Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 55 references

Multi-dimensional frequency-bin entanglement-based quantum key distribution network

T0 review · 4 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 a 21-channel BBM92 quantum key distribution network built on frequency-bin entangled qutrits and qubits from a silicon microresonator, with average secure key rates above 1 kbit/s and an estimated 295 km range for qubits.

desk verdict Solid frequency-bin qutrit source and multiplexing demonstration, but the headline secure key rates are not backed by the implemented protocol because basis choice is sequential, not random. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00972 v1 pith:IETHA5U3 submitted 2025-07-01 quant-ph

George Claudiu Crisan , Antoine Henry , Dario Alessandro Fioretto , Juan Rafael Alvarez , Stéphan Monfray , Frédéric Boeuf , Laurent Vivien , Eric Cassan
show 2 more authors
Carlos Alonso-Ramos Nadia Belabas
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumkeydistributionfrequency-binencodingquditsqutritsBBM92protocolspontaneousfourwavemixingsiliconmicroresonatortelecomwavelength
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

The paper aims to show that frequency-bin encoding, using the photon frequency modes of a silicon microresonator comb, can support a practical entanglement-based QKD network in higher dimensions. It generates Bell states of dimension $d=2$ and $d=3$ by spontaneous four-wave mixing, and runs the BBM92 protocol over 21 parallel frequency channels with a single programmable-filter and electro-optic-modulator setup. The authors report an average secure key rate of 1024 bit/s for qutrits, with a maximum of 1374 bit/s, and 456 bit/s for qubits, with error rates below the security thresholds, and estimate a qubit communication range of 295 km at 59 dB attenuation. If correct, this makes frequency-bin qutrits a viable path for metropolitan quantum networks that mix short high-capacity links with longer qubit links.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the frequency-bin Bell state generated by spontaneous four-wave mixing in a silicon spiral microresonator with a 21.23 GHz free spectral range. Each channel uses either two or three adjacent resonance modes to form the qubit state $(|I_{n-1}S_{n-1} angle+|I_{n+1}S_{n+1} angle)/\sqrt{2}$ or the qutrit state $(|I_{n-1}S_{n-1} angle+|I_nS_n angle+|I_{n+1}S_{n+1} angle)/\sqrt{3}$. The measurement hardware is a programmable filter plus electro-optic modulator (PF-EOM-PF): the filter separates signal and idler and applies phases, while the EOM driven at the free spectral range mixes the frequency bins into one common frequency channel, realizing the $X$-basis projections. The secure key rate is computed from the generalized entropy formula $SKR \ge \frac{1}{2}R_{\rm raw}[\log_2 d - fH_d(\epsilon_Z)-H_d(\epsilon_X)]$, with the factor $1/2$ coming from basis sifting.

What would settle it

Run the same source and detection chain with a calibrated attenuator at 59 dB on the quantum channel and measure QBER and secure key rate for the qubit protocol; if QBER exceeds the 11% threshold, or the key rate drops to zero, before that attenuation is reached, the claimed range is not attainable. A complementary check is to compare the simulated secure key rate with measurements at intermediate attenuations such as 40 and 50 dB.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a low free-spectral-range silicon spiral microresonator, pumped continuously, produces spectrally entangled photon pairs whose frequency bins can be used as qudits for BBM92 QKD, and that this platform is reconfigurable enough to serve both $d=3$ qutrit and $d=2$ qubit channels in parallel. Using a programmable filter to project in the natural basis and an electro-optic modulator that mixes frequency bins onto a common channel for the superposition basis, the authors demonstrate 21 simultaneous quantum channels at 0 dB applied attenuation, with QBERs averaging 8.4% for qutrits and 4.7% for qubits, below the 15.9% and 11% thresholds. They optimize the pump power and coincidence window separately for each dimension and report maximum secure key rates of 1374 bit/s for qutrits and 642 bit/s for qubits, stable over more than 21 hours. They also estimate, by simulation calibrated to measured coincidences, that the qubit protocol tolerates 59 dB of total attenuation, corresponding to 295 km at 0.2 dB/km, and they partially explore $d=5$ states up to 18 dB.

Load-bearing premise

The 295 km communication range is an estimate from a simulation that assumes a 350 Hz dark-count rate per detector and a fitted scaling of true and accidental coincidences with pump power, extrapolated to 59 dB attenuation, not a measured distance over fiber.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Frequency-bin encoding can carry entanglement-based QKD in dimension $d=3$, not just qubits, on standard telecom fiber and with off-the-shelf fibered components.
  • A single reconfigurable hardware can simultaneously operate qutrit channels for short, high-rate links and qubit channels for longer links, letting a network assign dimensionality per user.
  • The same 5 THz comb window could host 38 qubit-only channels by narrowing each channel to two resonances, roughly doubling the demonstrated channel count.
  • With higher-modulation-index electro-optic modulators driven by multiple radio-frequency tones, the same architecture should support $d=12$ states, increasing the per-photon information capacity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 295 km figure is a modeled extrapolation, not a measured fiber link; a field demonstration over a spooled or metropolitan fiber would be needed to confirm that the assumed 350 Hz dark-count rate and coincidence scaling hold at 59 dB attenuation.
  • Because the $X$-basis measurement is performed one projection at a time rather than with active random switching, the current proof-of-principle approximates BBM92's random-basis condition; converting frequency bins to time bins, as the paper notes, would allow simultaneous superposition-basis measurement and a stricter protocol realization.
  • The channel structure suggests a wavelength-routed network topology: each 63 GHz channel is an independent QKD link, so a frequency-selective switch could connect different pairs of users without changing the source.
  • If the reported loss budget of 17.5 dB per user were reduced by integrated components, the secure key rate could rise by roughly two orders of magnitude, bringing frequency-bin entanglement QKD into the range of polarization and time-bin implementations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an entanglement-based BBM92-type QKD demonstration using frequency-bin encoded photonic qubits and qutrits generated by a silicon microresonator with a 21.23 GHz FSR. The authors optimize pump power and coincidence window, measure SKR and QBER across 21 manually selected frequency channels, characterize distance scaling by applying symmetric attenuation, simulate a maximum communication range of 295 km (59 dB at 0.2 dB/km), and show stable operation over 21 hours. The headline results are an average qutrit SKR of 1024 bit/s with a maximum of 1374 bit/s and an average qubit SKR of 456 bit/s at 0 dB attenuation. The experimental core is a set of coincidence-rate and QBER measurements; the SKR values are obtained from Eq. (5), the standard asymptotic BBM92 lower bound, and the 295 km range is a simulation extrapolation rather than a measured fiber distance.

Significance. If the security claims were fully supported, this would be a significant proof-of-principle: it would be among the first frequency-bin entanglement-based QKD demonstrations with qutrits, and the 21-channel frequency multiplexing, kbit/s-level raw rates, and 21-hour stability compare favorably with prior frequency-bin QKD work. The paper has genuine strengths: a high-brightness CMOS-compatible source, direct joint-spectral-intensity characterization, systematic optimization of pump power and coincidence window, QBER values below the ideal thresholds, and a clear comparison with earlier frequency-bin implementations. However, the central 'secure key rate' claim currently rests on an unproven application of the BBM92 security proof to a sequential projection scheme, on an asymptotic infinite-key formula, and on a simulated range with a chosen dark-count rate. These issues are load-bearing for the main conclusions and must be resolved before the results can be taken as demonstrated secure key distribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [II and V (Eq. (5))] The secure key rate is computed with Eq. (5), the standard BBM92 lower bound from [9, 44], which assumes that Alice and Bob choose the Z and X bases randomly and independently in each round. The implemented PF-EOM-PF configuration measures only one superposition-basis projection at a time, as explicitly stated in Section II: 'this configuration allows for the projection of a photon onto only one state of the superposition basis at a given time.' The Discussion repeats this limitation. With a known, deterministic measurement schedule, the X-basis QBER does not certify security in the same way: an eavesdropper aware of the schedule can adapt her attack, and no proof is given that the Sheridan-Scarani bound applies to this block-sequential variant. The headline rates (1024 bit/s average and 1374 bit/s maximum) are therefore not demonstrated BBM92 secure key rates but raw correlation-derived throughputs under an assumed security model. This is the central claim of the paper and must be addressed, either by implementing randomized or simultaneous basis measurements (the latter as in refs. [41, 42]) or by providing a dedicated security proof for the sequential protocol and relabeling the reported quantity accordingly.
  2. [VII C and Fig. 4] The 295 km (59 dB) communication range is an extrapolation, not a measured quantity. The simulation uses a Voigt-profile fit to the coincidence histogram (Eq. (8)), a fitted scaling of true and accidental coincidences with pump power, and a detector dark-count rate of 350 Hz per detector that is 'chosen' by the authors. The range is the point where the simulated SKR crosses zero, so it depends sensitively on the dark-count assumption and on the fitted scaling at large attenuation. No sensitivity analysis or uncertainty bounds are provided, and the measured dots in Fig. 4 are not quantitatively compared with the simulation at the highest attenuations. The authors should either validate the model at 55-59 dB against measured SKR/QBER or present the range as an illustrative estimate with explicit error bars and a discussion of how the dark-count rate and fitting parameters affect the result.
  3. [IV, Eq. (5)] Eq. (5) is an asymptotic, infinite-key lower bound. The paper reports 'secure key rates' without a finite-key analysis, even though the integration intervals and per-channel block sizes are finite; the 21-hour stability run in Fig. 4c appears to concern a single channel, and the per-channel measurement times are not specified. For a claim of demonstrated secure key distribution, finite-size corrections are required, and at the reported rates and block lengths they may be non-negligible. The authors should either perform a finite-key calculation or clearly state that the quoted rates are asymptotic estimates under the infinite-key approximation.
  4. [IV] The 21-channel network claim needs clarification. The experimental description indicates that measurements are performed on one channel at a time with a single PF-EOM-PF chain, and the 21 channels are manually selected channels whose SKRs are averaged in Fig. 3a. The paper does not appear to demonstrate simultaneous key exchange between 21 user pairs. If the channels were characterized sequentially, the claim should be rephrased as '21 addressable frequency channels' rather than a simultaneously operating network, or the parallel operation of multiple channels should be demonstrated experimentally.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (7)] The generalized entropy formula contains a typo: 'log((x/d - 1))' should be 'log2(x/(d-1))', and the logarithm base should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Methods VII B] There is a typo: 'wihch' should be 'which' in the description of the power received on the power meter.
  3. [Fig. 3] The channel labels in Fig. 3a contain an apparent typo '1 1' among the channel numbers; please check the axis labeling.
  4. [Fig. 2] The axes in Fig. 2 should clarify the units and whether the experimental SKR values are absolute or in arbitrary units, since the experimental insets are described as 'SKR (a.u.)' while the simulations are presumably in absolute units.
  5. [Section IV] The sentence 'We manually select 21 63-GHz-wide (3 FSRs) to constitute a QKD network' is grammatically incomplete; it should read '21 channels, each 63 GHz wide'.
  6. [Abstract and Conclusions] The 295 km range should be described in the abstract and conclusions as a simulated estimate based on a specific dark-count rate and loss model, not as a directly measured communication distance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SKR is evaluated with external QKD formulas from measured rates, and the 295 km range is an explicitly simulated extrapolation rather than a fitted target.

full rationale

The central secure key rates are obtained by inserting directly measured coincidence rates and QBERs into the standard lower-bound formula Eq. (5), whose ingredients are taken from external references [9] and [44]; the QBER thresholds used for security are also external. The 295 km communication range is not presented as a measured result: Section IV states that it is an estimate at 59 dB with 0.2 dB/km, and Methods Section VII C describes a simulation calibrated on measured g(2) data and on fitted true/accidental coincidence scaling with pump power, with a stated dark-count assumption of 350 Hz per detector. This is a model extrapolation, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and the target range is not an input to the calibration. Self-citations such as [38] are used for source characterization and prior implementation context, but the load-bearing security argument comes from external QKD theory, not from a self-citation chain. The paper itself flags the principal limitations: Section II notes that the PF-EOM-PF configuration 'allows for the projection of a photon onto only one state of the superposition basis at a given time,' so the per-round random basis choice required by the ideal BBM92 proof is not fully implemented, and the Conclusions state that the key rate is 'in the asymptotic regime and symmetric attenuation scenario.' These are missing-support or correctness concerns about whether the measured rates constitute a demonstrated secure key rate under all BBM92 assumptions; they do not make the derivation equivalent to its own inputs. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and not circular in any exhibitable reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experiment relies on standard QKD security results and on a simulation model with multiple fitted or chosen parameters: a dark count rate of 350 Hz, Voigt linewidth parameters, and fitted true/accidental coincidence scaling. The source state is assumed to be an ideal Bell state on selected modes, and practical trade-offs (sequential X-basis projections, multi-photon emission) are assumed not to compromise the protocol. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Dark count rate = 350 Hz per detector
    Chosen for the SKR/QBER simulation in Fig. 4; not reported as a measured value for the detectors used. It directly sets the QBER floor at high attenuation and therefore the 295 km range estimate.
  • Voigt profile parameters (gamma, sigma) = gamma = 99.3, sigma = 123.2 (arbitrary units)
    Fitted to the measured arrival-time histogram (Eq. 8) to model true coincidence scaling with coincidence window. These constants enter the simulation of SKR versus window and power.
  • True/accidental coincidence scaling with pump power = not specified numerically
    The paper states they fit the scaling of true and accidental coincidences with Pc using measured g2 for every Pc (Methods VII C). These fitted exponents are used in the simulation that extrapolates SKR and QBER to other attenuations.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption BBM92 security model and SKR formula (Eq. 5) from [9,44] apply to this setup.
    The paper uses the asymptotic secure-key-rate bound and the QBER thresholds without finite-size corrections or a device-independent analysis.
  • domain assumption The selected frequency modes form an ideal Bell state with uniform amplitudes and known phase (Eqs. 2-3).
    The JSI shows non-uniform count rates, so channels below 1 kHz are discarded; the model treats the kept modes as balanced.
  • domain assumption Attenuation applied by PF1 is equivalent to fiber distance at 0.2 dB/km.
    The 295 km range is estimated by converting applied optical attenuation to distance, ignoring dispersion, polarization drift, and phase noise of real fiber.
  • domain assumption Multi-photon emission events (g2(0) ~ 6-8%) do not break security because they raise QBER more than they help Eve.
    This is asserted in Section III with no quantitative derivation; the standard security proof for BBM92 usually assumes single-pair sources.
  • ad hoc to paper Sequential projection onto one X-basis state at a time realizes the random-basis BBM92 measurement.
    Section III describes measuring only one superposition-basis projection at a time; the paper does not describe how random basis selection is implemented per detection event.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-dimensional frequency-bin entanglement-based quantum key distribution network." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IETHA5U3

@misc{pith2026250700972,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-dimensional frequency-bin entanglement-based quantum key distribution network},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IETHA5U3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00972}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum networks enhance quantum communication schemes and link multiple users over large areas. Harnessing high dimensional quantum states - i.e. qu-d-its - allows for a denser transfer of information with increased robustness to noise compared to qubits. Frequency encoding enables access to such qu-d-its at telecom wavelengths, while manipulating quantum information with off-the-shelf fibered devices. We use a low free spectral range silicon microresonator to generate Bell states of dimension d=2 (qubits) and d=3 (qutrits) via spontaneous four wave mixing, to implement and optimize a multi-dimensional frequency-bin entanglement-based quantum key distribution network. We tune the source (via pump power), the signal processing (via coincidence window size) and qu-d-it encoding (d=2 or 3) using a single fibered hardware based on Fourier-transform pulse shaping and electro-optic modulation depending on interconnection lengths. We achieve secure key rates of 1374 bit/s with qutrits, and estimate the communication range to 295 km with qubits. We access up to 80 frequency modes, resulting in 21 quantum channels, that provide stable communication over more than 21 hours. We demonstrate a competitive communication range in a multi-dimensional entanglement-based quantum key distribution network that lays the groundwork for larger dimensionality implementations deployed on metropolitan fiber links.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00972 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a) Simplified experimental setup for the multi-dimensional frequency-bin encoded BBM92 protocol implementation. The pump and collection fibers can be automatically aligned. The pump wavelength is actively adjusted to the resonance at ωp = 1539.970 nm of the silicon resonator. Details are given in Methods section VII. The signal (blue) and idler (red) entangled photons of the frequency comb generated by Spontaneous F… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simulated (Sim.) and experimental (Exp.) Secure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. a) Experimental Secure Key Rate (SKR) of 21 QKD channels at 0 dB applied attenuation. We manually select the QKD channels and exclude the frequency modes with coincidence count rates below 1 kHz (Fig. 1b). Each channel is 3 resonance-wide (63 GHz) and indexed by the spectral separation from ωp of the central frequency-mode, in FSR units. Each channel can be deployed with d = 3 qudits or with d = 2 qudits. An example… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Experimental (dots) for d = 2 and d = 3 and simulated (plain line) for d = 2 to d = 5 a) Secure Key Rate (SKR) and b) Quantum Bit Error Rate (QBER) scaling with total attenuation α on channel CH6. The green background indicates the region where SKR3D > SKR2D up to 55 d…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An overview of QKD network implementations, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: a) Power meter received power, filtered out by the notch filter versus the basic scan of the pump frequency, with steps of 1 pm, around the resonance mode near 1540 nm. a) Power meter received power versus the Fine Scan (FSC) of the pump frequency, with steps of 0.1 pm…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Y.-A. Chen, Q. Zhang, T.-Y. Chen, W.-Q. Cai, S.-K. Liao, J. Zhang, K. Chen, J. Yin, J.-G. Ren, Z. Chen, S.-L. Han, Q. Yu, K. Liang, F. Zhou, X. Yuan, M.- S. Zhao, T.-Y. Wang, X. Jiang, L. Zhang, W.-Y. Liu, Y. Li, Q. Shen, Y. Cao, C.-Y. Lu, R. Shu, J.-Y. Wang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, F. Xu, X.-B. Wang, C.-Z. Peng, and J.-W. Pan, Nature 589, 214 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and N. D. Mermin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 557 (1992)

    1992

  3. [3]

    Fan-Yuan, F.-Y

    G.-J. Fan-Yuan, F.-Y. Lu, S. Wang, Z.-Q. Yin, D.-Y. He, W. Chen, Z. Zhou, Z.-H. Wang, J. Teng, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Optica 9, 812 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Ma, C.-H

    X. Ma, C.-H. F. Fung, and H.-K. Lo, Phys. Rev. A 76, 012307 (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Appas, F

    F. Appas, F. Baboux, M. I. Amanti, A. Lema ´ ıtre, F. Boitier, E. Diamanti, and S. Ducci, npj Quantum Inf 7, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    W. Li, L. Zhang, H. Tan, Y. Lu, S.-K. Liao, J. Huang, H. Li, Z. Wang, H.-K. Mao, B. Yan, Q. Li, Y. Liu, Q. Zhang, C.-Z. Peng, L. You, F. Xu, and J.-W. Pan, Nat. Photon. 17, 416 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    H. Liu, W. Wang, K. Wei, X.-T. Fang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, H. Liang, S.-J. Zhang, W. Zhang, H. Li, L. You, Z. Wang, H.-K. Lo, T.-Y. Chen, F. Xu, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 160501 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    J. Yang, Z. Jiang, F. Benthin, J. Hanel, T. Fandrich, R. Joos, S. Bauer, S. Kolatschek, A. Hreibi, E. P. Rugeramigabo, M. Jetter, S. L. Portalupi, M. Zopf, P. Michler, S. K¨ uck, and F. Ding, Light Sci Appl 13, 150 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    N. J. Cerf, M. Bourennane, A. Karlsson, and N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 127902 (2002)

    2002

  2. [10]

    Cozzolino, D

    D. Cozzolino, D. Bacco, B. Da Lio, K. Ingerslev, Y. Ding, K. Dalgaard, P. Kristensen, M. Galili, K. Rot- twitt, S. Ramachandran, and L. K. Oxenløwe, Phys. Rev. Appl. 11, 064058 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Y. Wang, Z. Hu, B. C. Sanders, and S. Kais, Front. Phys. 8, 10.3389/fphy.2020.589504 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    N. T. Islam, C. C. W. Lim, C. Cahall, J. Kim, and D. J. Gauthier, Science Advances 3, e1701491 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    C. Lee, D. Bunandar, Z. Zhang, G. R. Steinbrecher, P. B. Dixon, F. N. C. Wong, J. H. Shapiro, S. A. Hamilton, and D. Englund, Opt. Express, OE 27, 17539 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    T. J. Steiner, M. Shen, J. E. Castro, J. E. Bowers, and G. Moody, Optica Quantum 1, 55 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    H. Yu, S. Sciara, M. Chemnitz, N. Montaut, B. Crock- ett, B. Fischer, R. Helsten, B. Wetzel, T. A. Goebel, R. G. Kr¨ amer, B. E. Little, S. T. Chu, S. Nolte, Z. Wang, J. Aza˜ na, W. J. Munro, D. J. Moss, and R. Morandotti, Nat Commun 16, 171 (2025), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2025

  8. [16]

    A. Sit, F. Bouchard, R. Fickler, J. Gagnon-Bischoff, H. Larocque, K. Heshami, D. Elser, C. Peuntinger, K. G¨ unthner, B. Heim, C. Marquardt, G. Leuchs, R. W. Boyd, and E. Karimi, Optica, OPTICA 4, 1006 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Bouchard, K

    F. Bouchard, K. Heshami, D. England, R. Fickler, R. W. Boyd, B.-G. Englert, L. L. S´ anchez-Soto, and E. Karimi, Quantum 2, 111 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Cozzolino, B

    D. Cozzolino, B. Da Lio, D. Bacco, and L. K. Oxenløwe, Advanced Quantum Technologies 2, 1900038 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    M´ erolla, Y

    J.-M. M´ erolla, Y. Mazurenko, J.-P. Goedgebuer, and W. T. Rhodes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1656 (1999)

    1999

  12. [20]

    Merolla, L

    J.-M. Merolla, L. Duraffourg, J.-P. Goedgebuer, A. Sou- jaeff, F. Patois, and W. Rhodes, The European Physical Journal D - Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 18, 141 (2002)

    2002

  13. [21]

    Silva and J

    T. Silva and J. P. von der Weid (2008)

    2008

  14. [22]

    Pinheiro and R

    P. Pinheiro and R. Ramos, in Anais de XXIX Simp´ osio Brasileiro de Telecomunica¸ c˜ oes(Sociedade Brasileira de Telecomunica¸ c˜ oes, 2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    J. Mora, A. Ruiz-Alba, W. Amaya, A. Mart ´ ınez, V. Garc ´ ıa-Mu˜ noz, D. Calvo, and J. Capmany, Opt. Lett. 37, 2031 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    A. V. Gleim, V. I. Egorov, Y. V. Nazarov, S. V. Smirnov, V. V. Chistyakov, O. I. Bannik, A. A. Anisi- mov, S. M. Kynev, A. E. Ivanova, R. J. Collins, S. A. Kozlov, and G. S. Buller, Opt. Express 24, 2619 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Sajeed, P

    S. Sajeed, P. Chaiwongkhot, A. Huang, H. Qin, V. Egorov, A. Kozubov, A. Gaidash, V. Chistiakov, A. Vasiliev, A. Gleim, and V. Makarov, Sci Rep 11, 5110 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    H.-H. Lu, K. V. Myilswamy, R. S. Bennink, S. Seshadri, M. S. Alshaykh, J. Liu, T. J. Kippenberg, D. E. Leaird, A. M. Weiner, and J. M. Lukens, Nature Communica- tions 13, 4338 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    M. Kues, C. Reimer, P. Roztocki, L. R. Cort´ es, S. Sciara, B. Wetzel, Y. Zhang, A. Cino, S. T. Chu, B. E. Little, D. J. Moss, L. Caspani, J. Aza˜ na, and R. Morandotti, Nature 546, 622 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    J. M. Lukens and P. Lougovski, Optica, OPTICA 4, 8 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    H.-H. Lu, J. M. Lukens, N. A. Peters, O. D. Odele, D. E. Leaird, A. M. Weiner, and P. Lougovski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 030502 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Henry, R

    A. Henry, R. Raghunathan, G. Ricard, B. Lefaucher, F. Miatto, N. Belabas, I. Zaquine, and R. All´ eaume, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062610 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Henry, D

    A. Henry, D. Barral, I. Zaquine, A. Boes, A. Mitchell, N. Belabas, and K. Bencheikh, Opt. Express 31, 7277 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Imany, J

    P. Imany, J. A. Jaramillo-Villegas, O. D. Odele, K. Han, D. E. Leaird, J. M. Lukens, P. Lougovski, M. Qi, and A. M. Weiner, Opt. Express 26, 1825 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Cabrejo-Ponce, A

    M. Cabrejo-Ponce, A. L. M. Muniz, M. Huber, and F. Steinlechner, Laser & Photonics Reviews17, 2201010 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Henry, D

    A. Henry, D. Barral, I. Zaquine, A. Boes, A. Mitchell, N. Belabas, and K. Bencheikh, in Optica Nonlinear Op- tics Topical Meeting 2023 (2023), paper W1A.1 (Optica Publishing Group, 2023) p. W1A.1

    2023

  27. [35]

    H.-H. Lu, A. M. Weiner, P. Lougovski, and J. M. Lukens, IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 31, 1858 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Y. Pang, J. E. Castro, T. J. Steiner, L. Duan, N. Tagli- avacche, M. Borghi, L. Thiel, N. Lewis, J. E. Bowers, M. Liscidini, and G. Moody, PRX Quantum 6, 010338 (2025), publisher: American Physical Society

    2025

  29. [37]

    Mahmudlu, R

    H. Mahmudlu, R. Johanning, A. Van Rees, A. Kho- 12 dadad Kashi, J. P. Epping, R. Haldar, K.-J. Boller, and M. Kues, Nat. Photon. 17, 518 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Henry, D

    A. Henry, D. A. Fioretto, L. M. Procopio, S. Mon- fray, F. Boeuf, L. Vivien, E. Cassan, C. Alonzo-Ramos, K. Bencheikh, I. Zaquine, and N. Belabas, AP6, 036003 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Clementi, F

    M. Clementi, F. A. Sabattoli, M. Borghi, L. Youssef, L. Gianini, N. Bergamasco, H. E. Dirani, N. Tagliavac- che, C. Petit-Etienne, E. Pargon, J. E. Sipe, M. Lisci- dini, C. Sciancalepore, M. Galli, and D. Bajoni, Pro- grammable frequency-bin quantum states in a nano- engineere...

    2022

  32. [40]

    Borghi, N

    M. Borghi, N. Tagliavacche, F. A. Sabattoli, H. E. Di- rani, L. Youssef, C. Petit-Etienne, E. Pargon, J. E. Sipe, M. Liscidini, C. Sciancalepore, M. Galli, and D. Bajoni, A reconfigurable silicon photonics chip for the genera- tion of frequency bin entangled qudits (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Khodadad Kashi and M

    A. Khodadad Kashi and M. Kues, Light Sci Appl 14, 49 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Tagliavacche, M

    N. Tagliavacche, M. Borghi, G. Guarda, D. Ribezzo, M. Liscidini, D. Bacco, M. Galli, and D. Bajoni, npj Quantum Inf 11, 1 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    D. E. Medina Quiroz, Silicon Photonics for On-Chip Quantum Communications , Theses, Universit´ e Paris- Saclay (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Sheridan and V

    L. Sheridan and V. Scarani, Phys. Rev. A 82, 030301 (2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    S. P. Neumann, T. Scheidl, M. Selimovic, M. Pivoluska, B. Liu, M. Bohmann, and R. Ursin, Phys. Rev. A 104, 022406 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Yin and G

    L. Yin and G. P. Agrawal, Opt. Lett. 32, 2031 (2007)

    2007

  39. [47]

    Terhaar, J

    R. Terhaar, J. R¨ odiger, M. H¨ außler, M. Wahl, H. Gehring, M. A. Wolff, F. Beutel, W. Hart- mann, N. Walter, J. Hanke, P. Hanne, N. Walenta, M. Diedrich, N. Perlot, M. Tillmann, T. R¨ ohlicke, M. Ahangarianabhari, C. Schuck, and W. H. P. Pernice, Opt. Express, OE 31, 2675 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Benedikovic, P

    D. Benedikovic, P. Cheben, J. H. Schmid, D.-X. Xu, B. Lamontagne, S. Wang, J. Lapointe, R. Halir, A. O.- M. nux, S. Janz, and M. Dado, Opt. Express 23, 22628 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    Dorian, M

    O. Dorian, M. Florent, L. R. Xavier, P.-G. Diego, A. Olivier, T. S´ ebastien, L. Laurent, M.-M. Delphine, V. Laurent, C. ´Eric, and A.-R. Carlos, Laser & Photon- ics Reviews 13, 1800226 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    L. M. Cohen, K. Wu, K. V. Myilswamy, S. Fatema, N. B. Lingaraju, and A. M. Weiner, Nat Commun 15, 7878 (2024), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2024

  43. [51]

    K. Wu, L. M. Cohen, K. V. Myilswamy, N. B. Lingaraju, H.-H. Lu, J. M. Lukens, and A. M. Weiner, On-chip pulse shaping of entangled photons (2024), 2409.13638 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Y. Hu, M. Yu, D. Zhu, N. Sinclair, A. Shams-Ansari, L. Shao, J. Holzgrafe, E. Puma, M. Zhang, and M. Lonˇ car, Nature599, 587 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Wengerowsky, S

    S. Wengerowsky, S. K. Joshi, F. Steinlechner, H. H¨ ubel, and R. Ursin, Nature 564, 225 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    Gr¨ oblacher, T

    S. Gr¨ oblacher, T. Jennewein, A. Vaziri, G. Weihs, and A. Zeilinger, New J. Phys. 8, 75 (2006)

    2006

  47. [55]

    S. K. Joshi, D. Aktas, S. Wengerowsky, M. Lonˇ cari´ c, S. P. Neumann, B. Liu, T. Scheidl, G. C. Lorenzo,ˇZeljko Samec, L. Kling, A. Qiu, M. Razavi, M. Stipˇ cevi´ c, J. G. Rarity, and R. Ursin, Science Advances 6, eaba0959 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

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