Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Chip-to-chip quantum photonic controlled-NOT gate teleportation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 two-qubit controlled-NOT gate can be teleported between two remote silicon photonic chips, with measured fidelities above 94 percent.

desk verdict Impressive silicon photonics, but the 'teleported CNOT gate' is actually a postselected correlation that destroys the output control qubit. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15444 v1 pith:AEOGLZK2 submitted 2024-11-23 quant-ph

Lan-Tian Feng , Ming Zhang , Di Liu , Yu-Jie Cheng , Xin-Yu Song , Yu-Yang Ding , Dao-Xin Dai , Guo-Ping Guo
show 2 more authors
Guang-Can Guo Xi-Feng Ren
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumgateteleportationcontrolled-NOTsiliconphotonicsnetworksphotonicintegratedcircuitspathentanglementchip-to-chipinterconnectprocesstomography
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

Quantum networks need operations that act jointly on qubits in different nodes, not just distribution of entanglement. This paper claims to demonstrate the key missing primitive: teleporting a two-qubit controlled-NOT (CNOT) gate between two separate silicon photonic chips connected by an optical fiber. A path-entangled photon pair is generated on one chip, one photon is sent to the other chip, and local linear-optical manipulations make the remote qubits behave as if a CNOT had acted between them. The authors verify the operation by entangling remote qubits and by quantum process tomography, reporting average fidelities above 94% for both 5 m and 1 km fiber links. If correct, the result provides a practical building block for distributed quantum computation with integrated photonics.

What carries the argument

The central object is Eq. (1), the gate-teleportation identity that rewrites the action of a local CNOT C12 on qubits 1 and 2 (when qubits 2 and 3 are entangled) into the action of a remote CNOT C14 on qubits 1 and 4, followed by single-qubit rotations R1 and R4 that depend on measurement outcomes on qubits 2 and 3. The experiment realizes this identity with a path-entangled photon-pair source based on spontaneous four-wave mixing in silicon waveguides, Mach-Zehnder interferometers for state preparation, a polarization beam rotator and combiner (PBRC) for chip-to-chip path-polarization interconversion, and a network of beam splitters for the {|+>, |->} basis measurement on qubit 3. The identity is what converts the local entangling operation C12, together with the shared entanglement, into a nonlocal entangling gate on remote qubits 1 and 4.

What would settle it

Implement the three other measurement branches of Eq. (1) and apply the required single-qubit corrections R1 and R4, then perform quantum process tomography over all branches together. If the branch-averaged process fidelity falls significantly below the single-branch values reported here (94.81% and 93.04%), the full teleportation identity is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper demonstrates chip-to-chip CNOT gate teleportation using a silicon-photonics platform. An entangled photon pair is generated on one chip; one idler photon is sent to the second chip through single-mode fiber. Local CNOT gates and a measurement on one branch of the teleportation identity make the remote qubits 1 and 4 become entangled exactly as if a CNOT had acted on them. The teleported gate is characterized with quantum state and process tomography: the average entangled-state fidelity is 95.69% (5 m) and 94.07% (1 km), and the process fidelity is 94.81% and 93.04% for the same two distances. These numbers are close to the values reported for photonic CNOT gates implemented on a single chip, indicating that the chip-to-chip interconnect does not introduce a major fidelity penalty.

Load-bearing premise

The experiment verifies only one of the four measurement branches of the gate-teleportation identity (the |0+>23 term with R1 = R4 = I), so the full claim that a CNOT gate has been teleported assumes that the other branches and their feedforward rotations would work with comparable fidelity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A remote CNOT gate between two silicon chips provides a primitive for distributed quantum computation, where processing is spread across multiple nodes rather than confined to one physical chip.
  • The demonstrated operation works over a 1 km standard single-mode fiber, so chip-to-chip entangling gates are compatible with practical distances for quantum networks.
  • Silicon photonics is CMOS-compatible, so the same fabrication technology could scale to more qubits per node and to networks with many interconnected nodes.
  • The process fidelity of the teleported gate (about 94% at 1 km) is comparable to that of single-chip CNOT gates, suggesting that remote gate teleportation is not a limiting step for near-term integrated quantum processors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The full gate-teleportation identity includes four measurement branches with associated rotations R1 and R4; the paper only implements the |0+>23 branch where both rotations are the identity, so the demonstration is postselected rather than a full feedforward teleportation.
  • A natural extension would be to implement the other three branches with active feedforward (fast polarization or path switching) and measure the branch-averaged process fidelity, which would be a stronger test of the teleportation claim.
  • The same silicon-photonics architecture could be reprogrammed (via the Mach-Zehnder interferometers) to teleport other two-qubit gates, such as controlled-phase gates, by changing the local rotations and measurement bases.
  • If the identity branch is representative of all branches, this approach could be combined with heralded entanglement swapping to build a repeater-like network where nonlocal gates are performed between distant nodes without direct qubit routing.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experiment using silicon photonic integrated circuits to implement a claimed chip-to-chip CNOT gate teleportation. The authors generate path-entangled photon pairs, encode four qubits (two per photon, one photon at each node), and use the shared entangled pair between two chips to implement the protocol of Eq. (1). They characterize the operation by quantum state tomography of the output states and by quantum process tomography, reporting average entangled-state fidelities of 95.69% (5 m fiber) and 94.07% (1 km fiber), and process fidelities of 94.81% and 93.04%, respectively. The central claim is that the CNOT gate is teleported from local qubits 1&2 to remote qubits 1&4 across the fiber link.

Significance. If the result held as stated, it would be a significant step toward distributed quantum computation with integrated photonic nodes. The engineering achievements—on-chip generation of path-entangled photon pairs, chip-to-chip quantum interconnects with path-polarization conversion, and high-visibility interference across a 1 km fiber—are substantial, and the reported fidelities are high. The paper provides enough experimental detail to be reproducible in principle. However, the central scientific claim of CNOT gate teleportation is not supported by the implemented encoding, as detailed in the major comments. The strengths lie in the interconnect and entanglement distribution, not in the demonstration of a teleported gate that produces an accessible remote output.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, sentence about collecting only the |0+>23 branch] The protocol identity in Eq. (1) requires qubits 1 and 2 to be distinct physical systems, because the measurement of qubit 2 is supposed to leave qubit 1 available as the output after the appropriate rotation R1. In the experiment, qubits 1 and 2 are encoded in the same photon: the text states, 'the path dimension of each photon in the entangled photon-pair source is expanded to four.' The measurement of qubit 2 is performed 'by detecting output ports of the chip with a single-photon detector,' which absorbs the photon that also carries qubit 1. The subsequent sentence, 'Before each single-photon detection, MZI and PSs are positioned in the designated "State Measurement" area to analyze the final state |Φ>14,' confirms that the branch-selecting detection and the output-state analysis are the same destructive event. Therefore, even in the only tested branch (|0+>23, R1=R4=I), no surviving output qubit 1 exists after the heralding measurement. The reconstructed 16×16 process matrix characterizes a conditional joint-detection correlation, not a channel that produces an accessible remote qubit for further distributed quantum information processing. This is a structural gap in the claimed gate teleportation, independent of the unmeasured branches and missing feedforward.
  2. [Section II, paragraph on branch selection] The paper states, 'For simplicity, we just collect photons in the term |0+>23 and corresponding single-qubit rotations on qubits 1&4 are R1 = R4 = I.' This means only one of the four branches of Eq. (1) is experimentally realized, and the single-qubit corrections R1 and R4 for the other branches are never implemented. The claim that a CNOT gate has been 'teleported' therefore relies on the unverified assumption that Eq. (1) holds for all four branches and that the corrections would work with comparable fidelity. As presented, the experiment demonstrates a postselected, single-branch conditional correlation, not the full teleportation protocol described in the introduction and in Fig. 1(a).
  3. [Section III, quantum process tomography discussion] The process fidelity F = Tr(χ_exp χ_ideal) is computed for a process that includes the destructive measurement of qubit 2. Because qubit 1 is not independently accessible after the heralding event, the reconstructed process matrix does not represent a quantum channel that could be concatenated with subsequent operations in a distributed quantum computation. The claim that the result is 'sufficient for further chip-to-chip quantum information processing' is therefore not supported by the data; the process matrix is more appropriately interpreted as a characterization of a conditional two-photon joint measurement outcome.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'Equip with 5 m (1 km)-long interconnecting fiber' should read 'Equipped with 5 m (1 km)-long interconnecting fiber.'
  2. [Section III, first sentence] The word 'teleportated' should be 'teleported.'
  3. [Equation (1) and surrounding text] The identity in Eq. (1) would benefit from an explicit enumeration of the four branches and the corresponding rotations R1 and R4; the current compact form obscures the fact that only one branch is measured.
  4. [Section II, interconnect characterization] The 'isolation degree' (stated to exceed 200) is not defined precisely; please specify how it is computed from the measurement outcomes and what statistical uncertainty it carries.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: reported fidelities are direct measurements against ideal states; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is Eq. (1), the standard CNOT-gate teleportation identity, plus experimental state preparation and measurement. The reported fidelities (95.69%, 94.81%, etc.) are computed by direct trace fidelity against ideal Bell states and the ideal process matrix chi_ideal; no fitted parameter is used to produce these numbers, and no parameter is later renamed as a prediction. The self-citations (e.g., refs. [6], [7], [21], [27], [33], [34]) are background or device references and are not load-bearing: none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the justification that the teleportation identity holds. The branch-selection choice (only collecting the |0+>_23 term with R1 = R4 = I) and the fact that qubits 1 and 2 share one photon are important limitations for the physical claim that an accessible remote CNOT gate was produced, but they are not circularity: the measured process matrix is not equivalent to the input assumptions by construction. No circular step is therefore identified; the score reflects only minor incidental self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims are experimental fidelity measurements, so no parameter is fitted to produce the fidelities and no new physical entities are postulated. The main axioms are the standard gate-teleportation identity and hardware coherence assumptions, which the paper partially verifies through interference visibility and state tomography.

assumptions (3)
  • standard math The linear-optical identity in Eq. (1) correctly describes CNOT gate teleportation with an ideal Bell pair |Psi>23 and corrections R1 and R4.
    Invoked in the introduction and Eq. (1); it is a known result from Gottesman-Chuang and Eisert, cited as refs. 20 and 26, and not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The spontaneous four-wave-mixing source produces a path-entangled photon pair with negligible multi-pair contamination.
    Needed for the shared Bell pair; partially verified by the measured 95.49% interference visibility and 95.76% state fidelity, but not proved to be free of multi-pair events.
  • domain assumption The PBRC path-polarization interconversion and the single-mode fiber link preserve the coherence of the transferred photon.
    The chip-to-chip channel is assumed to be quantum-coherent; the measured entanglement visibility supports this, but the test is performed on the whole network and does not isolate every component.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chip-to-chip quantum photonic controlled-NOT gate teleportation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AEOGLZK2

@misc{pith2026241115444,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chip-to-chip quantum photonic controlled-NOT gate teleportation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AEOGLZK2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15444}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum networks provide a novel framework for quantum information processing, significantly enhancing system capacity through the interconnection of modular quantum nodes. Beyond the capability to distribute quantum states, the ability to remotely control quantum gates is a pivotal step for quantum networks. In this Letter, we implement high fidelity quantum controlled-NOT (CNOT) gate teleportation with state-of-the-art silicon photonic integrated circuits. Based on on-chip generation of path-entangled quantum state, CNOT gate operation and chip-to-chip quantum photonic interconnect, the CNOT gate is teleported between two remote quantum nodes connected by the single-mode optical fiber. Equip with 5 m (1 km)-long interconnecting fiber, quantum gate teleportation is verified by entangling remote qubits with 95.69% +- 1.19% (94.07% +- 1.54%) average fidelity and gate tomography with 94.81% +- 0.81% (93.04% +- 1.09%) fidelity. These results advance the realization of large-scale and practical quantum networks with photonic integrated circuits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15444 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The idea of quantum CNOT gate teleportation and schematic chip-to-chip realization. (a) A sketch to show the basic idea. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Quantum state tomography for the generated Bell states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. , together with the ideal one χideal. With the defini￾tion of F = Tr(χexpχideal), the process fidelity is obtained as F =94.81% ± 0.81%, which is comparable to the reported re￾sults for the photonic CNOT gate on one single chip [34, 35] and is sufficient for further chip-to-chip quantum information processing [23]. At last, we extend length of the interconnecting optical fiber to 1 km, and such distance is necessary… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Broadbent, F

    A. Broadbent, F. Joseph, and K. Elham, Universal blind quan- tum computation. 2009 50th annual IEEE symposium on foun- dations of computer science, Atlanta, GA, USA, 517–526 (2009)

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    The schematic diagram of CNOT gate teleportation be- tween two chip-based quantum nodes is shown in Fig

    More details about the CNOT gate telepor- tation is given in Supplemental Materials. The schematic diagram of CNOT gate teleportation be- tween two chip-based quantum nodes is shown in Fig. 1(b). The integrated photonic node comprises a range of funda- mental components, including optical grating and edge cou- pler, multimode interference (MMI) beamsplitt...

    work page

  3. [3]

    S. Barz, E. Kashefi, A. Broadbent, J. F. Fitzsimons, A. Zeilinger, and P. Walther, Demonstration of blind quantum computing. Science, 335, 303–308 (2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    J. K. Rajagopal, R. M. Lau, I. Padilla, S. T. Ridgway, C. Cui, B. McClinton, A. Sajjad, S. Corder, M. Rawlings, F. Rantakyro, J. G. Richardson, A. Ashok, and S. Guha, Towards quantum- enhanced long-baseline optical /near-IR interferometry. arxiv: 2407.06302 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    K ´om´ar, E

    P. K ´om´ar, E. M. Kessler, M. Bishof, L. Jiang, A. S. Sørensen, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, A quantum network of clocks. Nature Phys. 10, 582–587 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    J. Wang, F. Sciarrino, A. Laing, and M. G. Thompson, Inte- grated photonic quantum technologies. Nat. Photon. 14, 273– 284 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    L. Feng, M. Zhang, J. Wang, X. Zhou, X. Qiang, G. Guo, and X. Ren, Silicon photonic devices for scalable quantum information applications. Photon. Res. 10, A135–A153 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    L. T. Feng, G. C. Guo, and X. F. Ren, Progress on integrated quantum photonic sources with silicon. Adv. Quantum Tech.3, 1900058 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    X. Liu, J. Liu, R. Xue, H. Wang, H. Li, X. Feng, F. Liu, K. Cui, Z. Wang, L. You, Y . Huang, and W. Zhang, 40-user fully con- nected entanglement-based quantum key distribution network without trusted node. PhotoniX 3, 2 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    W. Wen, Z. Chen, L. Lu, W. Yan, W. Xue, P. Zhang, Y . Lu, S. Zhu, and X. Ma, Realizing an entanglement-based multiuser quantum network with integrated photonics. Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 024059 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    S. Ren, W. Wang, Y . Cheng, L. Huang, B. Du, W. Zhao, G. Guo, L. Feng, W. Zhang, and X. Ren, Photonic-chip-based dense en- tanglement distribution. PhotoniX 4, 12 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    J. Wang, D. Bonneau, M. Villa, J. W. Silverstone, R. Santagati, S. Miki, T. Yamashita, M. Fujiwara, M. Sasaki, H. Terai, M. G. Tanner, C. M. Natarajan, R. H. Hadfield, J. L. O’Brien, and M. G. Thompson, Chip-to-chip quantum photonic interconnect by path-polarization interconve...

    2016

  5. [13]

    Y . Ding, D. Bacco, K. Dalgaard, X. Cai, X. Zhou, K. Rottwitt, and L. K. Oxenløwe, High-dimensional quantum key distribu- tion based on multicore fiber using silicon photonic integrated circuits. npj Quantum Inf. 3, 25 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    K. Wei, W. Li, H. Tan, Y . Li, H. Min, W.-J. Zhang, H. Li, L. You, Z. Wang, X. Jiang, T.-Y . Chen, S.-K. Liao, C.-Z. Peng, F. Xu, and J.-W. Pan, High-speed measurement-device- independent quantum key distribution with integrated silicon photonics. Phys. Rev. X 10, 031030 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    K. Lu, Z. Chen, H. Chen, W. Zhou, Z. Zhang, H. K. Tsang, and Y . Tong, Empowering high-dimensional optical fiber communi- cations with integrated photonic processors. Nat. Commun. 15, 3515 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Sibson, C

    P. Sibson, C. Erven, M. Godfrey, S. Miki, T. Yamashita, M. Fujiwara, M. Sasaki, H. Terai, M. G. Tanner, C. M. Natarajan, R. H. Hadfield, J. L. O’Brien, and M. G. Thompson, Chip-based quantum key distribution. Nat. Commun. 8, 13984 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    T. K. Para¨ıso, T. Roger, D. G. Marangon, I. De Marco, M. San- zaro, R. I. Woodward, J. F. Dynes, Z. Yuan, and A. J. Shields, A photonic integrated quantum secure communication system. Nat. Photonics 15, 850–856 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Alexander, A

    K. Alexander, A. Bahgat, A. Benyamini, D. Black, D. Bonneau, S. Burgos, B. Burridge, G. Campbell, G. Catalano, A. Ceballos, et al., A manufacturable platform for photonic quantum com- puting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.17570, (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Llewellyn, Y

    D. Llewellyn, Y . Ding, I. I. Faruque, S. Paesani, D. Bacco, R. Santagati, Y .-J. Qian, Y . Li, Y .-F. Xiao, M. Huber, M. Malik, G. F. Sinclair, X. Zhou, K. Rottwitt, J. L. O’Brien, J. G. Rarity, Q. Gong, L. K. Oxenlowe, J. Wang, and M. G. Thompson, Chip- to-chip quantum telep...

    2020

  12. [20]

    Zheng, C

    Y . Zheng, C. Zhai, D. Liu, J. Mao, X. Chen, T. Dai, J. Huang, J. Bao, Z. Fu, Y . Tong, X. Zhou, Y . Yang, B. Tang, Z. Li, Y . Li, Q. Gong, H. K. Tsang, D. Dai, and J. Wang, Multichip multidi- mensional quantum networks with entanglement retrievability. Science 381, 221–226 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Gottesman, and I

    D. Gottesman, and I. L. Chuang, Demonstrating the viability of universal quantum computation using teleportation and single- qubit operations. Nature 402, 390–393 (1999)

    1999

  14. [22]

    Huang, X.-F

    Y .-F. Huang, X.-F. Ren, Y .-S. Zhang, L.-M. Duan, and G.- C. Guo, Experimental teleportation of a quantum controlled-NOT gate. Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 240501 (2004)

    2004

  15. [23]

    W. B. Gao, A. M. Goebel, C. Y . Lu, H. N. Dai, C. Wagenknecht, Q. Zhang, B. Zhao, C. Z. Peng, Z. B. Chen, Y . A. Chen, and J. W. Pan, Teleportation-based realization of an optical quantum two-qubit entangling gate. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 20869– 20874 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    Gasparoni, J

    S. Gasparoni, J. W. Pan, P. Walther, T. Rudolph, and A. Zeilinger, Realization of a photonic controlled-NOT gate suf- ficient for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 020504 (2004)

    2004

  17. [25]

    N. C. Harris, D. Bunandar, M. Pant, G. R. Steinbrecher, J. Mower, M. Prabhu, T. Baehr-Jones, M. Hochberg, and D. Englund, Large-scale quantum photonic circuits in silicon. Nanophotonics 5, 456–468 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Rudolph, Why I am optimistic about the silicon-photonic route to quantum computing

    T. Rudolph, Why I am optimistic about the silicon-photonic route to quantum computing. APL Photon. 2, 030901 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Eisert, K

    J. Eisert, K. Jacobs, P. Papadopoulos, and M. B. Plenio, Optimal 6 local implementation of nonlocal quantum gates. Phys. Rev. A 62, 052317 (2000)

    2000

  20. [28]

    L. T. Feng, M. Zhang, X. Xiong, Y . Chen, H. Wu, M. Li, G. P. Guo, G. C. Guo, D. X. Dai, and X. F. Ren, On-chip transverse- mode entangled photon pair source. NPJ Quantum Inf. 5, 2 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    W. D. Sacher, T. Barwicz, B. J. F. Taylor, and J. K. S. Poon, Polarization rotator-splitters in standard active silicon photonics platforms, Opt. Express 22, 3777–3786 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    J. G. Rarity, and P. R. Tapster, Experimental violation of Bell’s inequality based on phase and momentum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2495—2498 (1990)

    1990

  23. [31]

    D. F. V . James, P. G. Kwiat, W. J. Munro, and A. G. White, Measurement of qubits, Phys. Rev. A 64, 052312 (2001)

    2001

  24. [32]

    J. L. O’Brien, G. J. Pryde, A. Gilchrist, D. F. V . James, N. K. Langford, T. C. Ralph, and A. G. White, Quantum pro- cess tomography of a controlled-NOT gate, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 080502 (2004)

    2004

  25. [33]

    A. G. White, A. Gilchrist, G. J. Pryde, J. L. O’Brien, M. J. Bremner, and N. K. Langford, Measuring two-qubit gates. J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 24, 172-183 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    L. Feng, M. Zhang, X. Xiong, D. Liu, Y . Cheng, F. Jing, X. Qi, Y . Chen, D. He, G. Guo, G. Guo, D. Dai, and X. Ren, Trans- verse mode-encoded quantum gate on a silicon photonic chip, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 060501 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Zhang, L

    M. Zhang, L. Feng, M. Li, Y . Chen, L. Zhang, D. He, G. Guo, G. Guo, X. Ren, and D. Dai, Supercompact photonic quan- tum logic gate on a silicon chip, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 130501 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Santagati, J

    R. Santagati, J. W. Silverstone, M. J. Strain, M. Sorel, S. Miki, T. Yamashita, M. Fujiwara, M. Sasaki, H. Terai, M. G. Tan- ner, C. M. Natarajan, R. H. Hadfield, J. L. O’Brien, and M. G. Thompson, Silicon photonic processor of two-qubit entangling quantum logic, J. Opt. 19, 1...

    2017

Pith tools

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