG phase-matching condition, they generate no false herald, so the fidelity is set by the single-pair probability psi of the SPDC source: F = ((1+√(1−4psi))/2)^2, independent of Alice's photon number. The paper concludes that this removes the linear-optics requirements of identical input photons and the efficiency-fidelity trade-off, and extends the same mechanism to faithful entanglement swapping and, with a second SFG element, to a complete Bell state analyzer.

Load-bearing premise

The fidelity formulas assume the entangled-photon source has thermal (SPDC) number statistics and that sum-frequency conversion is so weak that every herald means exactly one Alice photon and one signal photon; if the source statistics differ or the SFG probability grows appreciably, the claimed no-trade-off fidelity does not follow from the derivation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Teleportation can be heralded between photons of different wavelengths, because the SFG phase-matching condition replaces the strict requirement of photon indistinguishability; spectral mismatch affects efficiency but not fidelity.
  • Multiphoton emission from the entangled source is filtered out by the nonlinear interaction, so sources can be driven at higher pair probabilities than linear-optics Bell measurements would permit.
  • Non-postselected entanglement swapping between SPDC sources reaches a fidelity F = ((1+√(1−4pA,si))/2)^2 ((1+√(1−4pB,si))/2)^2, compared with a 1/3 bound for linear-optics BSMs, supporting a path to practical quantum repeaters.
  • A complete nonlinear Bell state analyzer, distinguishing all four time-bin Bell states, is possible with two SFG elements, which passive linear optics and unentangled ancillae cannot achieve.
  • With projected pSFG ≈ 10⁻³ on optimized platforms, the nonlinear analyzer can outpace linear-optics swapping rates whenever channel loss exceeds pSFG, as in satellite links.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper demonstrates only the two |Φ±⟩ analyzer outcomes; if the same SFG mechanism holds, building the two-element analyzer with the second SFG cavity should produce all four teleportation outcomes and turn the scheme into a genuine complete Bell state measurement.
  • Because the fidelity formula is derived for thermal SPDC statistics, a natural test is to swap in a sub-Poissonian or deterministic single-photon source; the observed robustness to multiphoton noise may differ in that regime, which would sharpen where the claimed advantage applies.
  • The 4 km fiber result degrades mainly through interferometer and polarization drift rather than through the SFG herald itself, suggesting that engineering stabilized integrated interferometers could push long-distance fidelities close to the short-distance values.
  • A possible far-reaching extension, which the paper only sketches, is entangling heterogeneous emitters—such as quantum dots and color centers—directly through SFG, without wavelength conversion, which could simplify the hardware for distributed quantum processors.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a quantum teleportation experiment using a nonlinear Bell state analyzer (NLO-BSM) based on sum-frequency generation (SFG) in a nanophotonic InGaP microring. Alice's time-bin qubit is encoded in attenuated laser pulses; the entanglement source is a periodically poled lithium niobate waveguide producing SPDC pairs; and SFG between Alice's photon and the signal photon herald teleportation to the idler photon. The authors report average teleportation fidelities of at least 94% for six states, including at mean Alice cavity photon numbers of 80, 8, and 0.8, and over a 4 km fiber spool. They also derive theoretical fidelity formulas, Eq. (1) for teleportation and Eqs. (S9), (S12), and (S17) for non-postselected entanglement swapping, and claim that the nonlinear analyzer removes the fidelity-efficiency trade-off of linear-optical Bell state measurements. A complete four-outcome Bell state analyzer is proposed in the Supplementary Information but is not demonstrated experimentally.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a significant experimental step: it demonstrates SFG-heralded teleportation of time-bin qubits between spectrally distinct photons, with high fidelity at the single-photon level and with a nanophotonic platform whose single-photon SFG probability (about 4e-5) is several orders of magnitude larger than previous waveguide demonstrations. The experimental work is careful in several respects: quantum state tomography with maximum-likelihood reconstruction, Monte Carlo error propagation including counting statistics and interferometer phase fluctuations, explicit system-efficiency tables, and a long-distance run. The theoretical analysis in the SI is also clearly laid out. The main weakness is that the headline claim about removing the fundamental linear-optics limit is an extrapolation from a model validated only at very small source pair probability, and the complete Bell state analyzer that would realize that claim is only proposed, not built.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and SI §VII; Eq. (1)] The claim that the NLO-BSM removes the linear-optics fidelity-efficiency trade-off is not supported by the experimental data reported here. Equation (1) is derived in SI §I.A from a single-mode thermal SPDC state and a first-order SFG expansion, and the experiment operates at psi ≈ 0.003 (SI §VII), where multipair errors are negligible. Varying Alice's mean photon number in Fig. 4b probes coherent-state multiphoton statistics on Alice's side, not the SPDC multipair statistics that enter psi in Eq. (1). To support the abstract's 'no fundamental limit' statement, the authors should either measure teleportation fidelity versus SPDC pump power up to psi ≈ 0.1, or explicitly restrict the claim to the low-psi regime and revise the abstract accordingly.
  2. [Abstract and SI §VIII] The abstract and summary claim operation 'without the fundamental limit on the efficiency and fidelity of a Bell state measurement imposed by linear optics,' but the demonstrated analyzer distinguishes only the two Φ Bell states: the SFG herald is generated only when Alice and signal photons occupy the same time bin, so |Ψ±> inputs do not produce the Σ± herald states used here. The complete four-outcome Bell state analyzer of SI §VIII is a proposal involving two SFG elements plus delay lines and switches or beamsplitters; it is not an experimental demonstration. The efficiency-surpassing claim should be attributed to the proposed complete analyzer, not to the demonstrated partial analyzer.
  3. [Eq. (2) and SI Eq. (S49)] The Bell-state decomposition in Eq. (2) of the main text and its counterpart in SI Eq. (S49) contain a sign error: the fourth term should read |Ψ−>_As (α|l>_i − β|e>_i), not |Ψ+>_As. As written, the decomposition is not orthogonal and the sign structure is inconsistent with the subsequent SFG projection analysis. This should be corrected, since the protocol's state identities are central to the presentation.
  4. [SI §I.A, Eq. (S4)] The derivation of Eq. (1) models Alice as a single-mode photon-number state and the SPDC source as a single-mode thermal state, but it does not explicitly account for the time-bin structure of the protocol. In the experiment, multipair events can place different pairs in different time bins, and whether such events contribute errors depends on the gating of the herald and Bob measurements. The SI §VII estimate partially addresses this, but the relationship between the simplified Eq. (1) and the time-bin-resolved analysis should be stated explicitly, including whether Eq. (1) is meant as a worst-case bound or as an exact treatment.
minor comments (3)
  1. [SI Eq. (S4)] The formula 'P (|ψ>A,n,n ) = Γϵnn' is difficult to parse; it should be written as P(|ψ>A,n,n) = Γ ε^n n, with the exponent and the factor n clearly separated.
  2. [Fig. 4a caption] The caption lists the measured states as |e>, |l>, |−>, |+>, |L>, |R>, while the text and the figure panel order them as |e>, |l>, |+>, |−>, |R>, |L>. The ordering should be made consistent.
  3. [Main text, 'single-photon level'] The phrase 'down to the single-photon level' refers to mean Alice cavity photon number 0.8, which is a weak coherent state with a non-negligible multiphoton component. The wording is not wrong, but it could be clarified that the robustness to Alice-side multiphoton events is being tested, not the absence of multiphoton components.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the teleportation fidelities are measured independently, Eq. (1) is derived from stated source and SFG assumptions, and the self-citations supply non-load-bearing device parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central fidelity claim is not constructed from its own output. Eq. (1) is derived in SI Section I.A from explicit physical assumptions: the SPDC source has thermal number statistics, |psi_SPDC> = sqrt(1-epsilon) sum epsilon^{n/2}|n>_s|n>_i (SI Eq. S1), and the SFG process is in the weak-coupling regime, e^{-iHt} ≈ 1 - iHt (SI Eq. S2). The fidelity is then obtained as the ratio P(|psi_A>,1,1)/sum_n P(|psi_A>,n,n) = (1-epsilon)^2, which is algebraically the claimed formula. No measured teleportation fidelity or target result is used as an input to this derivation, so the derivation is self-contained rather than self-referential. The reported fidelities ≥ 94% come from quantum state tomography of Bob's idler photon conditioned on the SFG herald, with density matrices reconstructed by maximum-likelihood estimation; they are measured quantities, not fitted predictions. The SI Section VII estimated fidelity is a separate consistency check based on independently measured system efficiencies and p_si = 0.003; it is not used to generate the reported fidelities and does not reduce to them. The self-citations to refs. [27] and [35] concern the InGaP platform's nonlinearity-to-loss ratio and device performance; those parameters are also directly measured in this work (g/2pi ≈ 14 MHz, p_SFG ≈ 4e-5), and they are not load-bearing for the teleportation fidelity derivation. The linear-optics bounds invoked are independent results cited from the literature, not imported from the authors' prior work. The complete Bell state analyzer is presented as a proposal in SI Section VIII rather than a demonstrated experimental result, which is a scope limitation but not a circular step. The stronger claim about removing the linear-optics limit relies on extrapolation of Eq. (1) to larger p_si, and that extrapolation is a model prediction rather than a circular reuse of the experimental result; any concern about its validity belongs to correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum optics modeling: thermal SPDC number statistics, weak-coupling SFG, phase-matching filtering, and standard tomography. No ad hoc free parameters are fitted to the reported teleportation fidelity; psi and pSFG are experimentally determined inputs. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • psi (SPDC single-pair probability) = 0.003 in the SI estimated-fidelity model
    Used in SI Sec. VII to estimate expected fidelities. It is obtained from source brightness and system efficiencies, not fitted to the measured teleportation fidelity.
  • pSFG (single-photon SFG probability) = approximately 4e-5
    Inferred from the measured SFG efficiency and cavity parameters. It sets the heralding rate but does not enter Eq. (1) except through rate estimates.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The SPDC source is in a two-mode squeezed vacuum or thermal state: |ψ_SPDC> = sqrt(1-epsilon) sum epsilon^{n/2}|n>_s|n>_i.
    Invoked in SI Eq. S1 to derive the non-postselected fidelity Eq. (1) and the swapping fidelities. This is standard for PPLN waveguide SPDC in the low-gain regime.
  • domain assumption Weak SFG coupling: e^{-iHt} approximately 1 - iHt, with pSFG << 1, so at most one SFG photon is generated per heralding event.
    Used in SI Eq. S2 and underpins the state transformation Eq. (3) and the fidelity model. It is valid at the demonstrated pSFG of about 4e-5.
  • domain assumption Phase-matching selectively filters same-source multiphoton upconversion: only an Alice photon in mode a and a signal photon in mode b jointly produce an SFG photon.
    The multiphoton-immunity claim depends on this spectral and phase-matching selectivity, described around Fig. 2 and in the main text.
  • standard math Quantum state tomography with maximum likelihood estimation reconstructs the teleported state from six projection measurements.
    Standard practice described in SI Sec. VI. If MLE bias or unsubtracted backgrounds were significant, the reported fidelities could be optimistic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Faithful quantum teleportation via a nanophotonic nonlinear Bell state analyzer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CJTFQ3LA

@misc{pith2026241115437,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Faithful quantum teleportation via a nanophotonic nonlinear Bell state analyzer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CJTFQ3LA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15437}
}
abstract

Quantum networking protocols, including quantum teleportation and entanglement swapping, use linear-optical Bell state measurements for heralding the distribution and transfer of quantum information. However, a linear-optical Bell state measurement requires identical photons and is susceptible to errors caused by multiphoton emission, fundamentally limiting the efficiency and fidelity of quantum networking protocols. Here we show a nonlinear Bell state analyzer for time-bin encoded photons based on a nanophotonic cavity with efficient sum-frequency generation to filter multiphoton emissions, and utilize it for faithful quantum teleportation involving spectrally distinct photons with fidelities $\geq 94\%$ down to the single-photon level. Our result demonstrates that nonlinear-optical entangling operations, empowered by our efficient nanophotonics platform, can realize faithful quantum information protocols without requiring identical photons and without the fundamental limit on the efficiency and fidelity of a Bell state measurement imposed by linear optics, which facilitates the realization of practical quantum networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15437 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. a shows the measured on-chip SFG rate as a function of the mode a cavity photon number, ⟨na⟩ = Pa/(ℏωaκa), down to the single-photon level, with the mode b cavity photon number fixed at ⟨nb⟩ = 5.4×10−3 . We inferred a SFG efficiency ηSFG ≡ PSFG/(PaPb) = 4.4 × 104%/W, where all the powers are the on-chip power, and the corresponding single-photon SFG prob￾ability pSFG = 4g 2/κ¯a,bκc ≈ 4 × 10−5 , where κk is the dissi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A single quantum cannot be cloned,

    W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek, “A single quantum cannot be cloned,” Nature 299, 802–803 (1982)

    work page 1982

  2. [2]

    Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classi- cal and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels,

    Charles H Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Claude Cr´ epeau, Richard Jozsa, Asher Peres, and William K Wootters, “Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classi- cal and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels,” Physical Re- view Letters 70, 1895 (1993)

    work page 1993

  3. [3]

    The measured teleportation fidelity is consistent with the theoretical valueF = (1+V)/2, indi- cating the fidelity is limited by the imperfect visibility of interferometers

    The uncertainties on the fidelity include con- tributions from interferometer phase variations and pho- ton shot noise which is simulated using the Monte Carlo method [34] (SI). The measured teleportation fidelity is consistent with the theoretical valueF = (1+V)/2, indi- cating the fidelity is limited by the imperfect visibility of interferometers. We al...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Experimental entanglement swap- ping: entangling photons that never interacted,

    Jian-Wei Pan, Dik Bouwmeester, Harald Weinfurter, and Anton Zeilinger, “Experimental entanglement swap- ping: entangling photons that never interacted,” Physical Review Letters 80, 3891 (1998)

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead,

    Stephanie Wehner, David Elkouss, and Ronald Hanson, “Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead,” Science 362, eaam9288 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet,

    Koji Azuma, Sophia E Economou, David Elkouss, Paul Hilaire, Liang Jiang, Hoi-Kwong Lo, and Ilan Tz- itrin, “Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet,” Reviews of Modern Physics 95, 045006 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Exper- imental quantum teleportation,

    Dik Bouwmeester, Jian-Wei Pan, Klaus Mattle, Manfred Eibl, Harald Weinfurter, and Anton Zeilinger, “Exper- imental quantum teleportation,” Nature 390, 575–579 7 (1997)

    work page 1997

  8. [9]

    Progress in quantum teleportation,

    Xiao-Min Hu, Yu Guo, Bi-Heng Liu, Chuan-Feng Li, and Guang-Can Guo, “Progress in quantum teleportation,” Nature Reviews Physics 5, 339–353 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 49 references
  1. [10]

    Creation of memory–memory entangle- ment in a metropolitan quantum network,

    Jian-Long Liu, Xi-Yu Luo, Yong Yu, Chao-Yang Wang, Bin Wang, Yi Hu, Jun Li, Ming-Yang Zheng, Bo Yao, Zi Yan, et al. , “Creation of memory–memory entangle- ment in a metropolitan quantum network,” Nature 629, 579–585 (2024)

    2024

  2. [11]

    Entanglement of nanophotonic quan- tum memory nodes in a telecom network,

    CM Knaut, A Suleymanzade, Y-C Wei, DR Assumpcao, P-J Stas, YQ Huan, B Machielse, EN Knall, M Sutula, G Baranes, et al. , “Entanglement of nanophotonic quan- tum memory nodes in a telecom network,” Nature 629, 573–578 (2024)

    2024

  3. [12]

    Postselected ver- sus nonpostselected quantum teleportation using para- metric down-conversion,

    Pieter Kok and Samuel L Braunstein, “Postselected ver- sus nonpostselected quantum teleportation using para- metric down-conversion,” Physical Review A 61, 042304 (2000)

    2000

  4. [13]

    Experimen- tal realization of freely propagating teleported qubits,

    Jian-Wei Pan, Sara Gasparoni, Markus Aspelmeyer, Thomas Jennewein, and Anton Zeilinger, “Experimen- tal realization of freely propagating teleported qubits,” Nature 421, 721–725 (2003)

    2003

  5. [14]

    Quantum repeaters based on atomic ensembles and linear optics,

    Nicolas Sangouard, Christoph Simon, Hugues De Ried- matten, and Nicolas Gisin, “Quantum repeaters based on atomic ensembles and linear optics,” Reviews of Mod- ern Physics 83, 33–80 (2011)

    2011

  6. [15]

    Quan- tum teleportation with independent sources and prior en- tanglement distribution over a network,

    Qi-Chao Sun, Ya-Li Mao, Si-Jing Chen, Wei Zhang, Yang-Fan Jiang, Yan-Bao Zhang, Wei-Jun Zhang, Shige- hito Miki, Taro Yamashita, Hirotaka Terai,et al., “Quan- tum teleportation with independent sources and prior en- tanglement distribution over a network,” Nature Photon- ics 1...

    2016

  7. [16]

    Entanglement swapping over 100 km optical fiber with independent entangled photon-pair sources,

    Qi-Chao Sun, Yang-Fan Jiang, Ya-Li Mao, Li-Xing You, Wei Zhang, Wei-Jun Zhang, Xiao Jiang, Teng-Yun Chen, Hao Li, Yi-Dong Huang, et al. , “Entanglement swapping over 100 km optical fiber with independent entangled photon-pair sources,” Optica 4, 1214–1218 (2017)

    2017

  8. [17]

    Hertz-rate metropolitan quantum teleportation,

    Si Shen, Chenzhi Yuan, Zichang Zhang, Hao Yu, Ruim- ing Zhang, Chuanrong Yang, Hao Li, Zhen Wang, You Wang, Guangwei Deng, et al. , “Hertz-rate metropolitan quantum teleportation,” Light: Science & Applications 12, 115 (2023)

    2023

  9. [18]

    Faithful en- tanglement swapping based on sum-frequency genera- tion,

    Nicolas Sangouard, Bruno Sanguinetti, No´ e Curtz, Nico- las Gisin, Rob Thew, and Hugo Zbinden, “Faithful en- tanglement swapping based on sum-frequency genera- tion,” Physical Review Letters 106, 120403 (2011)

    2011

  10. [19]

    Quan- tum teleportation of a polarization state with a complete bell state measurement,

    Yoon-Ho Kim, Sergei P Kulik, and Yanhua Shih, “Quan- tum teleportation of a polarization state with a complete bell state measurement,” Physical Review Letters 86, 1370 (2001)

    2001

  11. [20]

    A photonic quantum information interface,

    Sebastien Tanzilli, Wolfgang Tittel, Matthaeus Halder, Olivier Alibart, Pascal Baldi, Nicolas Gisin, and Hugo Zbinden, “A photonic quantum information interface,” Nature 437, 116–120 (2005)

    2005

  12. [21]

    Single photon frequency conversion for fre- quency multiplexed quantum networks in the telecom band,

    Paul Fisher, Robert Cernansky, Ben Haylock, and Mirko Lobino, “Single photon frequency conversion for fre- quency multiplexed quantum networks in the telecom band,” Physical Review Letters 127, 023602 (2021)

    2021

  13. [22]

    Interaction of independent single photons based on in- tegrated nonlinear optics,

    Thiago Guerreiro, Enrico Pomarico, Bruno Sanguinetti, Nicolas Sangouard, JS Pelc, C Langrock, MM Fejer, Hugo Zbinden, Robert T Thew, and Nicolas Gisin, “Interaction of independent single photons based on in- tegrated nonlinear optics,” Nature Communications 4, 2324 (2013)

    2013

  14. [23]

    Nonlinear interaction between single photons,

    Thiago Guerreiro, A Martin, B Sanguinetti, JS Pelc, C Langrock, MM Fejer, N Gisin, H Zbinden, N San- gouard, and RT Thew, “Nonlinear interaction between single photons,” Physical Review Letters 113, 173601 (2014)

    2014

  15. [24]

    Quantum information with continuous variables,

    Samuel L Braunstein and Peter Van Loock, “Quantum information with continuous variables,” Reviews of Mod- ern Physics 77, 513–577 (2005)

    2005

  16. [25]

    Bell measurements for teleportation,

    Norbert L¨ utkenhaus, John Calsamiglia, and K-A Suomi- nen, “Bell measurements for teleportation,” Physical Re- view A 59, 3295 (1999)

    1999

  17. [26]

    3/4-efficient Bell measurement with passive linear optics and unentangled ancillae,

    Fabian Ewert and Peter van Loock, “3/4-efficient Bell measurement with passive linear optics and unentangled ancillae,” Physical Review Letters 113, 140403 (2014)

    2014

  18. [27]

    Bell-state measurement ex- ceeding 50% success probability with linear optics,

    Matthias J Bayerbach, Simone E D’Aurelio, Peter van Loock, and Stefanie Barz, “Bell-state measurement ex- ceeding 50% success probability with linear optics,” Sci- ence Advances 9, eadf4080 (2023)

    2023

  19. [28]

    InGaP quantum nanopho- tonic integrated circuits with 1.5% nonlinearity-to-loss ratio,

    Mengdi Zhao and Kejie Fang, “InGaP quantum nanopho- tonic integrated circuits with 1.5% nonlinearity-to-loss ratio,” Optica 9, 258–263 (2022)

    2022

  20. [29]

    Decoy state quantum key distribution,

    Hoi-Kwong Lo, Xiongfeng Ma, and Kai Chen, “Decoy state quantum key distribution,” Physical Review Letters 94, 230504 (2005)

    2005

  21. [30]

    Quan- tum fingerprinting with coherent states and a constant mean number of photons,

    Juan Miguel Arrazola and Norbert L¨ utkenhaus, “Quan- tum fingerprinting with coherent states and a constant mean number of photons,” Physical Review A89, 062305 (2014)

    2014

  22. [31]

    Quantum teleportation from a telecom- wavelength photon to a solid-state quantum memory,

    F´ elix Bussi` eres, Christoph Clausen, Alexey Tiranov, Boris Korzh, Varun B Verma, Sae Woo Nam, Francesco Marsili, Alban Ferrier, Philippe Goldner, Harald Her- rmann, et al. , “Quantum teleportation from a telecom- wavelength photon to a solid-state quantum memory,” Nature Ph...

    2014

  23. [32]

    Quantum teleportation over 100 km of fiber using highly efficient superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors,

    Hiroki Takesue, Shellee D Dyer, Martin J Stevens, Varun Verma, Richard P Mirin, and Sae Woo Nam, “Quantum teleportation over 100 km of fiber using highly efficient superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors,” Op- tica 2, 832–835 (2015)

    2015

  24. [33]

    Quantum teleportation across a metropolitan fibre network,

    Raju Valivarthi, Marcel li Grimau Puigibert, Qiang Zhou, Gabriel H Aguilar, Varun B Verma, Francesco Marsili, Matthew D Shaw, Sae Woo Nam, Daniel Oblak, and Wolfgang Tittel, “Quantum teleportation across a metropolitan fibre network,” Nature Photonics 10, 676– 680 (2016)

    2016

  25. [34]

    Experimental consequences of objective local theories,

    John F Clauser and Michael A Horne, “Experimental consequences of objective local theories,” Physical Re- view D 10, 526 (1974)

    1974

  26. [36]

    InGaP χ(2) integrated photon- ics platform for broadband, ultra-efficient nonlinear con- version and entangled photon generation,

    Joshua Akin, Yunlei Zhao, Yuvraj Misra, AKM Naziul Haque, and Kejie Fang, “InGaP χ(2) integrated photon- ics platform for broadband, ultra-efficient nonlinear con- version and entangled photon generation,” Light: Science & Applications 13, 290 (2024)

    2024

  27. [37]

    En- tanglement swapping for generation of heralded time- 8 frequency-entangled photon pairs,

    Dashiell LP Vitullo, MG Raymer, BJ Smith, Micha/suppress l Karpi´ nski, L Mejling, and Karsten Rottwitt, “En- tanglement swapping for generation of heralded time- 8 frequency-entangled photon pairs,” Physical Review A 98, 023836 (2018)

    2018

  28. [38]

    Quantum transport of high-dimensional spatial information with a nonlinear detector,

    Bereneice Sephton, Adam Vall´ es, Isaac Nape, Mitchell A Cox, Fabian Steinlechner, Thomas Konrad, Juan P Tor- res, Filippus S Roux, and Andrew Forbes, “Quantum transport of high-dimensional spatial information with a nonlinear detector,” Nature Communications 14, 8243 (2023)

    2023

  29. [39]

    Remote transport of high-dimensional orbital angular momentum states and ghost images via spatial-mode-engineered fre- quency conversion,

    Xiaodong Qiu, Haoxu Guo, and Lixiang Chen, “Remote transport of high-dimensional orbital angular momentum states and ghost images via spatial-mode-engineered fre- quency conversion,” Nature Communications 14, 8244 (2023). Acknowledgements We thank Liang Jiang and Eric Chitamba...

    2023

  30. [40]

    Cavity SFG efficiency 5 III

    Rates 5 II. Cavity SFG efficiency 5 III. Device 6 IV. Setup and measurement details 7 A. Measurement details 7 B. Wavelength conditions 9 V. Conditions of the quantum teleportation 9 A. Teleportation distance 9 B. Interferometer visibility 10 C. System efficiency 10 D. System ...

    2024 arXiv

  31. [41]

    Because η≪ 1, we can consider events with only two input photons to the Bell state analyzer, but the source can emit an arbitrary number of photon pairs

    Balanced loss Here we assume the loss of the two input channels of the BSM is η≪ 1, as in long-distance optical-fiber networks. Because η≪ 1, we can consider events with only two input photons to the Bell state analyzer, but the source can emit an arbitrary number of photon pa...

  32. [42]

    For LO-BSM, from the estimation of Eq

    Unbalanced loss Here we assume the loss of one input channel (from source B) of the Bell state analyzer is η≪ 1 and that of the other channel (from source A) is η = 1. For LO-BSM, from the estimation of Eq. S7, we know in order to achieve the optimal fidelity when losses are n...

  33. [43]

    lossy”schemes using beamplitters. c A “lossless

    Rates In addition to the fidelity advantage, the NLO-BSM approach can actually be more efficient than the LO-BSM approach in some cases, including the loss-unbalanced case. In particular, the entanglement rate for LO-BSM in this case is given by RLO =pA,siηpB,siRc =η2p2 B,siRc...

  34. [44]

    Quantum information with continuous variables,

    Samuel L Braunstein and Peter Van Loock, “Quantum information with continuous variables,” Reviews of Modern Physics 77, 513 (2005). 17

    2005

  35. [45]

    Ground-to-satellite quantum teleportation,

    Ji-Gang Ren, Ping Xu, Hai-Lin Yong, Liang Zhang, Sheng-Kai Liao, Juan Yin, Wei-Yue Liu, Wen-Qi Cai, Meng Yang, Li Li, et al. , “Ground-to-satellite quantum teleportation,” Nature 549, 70–73 (2017)

    2017

  36. [46]

    InGaP χ(2) integrated photonics platform for broadband, ultra-efficient nonlinear conversion and entangled photon generation,

    Joshua Akin, Yunlei Zhao, Yuvraj Misra, AKM Naziul Haque, and Kejie Fang, “InGaP χ(2) integrated photonics platform for broadband, ultra-efficient nonlinear conversion and entangled photon generation,” Light: Science & Applications 13, 290 (2024)

    2024

  37. [47]

    Parametric down- conversion photon-pair source on a nanophotonic chip,

    Xiang Guo, Chang-ling Zou, Carsten Schuck, Hojoong Jung, Risheng Cheng, and Hong X Tang, “Parametric down- conversion photon-pair source on a nanophotonic chip,” Light: Science & Applications 6, e16249–e16249 (2017)

    2017

  38. [48]

    InGaP quantum nanophotonic integrated circuits with 1.5% nonlinearity-to-loss ratio,

    Mengdi Zhao and Kejie Fang, “InGaP quantum nanophotonic integrated circuits with 1.5% nonlinearity-to-loss ratio,” Optica 9, 258–263 (2022)

    2022

  39. [49]

    Photonic state tomography,

    Joseph B Altepeter, Evan R Jeffrey, and Paul G Kwiat, “Photonic state tomography,” Advances in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 52, 105–159 (2005)

    2005

  40. [50]

    Https://github.com/KwiatLab/Quantum-Tomography

  41. [51]

    Quantum teleportation across a metropolitan fibre network,

    Raju Valivarthi, Marcel li Grimau Puigibert, Qiang Zhou, Gabriel H Aguilar, Varun B Verma, Francesco Marsili, Matthew D Shaw, Sae Woo Nam, Daniel Oblak, and Wolfgang Tittel, “Quantum teleportation across a metropolitan fibre network,” Nature Photonics 10, 676–680 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.