Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Scalable quantum interference in integrated lithium niobate nanophotonics

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

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports Hong-Ou-Mandel interference with 70.72 ± 5.02% visibility between two independent spectrally separable heralded single-photon sources integrated on a single lithium niobate-on-insulator chip.

desk verdict A solid two-source LNOI interference demo with an overclaimed purity headline and a priority claim that collides with the authors' own reference list. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20519 v2 pith:Z5NOKLRZ submitted 2025-06-25 quant-ph physics.optics

Tristan Kuttner , Alessandra Sabatti , Jost Kellner , Rachel Grange , Robert J. Chapman This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.optics PACS 42.50.Ar42.65.Lm03.67.-a
keywords lithiumniobateoninsulatorspontaneousparametricdown-conversionspectralseparabilityheraldedsingle-photonsourceHong-Ou-MandelinterferencedomainengineeringintegratedquantumphotonicsType2phasematching
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

Lithium niobate-on-insulator (LNOI) photonics can already route and switch light at high speed, but putting pure photon-pair sources on the same chip has been a bottleneck. This paper shows that two independent spontaneous parametric down-conversion sources, engineered for spectrally separable photon pairs, can be integrated on one LNOI chip and made to interfere. The authors measure a Hong-Ou-Mandel visibility of 70.72 ± 5.02% when the two heralded signal photons meet at an on-chip beamsplitter, close to the 88% value that the 62.5% beamsplitter reflectivity allows under perfect conditions. If the result holds, LNOI becomes a realistic monolithic platform for multi-photon quantum computing protocols that need indistinguishable photons from many sources.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the joint spectral amplitude of the down-converted pair, $f(\omega_s,\omega_i) = \alpha_p(\omega_s + \omega_i)\,\varphi(\omega_s,\omega_i)$, whose Schmidt decomposition determines whether the heralded photon is spectrally pure. The paper shapes both factors on chip: the phase-matching function $\varphi$ is made near-Gaussian by a Gaussian-modulated poling profile $g(x)$ that suppresses the sidelobes of periodic poling, and Type 2 phase matching together with waveguide dimension tuning gives signal and idler different dispersions, which tilts the phase-matching function toward separability. The pump envelope $\alpha_p$ is matched to each source by spectrally carving narrow bands out of the same femtosecond pump pulse. Separability, i.e. $f(\omega_s,\omega_i)=\psi_0(\omega_s)\varphi_0(\omega_i)$, is what makes the heralded photon indistinguishable from pulse to pulse and therefore able to bunch at a beamsplitter.

What would settle it

A phase-resolved measurement of the joint spectral amplitude, for example stimulated emission tomography or an interferometric joint-spectrum setup, would reveal the spectral phase that the intensity-only measurement misses; if the true purities come out near the g(2) values of 81.5 ± 3.1% and 88.4 ± 6.0% rather than the JSI values of 95.2% and 93.8%, the 'near-perfect separability' characterization and the expected Hong-Ou-Mandel visibility are both overestimated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the first fully integrated multi-source quantum interference experiment in lithium niobate: two spectrally separable, heralded single-photon sources are fabricated on the same LNOI chip, pumped independently, and their signal photons are interfered at an on-chip directional coupler. The sources use Type 2 phase matching in Gaussian-poled waveguides to suppress the spectral correlations that normally plague Type 0 SPDC in lithium niobate. From the square root of the measured joint spectral intensity the authors estimate heralded purities of 95.2% and 93.8%; their unheralded autocorrelation measurements give lower values of 81.5 ± 3.1% and 88.4 ± 6.0%, which they attribute to pump chirp and non-optimal poling. The measured four-fold coincidence dip has a visibility of 70.72 ± 5.02% at zero time delay, limited mainly by the on-chip beamsplitter reflectivity.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on assuming that the purity estimated from the intensity of the joint spectrum, 95.2% and 93.8%, describes the actual heralded photons, even though that estimate ignores spectral phase and the paper's own autocorrelation measurements give lower purities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Multiple independent SPDC sources can be placed on a single LNOI chip and their heralded photons interfered without external sources, removing a major obstacle to scaling photonic quantum circuits.
  • The measured 70.72% visibility sits below the 88% ceiling set by the 62.5% directional-coupler reflectivity, so redesigning the beamsplitter toward 50/50 should almost directly raise the achievable visibility.
  • Reducing pump chirp and improving the Gaussian poling approximation should push the heralded purity from the estimated 95.2%/93.8% toward the 99.47% purity predicted by simulation.
  • These sources plug directly into photonic quantum computing schemes such as boson sampling and fusion-based quantum computation that consume indistinguishable heralded photons.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The gap between the joint-spectrum purity estimates (95.2% and 93.8%) and the autocorrelation-derived purities (81.5 ± 3.1% and 88.4 ± 6.0%) is a red flag that the true heralded purity may be closer to the lower numbers; a phase-resolved measurement of the joint spectrum, which the current intensity-only measurement cannot see, would settle which value governs the Hong-Ou-Mandel visibility.
  • The two sources require different carved pump spectra because of a slight phase-matching shift; on a wafer with more uniform film thickness, all sources could share one pump filter, which would make scaling to many sources simpler.
  • Because the interference visibility is currently limited by the beamsplitter and pump chirp rather than by the source design itself, a natural next experiment is to add an on-chip electro-optic phase shifter in one signal arm and sweep the delay electronically instead of with a translation stage.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports an integrated lithium-niobate-on-insulator (LNOI) device containing two independently pumped spontaneous parametric down-conversion sources, designed with Gaussian poling and Type-2 phase matching for spectral separability. The authors characterize the sources through SFG phase-matching maps, time-of-flight joint spectral intensity measurements, and unheralded g(2) autocorrelation measurements, and then demonstrate Hong-Ou-Mandel interference between the two heralded signal photons at 1505 nm, reporting a visibility of 70.72 ± 5.02%. The abstract and discussion present this as the first fully integrated multi-source interference experiment in LNOI and as a scalable source of near-perfect spectrally separable heralded single photons.

Significance. If the spectral-purity claims can be substantiated, this would be a useful experimental advance: the device integrates two SPDC sources, passive splitting elements, and an on-chip directional coupler on LNOI, and the authors provide a comparatively complete characterization chain (SFG |PMF|^2, JSI, g(2), and a HOM dip). The HOM interference measurement provides a direct, falsifiable demonstration of two-photon indistinguishability, and Eq. (3) gives a quantitative visibility prediction. The main weakness is that the 'near-perfect' purity headline rests on a phase-insensitive estimate that conflicts with the paper's own g(2) data; in addition, the claimed 'first' demonstration appears to conflict with the cited prior work in Ref. [34].

major comments (3)
  1. [Results, 'Pure integrated SPDC sources'; Methods, 'Sum-frequency-generation'] The abstract's 'near-perfect spectrally separable' claim rests on JSI-derived purities of 95.2% and 93.8%, obtained by decomposing the square root of the measured joint spectral intensity. The joint spectral intensity is insensitive to spectral phase, and the authors' own unheralded g(2) measurements yield purities of 81.5±3.1% and 88.4±6.0%, with the discrepancy attributed to pump chirp and non-optimal poling. Those mechanisms are exactly the kinds of phase or fabrication effects that a sqrt-JSI estimate cannot capture, so the JSI numbers should be presented as upper bounds rather than measured purities. This is load-bearing because the headline contribution is a scalable source of pure heralded photons and because the HOM visibility discussion (V=88% for R=0.625) assumes near-perfect separability; with purities closer to the g(2) values, the expected visibility is lower. Please either add a phase-sensitive purity measurement (for example stimulated emission tomography or an interferometric JSA measurement) or revise the 'near-perfect' claims and the Eq. (3) discussion to use the g(2)-based bounds.
  2. [Abstract, Conclusion, and Ref. [34]] The paper claims the 'first proof-of-principle multi-source interference in integrated lithium niobate' and the 'first fully integrated proof-of-principle multi-source interference experiment in the LNOI platform', but Ref. [34] (Chapman et al., PRL 134, 223602 (2025), 'On-Chip Quantum Interference between Independent Lithium Niobate-on-Insulator Photon-Pair Sources') appears, by its title, to report exactly this. Please state explicitly what is new relative to Ref. [34]—for example, the Gaussian-poled source design, the integrated directional coupler, or the specific two-source architecture—and adjust the novelty claim. If Ref. [34] is a prior paper by the same group, the 'first' phrasing should be removed or qualified.
  3. [Methods, 'Sum-frequency-generation'] The procedure for extracting a purity from the SFG map is under-specified: after measuring |PMF|^2, the text says the square root is taken and an SVD is performed, 'which was shown to be the more accurate estimation [30]'. Reproducing the 98.0%/98.3% numbers requires the assumed pump-envelope function (shape, bandwidth, and chirp) used in the estimate, and the procedure assumes the phase of the JSA is flat. Please state the assumed PEF parameters explicitly and justify the 'more accurate' claim in this context, or the SFG-derived purity numbers cannot be independently checked.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] Typos such as 'meassure', 'choosen', 'filterd', 'fuction', 'layed out', and the duplicated phrase 'given given the known dispersion' should be corrected.
  2. [Eq. (1)] The displayed form 'sinc(∆k L 2 )' should read 'sinc(Δk L / 2)'.
  3. [Fig. 3 and text] References such as 'Fig. 3(e (f))' should be written as 'Fig. 3(e) and Fig. 3(f)'.
  4. [Results, g(2) purity formula] The relation P ≈ g(2)(0)/g(2)(∞) − 1 should be clarified: the standard single-mode result is P = g(2)(0) − 1, so the normalization by g(2)(∞) and how g(2)(∞) is determined should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Results, JSI purities] The JSI-derived purities of 95.2% and 93.8% are quoted without uncertainties; please provide error bars or a statement of the dominant systematic uncertainties.
  6. [Data availability] The statement that raw data are 'available from the authors upon reasonable request' is weaker than current community norms; consider depositing the datasets in a public repository to support reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central quantities are measured independently, and the self-citation to the authors' prior LNOI interference work is background, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The claimed source purity is estimated from two independent measurements: the square root of the measured joint spectral intensity (95.2% and 93.8%) and the unheralded g(2) autocorrelation (81.5±3.1% and 88.4±6.0%). Neither number is obtained by feeding a fitted parameter back into the same formula that defines the claim; the JSI and g(2) are separate experimental characterizations, and the discrepancy between them is explicitly disclosed and attributed to pump chirp and non-optimal poling. The HOM visibility of 70.72±5.02% is a directly measured four-fold coincidence dip, not a prediction generated from the fitted Schmidt coefficients. Equation (3) is used only to interpret how reflectivity, purity, and spectral overlap limit the visibility, and the 88% maximum is computed from the independently measured beamsplitter reflectivity R=0.625 under otherwise perfect conditions, not from the fitted JSI. The only self-citation is reference [34], a prior paper by one of the authors, used as background on LNOI photon-pair sources; it does not supply a uniqueness theorem, an ansatz, or a parameter value needed for the present conclusions. The concern that the sqrt-JSI purity overstates the true heralded-state purity because the JSI is insensitive to spectral phase is a legitimate measurement-limitation criticism, but it is not circularity: the paper does not define the claim in terms of the estimate, and it reports a conflicting direct g(2) measurement. Thus there are no steps in which a result reduces by construction to its own input.

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

The paper rests on standard quantum optics formulas for SPDC joint spectra and HOM visibility. Its only tuned inputs are the pump spectral envelopes for the two sources, chosen to maximize purity and overlap, and the Gaussian poling design. No new entities or ad hoc parameters are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • TOP pump center wavelength = 765.2 nm
    Chosen to maximize spectral overlap of the signal photons with the BOT source and to match the PMF for high purity; affects the JSI estimates.
  • TOP pump bandwidth = 1.84 nm
    Carved from the 6.6 nm laser bandwidth to optimize spectral separability; the purity estimates assume Gaussian pumps with this bandwidth.
  • BOT pump center wavelength = 761.1 nm
    Chosen to match the BOT PMF and signal spectral overlap with the TOP source.
  • BOT pump bandwidth = 1.65 nm
    Carved to optimize purity for the BOT source.
  • Gaussian poling profile parameters
    Design parameters of the deleted-domain Gaussian apodization; not tabulated in the paper, so a re-implementation would need to infer or recover them.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The Schmidt decomposition of the joint spectrum as f = sum_n nu_n psi_n phi_n and the identification of purity with the largest Schmidt coefficient.
    Standard quantum optics; used in Eq. (2) and purity estimation.
  • domain assumption The pump envelope is Gaussian after filtering, and the PEF can be represented by a Gaussian with the measured bandwidth.
    Explicitly stated in the Results: 'Assuming Gaussian pumps with optimized bandwidths...'. The actual filtered pulses may have chirp and non-Gaussian phase, which the JSI intensity cannot reveal.
  • domain assumption The measured |PMF|^2 from SFG equals the SPDC PMF, and the JSI is well approximated by the product of PEF and PMF.
    Used to estimate JSI and purity from SFG measurements; standard in nonlinear optics but relies on reciprocity.
  • standard math The HOM visibility formula Eq. (3) with Schmidt modes applies to the measured four-fold coincidences.
    Taken from [31,32,37]; used to relate visibility to purity, spectral overlap, and BS reflectivity.
  • domain assumption The g(2) purity relation P approximately g^(2)(0)/g^(2)(infinity) - 1 is valid for the measured multimode SPDC state.
    Used in the autocorrelation section to estimate purity from the Hanbury Brown and Twiss measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scalable quantum interference in integrated lithium niobate nanophotonics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z5NOKLRZ

@misc{pith2026250620519,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scalable quantum interference in integrated lithium niobate nanophotonics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z5NOKLRZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20519}
}
read the original abstract

Photonics has emerged as one of the leading platforms for the implementation of real-world-applicable quantum technologies, enabling secure communication, enhanced sensing capabilities, as well as resolving previously intractable computational challenges. However, to harness the full potential of the photonics platform, several engineering feats need to be accomplished, among those is the quest for a scalable source of pure single photons. While single photon sources can be implemented in a variety of different ways, integrated lithium niobate stands out as a prime contender for a monolithic quantum photonics platform, given its second-order nonlinearity and proven classical scalability. Despite the extensive effort put into developing the platform, integrating suitable photon pair sources remains a hurdle limiting the scalability of quantum photonic systems in lithium niobate. We engineer three-wave-mixing in a nanophotonic lithium niobate device, integrating multiple near-perfect spectrally separable heralded single photon sources. By mixing photons generated via the developed sources, we show bosonic interference between indistinguishable photons, a crucial interaction for many photonic quantum computing protocols. This demonstration of the first proof-of-principle multi-source interference in integrated lithium niobate contributes to developing a truly scalable quantum photonics platform.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20519 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Transmission of a test MMI, normalized to the grating coupler efficiency, for TE and TM telecom signals. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Impact of the reflectivity of a beamsplitter on the Hong-Ou-Mandel interference visibility under otherwise optimal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. A high-performance quantum pulse gate in thin-film lithium niobate

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A thin-film lithium niobate quantum pulse gate achieves 96.8% temporal-mode selectivity and a lower-bound normalized conversion efficiency of 1810 W^-1 cm^-2, about 1000 times higher than previous QPGs.

  2. On-Chip Generation of Co-Polarized and Spectrally Separable Photon Pairs

    quant-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A co-polarized, filter-free SPDC source on thin-film lithium niobate uses a higher-order TE2 idler mode and Gaussian-apodized poling to reach 94% purity from joint-spectral intensity and 82–89% from phase-sensitive g(2).

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [34]

    & Bra´ nczyk, A

    Graffitti, F., Kelly-Massicotte, J., Fedrizzi, A. & Bra´ nczyk, A. M. Design considerations for high-purity heralded single-photon sources. Physical Review A 98, 053811 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [30]

    Bartolucci, S. et al. Fusion-based quantum computation. Nature Communications 14, 912 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [1]

    Introduction Photonics stands out as one of the leading hardware implementations for quantum systems, offering an al- ready existing advantage over their classical counterpart in various applications ranging from communications, to sensing and computing tasks [1, 2]. Quantum communi- cation leads as the most mature quantum technology, al- lowing for infor...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  4. [2]

    Results Pure integrated SPDC sources The spectral purity of heralded biphoton states gen- erated via SPDC is determined by the joint spectrum f (ωs, ωi) = αp(ωs + ωi)ϕ(ωs, ωi) of the generated sig- nal and idler photons. It is determined as a convolution of both the fundamental conservation principles involved in the process: energy conservation, describe...

    work page

  5. [3]

    Discussion In conclusion, we integrated multiple high-purity pho- ton pair sources in the LNOI platform by engineering the waveguide dispersion as well as the nonlinearity profile of the waveguides, achieving among the highest spectral separability reported for LNOI based sources. By making use of these photon pair sources we demonstrate the first proof-o...

    work page

  6. [4]

    Methods Sum-frequency-generation The PMF of both sources of the device is measured via sum-frequency-generation (SFG), therefore the Gaussian poled waveguides are pumped with both TE and TM polarized light at telecom wavelengths. We couple onto the device using polarization sensitive grating couplers, which are illuminated by PM (PM15-U25D) fiber-arrays w...

    work page

  7. [5]

    L., Furusawa, A

    O’Brien, J. L., Furusawa, A. & Vuˇ ckovi´ c, J. Photonic quantum technologies. Nature Photonics 3, 687–695 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [6]

    & Thompson, M

    Wang, J., Sciarrino, F., Laing, A. & Thompson, M. G. Integrated photonic quantum technologies. Nature Pho- tonics 14, 273–284 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 47 references
  1. [7]

    Azuma, K. et al. Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet. Reviews of Modern Physics 95, 045006 (2023)

    2023

  2. [8]

    & Wang, L

    He, Z., Zhang, Y., Tong, X., Li, L. & Wang, L. V. Quan- tum microscopy of cells at the Heisenberg limit. Nature Communications 14, 2441 (2023). 9

    2023

  3. [9]

    Jia, W. et al. Squeezing the quantum noise of a gravitational-wave detector below the standard quantum limit. Science 385, 1318–1321 (2024)

    2024

  4. [10]

    Yu, S. et al. A von-Neumann-like photonic processor and its application in studying quantum signature of chaos. Light: Science & Applications 13, 74 (2024)

    2024

  5. [11]

    Madsen, L. S. et al. Quantum computational advantage with a programmable photonic processor. Nature 606, 75–81 (2022)

    2022

  6. [12]

    Zhong, H.-S. et al. Quantum computational advantage using photons. Science 370, 1460–1463 (2020)

    2020

  7. [13]

    Acharya, R. et al. Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold. Nature 638, 920–926 (2025)

    2025

  8. [14]

    Moody, G. et al. 2022 Roadmap on integrated quan- tum photonics. Journal of Physics: Photonics 4, 012501 (2022)

    2022

  9. [15]

    & Ducci, S

    Baboux, F., Moody, G. & Ducci, S. Nonlinear integrated quantum photonics with AlGaAs. Optica 10, 917–931 (2023)

    2023

  10. [16]

    & Gunter, P

    Rabiei, P. & Gunter, P. Optical and electro-optical prop- erties of submicrometer lithium niobate slab waveguides prepared by crystal ion slicing and wafer bonding. Ap- plied Physics Letters 85, 4603–4605 (2004)

    2004

  11. [17]

    Zhu, D. et al. Integrated photonics on thin-film lithium niobate. Advances in Optics and Photonics 13, 242–352 (2021)

    2021

  12. [18]

    Pelucchi, E. et al. The potential and global outlook of integrated photonics for quantum technologies. Nature Reviews Physics 4, 194–208 (2022)

    2022

  13. [19]

    Shams-Ansari, A. et al. Reduced material loss in thin- film lithium niobate waveguides. APL Photonics 7, 081301 (2022)

    2022

  14. [20]

    & Lonˇ car, M

    Zhang, M., Wang, C., Kharel, P., Zhu, D. & Lonˇ car, M. Integrated lithium niobate electro-optic modulators: when performance meets scalability. Optica 8, 652–667 (2021)

    2021

  15. [21]

    Aghaee Rad, H. et al. Scaling and networking a modu- lar photonic quantum computer. Nature 638, 912–919 (2025)

    2025

  16. [22]

    Lin, Z. et al. 120 GOPS Photonic tensor core in thin-film lithium niobate for inference and in situ training. Nature Communications 15, 9081 (2024)

    2024

  17. [23]

    Wang, J. et al. Multidimensional quantum entanglement with large-scale integrated optics. Science 360, 285–291 (2018)

    2018

  18. [24]

    Seeing Is Believing

    Reitzig, S. et al. “Seeing Is Believing”—In-Depth Anal- ysis by Co-Imaging of Periodically-Poled X-Cut Lithium Niobate Thin Films. Crystals 11, 288 (2021)

    2021

  19. [25]

    & Watanabe, K

    Yamada, M., Nada, N., Saitoh, M. & Watanabe, K. First- order quasi-phase matched LiNbO3 waveguide periodi- cally poled by applying an external field for efficient blue second-harmonic generation. Applied Physics Letters 62, 435–436 (1993)

    1993

  20. [26]

    Xin, C. J. et al. Spectrally separable photon-pair gener- ation in dispersion engineered thin-film lithium niobate. Optics Letters 47, 2830–2833 (2022)

    2022

  21. [27]

    Sabatti, A. et al. Extremely high extinction ratio electro- optic modulator via frequency upconversion to visible wavelengths. Optics Letters 49, 3870–3873 (2024)

    2024

  22. [28]

    & Byer, R

    Fejer, M., Magel, G., Jundt, D. & Byer, R. Quasi-phase- matched second harmonic generation: tuning and toler- ances. IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics 28, 2631– 2654 (1992)

    1992

  23. [29]

    & Milburn, G

    Knill, E., Laflamme, R. & Milburn, G. J. A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics. Nature 409, 46–52 (2001)

    2001

  24. [31]

    Zhong, H.-S. et al. 12-Photon Entanglement and Scalable Scattershot Boson Sampling with Optimal Entangled- Photon Pairs from Parametric Down-Conversion. Physi- cal Review Letters 121, 250505 (2018)

    2018

  25. [32]

    Bentivegna, M. et al. Experimental scattershot boson sampling. Science Advances 1, e1400255 (2015)

    2015

  26. [33]

    Cao, H. et al. Photonic Source of Heralded Greenberger- Horne-Zeilinger States. Physical Review Letters 132, 130604 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    K., Ou, Z

    Hong, C. K., Ou, Z. Y. & Mandel, L. Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by interference. Physical Review Letters 59, 2044–2046 (1987)

    1987

  28. [36]

    Bra´ nczyk, A. M. Hong-Ou-Mandel Interference (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    & Mookherjea, S

    Zhao, J., Ma, C., R¨ using, M. & Mookherjea, S. High Quality Entangled Photon Pair Generation in Period- ically Poled Thin-Film Lithium Niobate Waveguides. Physical Review Letters 124, 163603 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Chapman, R. J. et al. On-Chip Quantum Interfer- ence between Independent Lithium Niobate-on-Insulator Photon-Pair Sources. Physical Review Letters 134, 223602 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    G., Steel, M

    Tambasco, J.-L., Boes, A., Helt, L. G., Steel, M. J. & Mitchell, A. Domain engineering algorithm for practical and effective photon sources. Optics Express 24, 19616– 19626 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Christ, A., Laiho, K., Eckstein, A., Cassemiro, K. N. & Silberhorn, C. Probing multimode squeezing with cor- relation functions. New Journal of Physics 13, 033027 (2011)

    2011

  33. [41]

    Babel, S. et al. Demonstration of Hong-Ou-Mandel inter- ference in an LNOI directional coupler. Optics Express 31, 23140–23148 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Chen, P.-K. et al. Adapted poling to break the nonlinear efficiency limit in nanophotonic lithium niobate waveg- uides. Nature Nanotechnology 1–7 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    T., Bra´ nczyk, A

    Graffitti, F., Kundys, D., Reid, D. T., Bra´ nczyk, A. M. & Fedrizzi, A. Pure down-conversion photons through sub- coherence-length domain engineering. Quantum Science and Technology 2, 035001 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Walther, P. et al. Experimental one-way quantum com- puting. Nature 434, 169–176 (2005). 10 Supplementary Material I. CLASSICAL DEVICE CHARACTERIZA TION

    2005

  37. [45]

    Grating couplers 1500 1525 1550 1575 1600 1625 Wavelength [nm] 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 Efficiency [dB] a TE Grating 1500 1525 1550 1575 1600 1625 Wavelength [nm] 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 Efficiency [dB] b TM Grating 765.0 767.5 770.0 772.5 775.0 777.5 780.0 Wavelength [nm] 14.0 13.5...

  38. [46]

    Directional couplers 1500 1525 1550 1575 1600 1625 25.0 22.5 20.0 17.5 15.0 12.5 10.0 7.5 Output power [dBm] a Bar 1 Cross 1 Bar 2 Cross 2 1500 1525 1550 1575 1600 1625 Wavelength [nm] 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Coupling ratio R 0.625 b Bar Cross FIG. 6. a, Bar and cross outp...

  39. [47]

    Multimode interferometers 1500 1520 1540 1560 1580 1600 Wavelength [nm] 8 6 4 2 0 Relative MMI Efficiency [dB] TE MMI TM MMI -3 dB FIG. 7. Transmission of a test MMI, normalized to the grating coupler efficiency, for TE and TM telecom signals. The Multimode interferometers use...

Pith tools

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