Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Passive quantum interconnects: multiplexed remote entanglement generation with cavity-assisted photon scattering

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A cavity-assisted photon-scattering protocol with optimized cavity length and calibrated delay is claimed to generate remote atom-atom Bell pairs at about 200,000 per second with 0.999 heralded fidelity, without in-cavity qubit reset.

desk verdict Solid CAPS protocol analysis, but the 0.999 fidelity claim may be missing source-side crosstalk in the emission step. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01229 v4 pith:SRTQJ5OG submitted 2025-07-01 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph

Seigo Kikura , Kazufumi Tanji , Akihisa Goban , Shinichi Sunami This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph
keywords cavity-assistedphotonscatteringremoteentanglementgenerationtimemultiplexingwavelengthatom-cavityquantumelectrodynamicsneutralatomqubitsinterconnectcrosstalk
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 proposes time- and wavelength-multiplexed remote atom-atom entanglement based on cavity-assisted photon scattering (CAPS), in which a photon reflected from a one-sided cavity acquires a state-dependent phase that entangles two atomic qubits. The authors' central claim is that two leading CAPS error sources—unbalanced atomic-state-dependent loss and an atom-state-dependent pulse delay—can be simultaneously canceled by choosing the cavity length and out-coupling rate, making high-fidelity gates feasible at internal cooperativities of order 10–100 rather than the values above 400 previously thought necessary. They then show that these gates tolerate percent-level photon impurity, parameter fluctuations, and spectator-atom crosstalk, and they combine them with time and wavelength multiplexing in a shared cavity. With parameters motivated by $^{171}\mathrm{Yb}$ atoms in a low-loss nanophotonic cavity, the hybrid emission-CAPS protocol is predicted to generate remote Bell pairs at $2\times 10^{5}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ at a heralded fidelity of 0.999 without in-cavity qubit reset. If correct, this would make passive, asynchronous optical interconnects a realistic route to the rates and fidelities required for modular fault-tolerant quantum computers.

What carries the argument

The central object is the CAPS gate primitive: a polarization-encoded photonic qubit whose $|1\rangle$ component reflects from a one-sided cavity containing a three-level atom, acquiring a $\pi$ phase flip when the atom is in $|0\rangle_a$ and none when it is in $|1\rangle_a$, while the $|0\rangle$ component reflects from a calibrated mirror path; together with a half-wave plate and an erasure detector this implements a heralded controlled-phase gate. The argument is carried by the reflection functions $r_0(\Delta)$ and $r_1(\Delta)$ of the atom-cavity system and by two matching conditions—equal resonant reflectivity magnitudes and equal state-dependent group delays—which convert a lossy, dispersive cavity into an essentially ideal phase flip. The analysis combines closed-form expressions for conditional fidelity and success probability, a master-equation calculation of the photon source's autocorrelation function $g^{(1)}(t,t')$, an approximate scaling law for spectator-atom crosstalk, and a transfer-matrix model for multiple cavity modes. Choosing the cavity length so that $\kappa_{\mathrm{in}}/\gamma = (1+C_{\mathrm{in}})/C_{\mathrm{in}}$ is the load-bearing design step: it makes loss balancing and delay compensation compatible while leaving $C_{\mathrm{in}}$ unchanged.

What would settle it

Measure the crosstalk-induced infidelity of CAPS-generated Bell pairs as a function of spectator-atom number $N_a$ and hiding-beam detuning $\Delta_a$ in a cavity with $\sim 10^2$ atoms; the predicted formula $1-F\simeq \frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{3}{4C_{\mathrm{in}}})(N_a\gamma/\Delta_a)^2$ should match the data to within experimental uncertainty if the linear-response model is valid. A complementary check is to measure the reflected-photon temporal modes for atomic states $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ at the design cavity length: a nonzero group-delay difference would directly invalidate the first-order error cancellation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the CAPS gate can be tuned into a near-ideal primitive by enforcing two conditions on the external coupling rate: $\kappa_{\mathrm{ex}}^{\mathrm{opt}}=\kappa_{\mathrm{in}}\sqrt{1+2C_{\mathrm{in}}}$ (equal resonant reflectivity magnitudes) and $\kappa_{\mathrm{ex}}^{\mathrm{delay}}=\sqrt{\kappa_{\mathrm{in}}^2+2\gamma\kappa_{\mathrm{in}}+g^2}$ (equal group delays). Both are satisfied simultaneously at a specific cavity length because $\kappa_{\mathrm{in}}$ scales as $1/L_{\mathrm{cav}}$ while $C_{\mathrm{in}}$ is length-independent, giving $L_{\mathrm{cav}}^{\mathrm{opt}}=\sigma_0 c/(2\gamma A_{\mathrm{eff}}(1+C_{\mathrm{in}}))$. Under this optimization the atomic-state-dependent reflection coefficients satisfy $-r_0(0)=r_1(0)=r_{\mathrm{opt}}$ and the first-order temporal-mode mismatch vanishes, so the gate acts as a heralded CZ gate with success probability $(r_{\mathrm{opt}})^2$. The same framework accounts for mixed-temporal-mode photons from reexcitation-prone sources, nonidentical remote systems (calibrated locally), fluctuations in coupling and cavity frequency, crosstalk from $N_a$ spectator atoms with crosstalk infidelity $\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{3}{4C_{\mathrm{in}}})(N_a\gamma/\Delta_a)^2$, and multiple wavelength channels via a transfer-matrix model. For the $^{171}\mathrm{Yb}$ telecom-transition benchmark with $N_a=56$ atoms and 100 $\mu$s shuttling, the predicted time-multiplexed rate is 200 kHz at total infidelity about $10^{-3}$, rising toward $10^6\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ with wavelength channels.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the atom-cavity interaction remains in the single-excitation linear-response regime throughout, so each spectator atom shifted by a hiding beam behaves as a simple detuning term and never gets excited, decays, or redistributes population; if the hiding beams or residual excitation introduce nonlinearities or spontaneous emission, the crosstalk scaling and the predicted entanglement rates fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single round of entanglement trials per atom suffices for near-optimal networking, eliminating the repeated in-cavity qubit reset and cooling steps that dominate multiplexed two-photon schemes.
  • A 171Yb telecom-transition node with an 11 cm low-loss nanofiber cavity and 56 atoms can reach about 200 kHz remote Bell-pair generation at 0.999 fidelity, roughly an order of magnitude above the intrinsic-rate limit of comparable single-atom interconnects.
  • Percent-level photon impurity, up to about 20 percent coupling fluctuation, roughly 10 percent cavity-frequency jitter, and moderate static cavity-length error keep CAPS infidelity below $10^{-3}$.
  • Wavelength multiplexing across several cavity resonances can push the single-cavity network rate toward $10^6\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ with a few hundred atoms and no additional cavities.
  • The same gate works as a memory-loading interface, so one cavity node can both emit and absorb photonic qubits, removing the need for an external photon source in remote entanglement generation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the predicted tolerance to photon impurity holds in devices, CAPS could make near-unit-fidelity networking possible with the simplest cavity-QED photon sources, since reexcitation-induced mixed temporal modes no longer mandate near-perfect single-photon purity.
  • The crosstalk scaling $1-F_c\propto (N_a\gamma/\Delta_a)^2$ offers a direct experimental signature: varying spectator number and hiding-beam detuning while holding other parameters fixed should reproduce the quadratic law if the linear-response model is correct.
  • Detection-time information, which the paper notes as a future enhancement, could be combined with the CAPS error structure to filter errors in post-processing, potentially raising fidelity beyond the already-reported values without hardware changes.
  • Because the protocol is asynchronous and tolerant to parameter mismatch, it may also suit high-loss or fluctuating channels such as satellite-to-ground links, where the paper's photon-pair-source variant would be a natural extension.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a theoretical framework for remote atom-atom entanglement generation based on cavity-assisted photon scattering (CAPS), with a focus on realistic imperfections: finite photon bandwidth, photon impurity from reexcitation, nonidentical atom-cavity systems, parameter fluctuations, and spectator-atom crosstalk in multiplexed operation. It proposes two main protocols: sequential CAPS with an external photon source, and a hardware-efficient hybrid emission-CAPS protocol where one node generates atom-photon entanglement and the other performs CAPS-based memory loading. The central quantitative claim is that, for 171Yb atoms coupled to a low-loss nanophotonic cavity, time-multiplexed hybrid emission-CAPS achieves a remote entanglement rate of about 2x10^5 s^-1 with heralded fidelity 0.999, without in-cavity qubit reset. The appendices contain detailed derivations of gate fidelities, photon autocorrelation modeling, crosstalk in multi-atom CAPS, and a transfer-matrix model for wavelength multiplexing.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper offers a practically significant improvement over two-photon-interference-based interconnects: higher success probability, robustness to photon impurity, tolerance to parameter fluctuations, and elimination of an independent photon source. Strengths include the systematic analytic treatment in Appendices A-E, the use of a microscopic master-equation model (QuTiP) for photon generation, the transfer-matrix approach for multi-mode cavities, and a concrete error budget with realistic experimental parameters. The robustness analysis against percent-level fluctuations is particularly valuable. However, the headline 0.999 fidelity / 200 kHz rate currently rests on an incomplete crosstalk analysis for the source side and on a numerical inconsistency in Table II; these issues must be resolved before the main claims are fully supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. V A, Table II] The 4e-4 crosstalk budget in Table II is derived only for the CAPS reflection/memory-loading step, via Eq. (25) and Appendix E. In the hybrid emission-CAPS protocol, Alice's source atom also emits a photon into a cavity shared with N_a-1 spectator atoms, and those spectators modify the cavity susceptibility during the excitation and emission process. Appendix C2 simulates only a single source atom. The spectator-induced shift, of order m g^2/Delta_a relative to the cavity linewidth, can be sizable for N_a=56 and the parameters in Table II, and it will alter the emitted photon wavepacket and the atom-photon entangled state. Since the total infidelity budget is approximately 1e-3 (impurity 5e-4, CAPS-side crosstalk 4e-4, hiding-beam scattering ~1e-4), an unmodeled source-side crosstalk contribution of comparable order would invalidate the stated 0.999 fidelity. The manuscript should either extend the source simulation to include spectator atoms, provide an analytic bound on the source-side crosstalk, or explicitly justify why this effect is negligible.
  2. [Sec. V A and Table II] There is a direct numerical inconsistency between Eq. (26) and the Table II entry labeled 'Crosstalk error 1-F_c^(N_a) = 4e-4 [from Eq. (26)]'. Substituting Table II's parameters (N_a=56, gamma/2pi=0.24 MHz, Delta_a/2pi=3900 MHz, C_in=89) into Eq. (26) gives 0.5*(1+3/(4*89))*(56*0.24/3900)^2 ≈ 6e-6, roughly 70 times smaller than the tabulated 4e-4. Either Eq. (26), the parameter values, or the Table II entry is in error. In addition, Appendix E defines C = g^2/(2 kappa gamma) with kappa = kappa_in + kappa_ex, whereas Eq. (26) uses C_in = g^2/(2 kappa_in gamma); for the Table II parameters these differ substantially (C_total ≈ 6.2 vs C_in = 89). The authors should clarify which cooperativity enters the crosstalk formula and provide corrected numerical entries, since the 0.999 fidelity claim depends directly on this number.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. V A] The sentence introducing (F_c^(N_a))^{1/N_a} as the per-atom average fidelity could be spelled out more explicitly: the per-gate error per target atom is approximately (1-F_c^(N_a))/N_a, and the accumulated error after each atom is targeted once is then approximately 1-F_c^(N_a). The current wording may confuse readers.
  2. [Fig. 4(b) caption] The caption states that solid and dashed lines correspond to Eq. (E4) and Eq. (26), respectively, but does not list the parameters (N_a=200, C_in=100) used in the figure; these appear only in the main text. Adding them to the caption would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Appendix E] The notation C in Eq. (E5) is defined as g^2/(2 kappa gamma), while the main text Eq. (26) uses C_in. The relationship between these two quantities should be stated explicitly, especially because the optimized parameters in Table II have kappa_ex >> kappa_in.
  4. [Eq. (D26)] The 2x2 matrix in Eq. (D26) would be easier to read if the basis {|01>,|10>} were repeated directly in the equation or in the surrounding text; currently the basis is given only after the matrix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction found: the 200-kHz/0.999 result is computed from the stated atom-cavity parameters and microscopic source model, not fitted or re-labeled from the inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained given its stated input-output reflection functions, master-equation source model, and chosen hardware parameters. The final rate is obtained from Eq. (27) using the tabulated shuttling time, atom number, pulse width, and success probability, and the fidelity is a composition of independently modeled errors: the source impurity is computed from a microscopic reexcitation model (Appendix C), the crosstalk term is evaluated from the multi-atom reflection model (Appendix E and Eq. (26)), and the hiding-beam scattering is taken from the cited experimental work. None of these quantities is fitted to the target 0.999 fidelity or 200-kHz rate; instead, the light shift and cavity parameters are chosen so that the computed errors satisfy the budget. The self-citations (e.g., Refs. [5], [15], [39]) supply hardware parameters and prior technical results, but the load-bearing derivations—reflection coefficients, delay compensation, crosstalk scaling, and rate formula—do not reduce to those citations. The skeptic's concern about source-side crosstalk during the emission step is a possible modeling omission and a correctness risk, not a circularity: the paper does not claim to derive that contribution from the CAPS crosstalk equation. No step was found in which a predicted quantity is defined in terms of the target result or in which a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; the new content is protocol design and performance modeling. The main ledger entries are the chosen hardware parameters (Cin, p_br, tau_s, N_a, pulse width) and the standard linear-response atom-cavity assumptions. The central claim is conditional on these parameters being realistic, which is plausible but not independently verified here.

free parameters (6)
  • Branching ratio p_br = 0.35 (Table II)
    Chosen to model a realistic photon source; strongly affects photon impurity and hence the fidelity of the CAPS protocols. The paper uses p_br=0.35 for the headline numbers but also studies 0, 0.2, and 0.4.
  • Atom shuttling time tau_s = 100 microseconds (Table II)
    Sets the time cost that multiplexing is designed to overcome; the headline rate 200 kHz depends on this assumed value.
  • Number of atoms N_a = 56 (Table II)
    Chosen in Table II to reach a target total rate in Fig. 4(c); the crosstalk error and required light shift scale with N_a.
  • Intrinsic finesse F_int and internal cooperativity C_in = F_int=2000, C_in=89 (Table II)
    Taken from a nanofiber cavity design [5,39]; these parameters drive the assumed coupling rates and the achievable pulse widths.
  • Photon pulse width sigma_t = 310 ns (Table II)
    Chosen as a realistic value satisfying the fidelity criterion Eq. (A41); the success probability and intrinsic rate scale as 1/(5 sigma_t).
  • Hiding-beam detuning Delta_a = 3.9 GHz / 2pi (Table II)
    Set to obtain the crosstalk error 4e-4 via Eq. (26); the light shift capability and scattering error of the hiding beam are assumed plausible from Ref. [67].
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Linear response / single-excitation input-output formalism for the atom-cavity reflection functions r_0(Delta), r_1(Delta) in Eq. (1) and Appendix A.
    The entire gate analysis rests on this standard input-output relation, which assumes weak driving so that higher-order excitations are negligible. For a single photon this is standard, but for many spectator atoms and finite ac-Stark shifts the linear response is an approximation.
  • domain assumption The atom-cavity parameters are independent of the cavity length as specified in Eq. (A37), with kappa_in proportional to 1/L_cav, g proportional to 1/sqrt(L_cav), kappa_ex proportional to 1/L_cav, and C_in independent of L_cav.
    Used to justify the cavity-length optimization condition Eq. (A36) and the optimal cavity length Eq. (7). This scaling assumes negligible propagation loss and fixed atomic cross-section and mode area.
  • domain assumption The photon generated by the cavity-QED source is described by a single-photon state plus vacuum, with temporal autocorrelation function g^(1)(t,t') computed from the master equation with Lindblad operators Eq. (C2).
    Used in Section III and Appendix C to quantify photon impurity. This assumes no multi-photon components beyond the reexcitation process modeled, and that the two-photon interference reference is accurately described by the mean-wavepacket overlap formula.
  • domain assumption The spectator atoms in time-multiplexed operation are completely shifted out of resonance with the cavity mode by a large light shift Delta_a, and remain in the ground state without scattering the hiding beam.
    Used in Eq. (25) and Appendix E for the crosstalk model. The paper relies on Ref. [67] for the claim that the scattering error from the hiding beam is around 1e-4, but the full error budget does not include a rigorous multi-level model of the hiding beam.
  • domain assumption The transfer-matrix method in Appendix F accurately captures multi-mode, multi-atom cavity response for up to one photon input.
    The wavelength-multiplexing results depend on this linear-response transfer-matrix framework, which the authors justify by the single-photon input condition but do not benchmark against a full quantum multi-mode simulation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Passive quantum interconnects: multiplexed remote entanglement generation with cavity-assisted photon scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SRTQJ5OG

@misc{pith2026250701229,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Passive quantum interconnects: multiplexed remote entanglement generation with cavity-assisted photon scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SRTQJ5OG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01229}
}
abstract

We propose a time- and wavelength-multiplexed remote atom-atom entanglement generation protocol based on cavity-assisted photon scattering (CAPS). This is designed to achieve a high rate and high fidelity with robustness to operational imperfections, parameter fluctuations, and auxiliary time costs, such as percent-level photon impurity, timing and cavity parameter jitter, and atom shuttling time costs. We benchmark this protocol using comprehensive analytical and numerical modeling of the atom-cavity dynamics, including state-dependent pulse delay effects, photon temporal impurity, atom-cavity system parameter fluctuations, and crosstalk among atoms through a shared cavity mode. With realistic atom-cavity system performance, we predict $2\times 10^{5}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ successful atom-atom Bell pair generation even without in-cavity qubit reset, substantially enhanced from two-photon-interference-based protocols, at a predicted heralded fidelity of 0.999.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01229 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. High-fidelity CAPS gate. (a) CAPS protocol. A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Remote entanglement generation with CAPS gates. (a) Schematic of the CAPS-based remote entanglement generation with cavity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Performance of the hybrid emission-CAPS networking. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Multiplexed CAPS operation. (a) Schematic of the time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Wavelength-multiplexed CAPS operations. (a) Schematic of wavelength-multiplexed cavity-QED systems where each atom in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Sensitivity of the CAPS gate to the imperfect calibration of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Mitigation of the pulse-delay effect. (a) Schematic of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. CAPS gate in the presence of imperfections and fluctuations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Infidelity and success probability for the case where the two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (a) Schematic of multiple atoms coupled to a cavity. For [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Scattering theory for cavity-assisted spin-motion-photon interactions

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Extends scattering theory to derive a compact operator-based input-output relation for spin-motion-photon interactions in cavity QED applicable across geometries and potentials.

  2. Remote entanglement need not be the bottleneck for modular trapped-ion quantum computing

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A projected architecture for trapped-ion quantum modules combines single-photon heralding, integrated photonics, recoil correction, and one distillation round to deliver 99.9%-fidelity remote Bell pairs at 10^5 s^-1 cm^-2.

  3. Verifiable blind quantum computing: Comparative analysis and design considerations for client architectures

    quant-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    Among information-theoretic MBQC VBQC clients, measurement-based RSP and cavity-reflection emission clients are the strongest near-term defaults once noise-robust security, rate, errors, and hardware cost are weighed ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    General framework for metrics to evaluate CAPS gates Let us consider the joint Hilbert spaceH𝑎 𝑝 =H 𝑎⊗H 𝑝: the atomic subspaceH 𝑎 is spanned by the orthonormal ba- sis{|0⟩𝑎,|1⟩𝑎,|𝑒⟩𝑎,| ˜𝑜⟩𝑎}, while the photonic subspaceH𝑝 is spanned by{|0⟩ 𝑝,|1⟩ 𝑝,|∅⟩ 𝑝}, where| ˜𝑜⟩𝑎 represents an auxiliary state that can be populated via atomic decay from |𝑒⟩𝑎 in additio...

  2. [2]

    Erasure detection

    Evaluation and optimization of CAPS gates in the long-pulse regime For the CAPS gate, the target unitary operator is given by ˆ𝑈tar=1 𝑎⊗|0⟩ 𝑝⟨0|+(−|0⟩𝑎⟨0|+|1⟩𝑎⟨1|)⊗ |1⟩ 𝑝⟨1|,(A8) which corresponds to the CZ gate up to local Pauli gates. We first consider the standard CAPS gate where the mirror perfectly reflects the photon. For a sufficiently long photon ...

  3. [3]

    Frequency-dependent CAPS gate analysis The discussion in Appendix A2 relied on the long-pulse limit. However, for fast networking, it is necessary to oper- ate with short photonic pulses featuring relatively large band- −0.04 −0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 (/u1D45Fm−/u1D45Fopt)//u1D45Fopt 10−6 10−5 10−4 10−3 1−/u1D439/u1D450 /u1D436in=10 /u1D436in=30 /u1D436in=100 ...

  4. [4]

    First,wederiveexplicitexpressionsfortheatomic- state-dependent pulse delays in Appendix A4a

    Mitigating pulse delay via cavity optimization Here,weoutlineoneofthemainsourcesofinfidelityinthe CAPS gate, temporal-mode mismatch caused by the atomic- state-dependent pulse delay, and discuss practical mitigation measures. First,wederiveexplicitexpressionsfortheatomic- state-dependent pulse delays in Appendix A4a. Second, we presentaconcreteexamplethat...

  5. [5]

    Robustness of CAPS gates Here,wemodelandquantifytheresponseoftheCAPS-gate fidelity to major imperfections expected in realistic imple- mentations. We consider both static deviations of the cavity parameters from the desired value due to fabrication errors, as well as random changes in the parameters arising from experimental drifts and fluctuations. The C...

  6. [6]

    Cavity-assisted single-photon generation We numerically evaluate the single photon generation with aΛ-type three-level system coupled to a cavity, as shown in Fig. 2(a). The atom is initially prepared in|𝑢⟩𝑎 at time𝑡=𝑡 i. The Hamiltonian of the system is given by ˆ𝐻𝑠(𝑡)=Ω(𝑡)( |𝑒⟩𝑎⟨𝑢|+|𝑢⟩𝑎⟨𝑒|)+𝑔( |𝑒⟩𝑎⟨𝑔| ˆ𝑐+|𝑔⟩𝑎⟨𝑒| ˆ𝑐†), (C1) and the atomic decay and the i...

  7. [7]

    We consider the typical level structure of the entanglement generation [60, 62] [Fig

    Atom-photon entanglement generation As an extension of the single-photon generation discussed in Appendix C1, we further evaluate the atom-photon entan- glement generation. We consider the typical level structure of the entanglement generation [60, 62] [Fig. 3(a)], where the transition|0⟩𝑎↔|𝑒⟩𝑎 (|1⟩𝑎↔|𝑒⟩𝑎) is coupled to the left (right) circularly polariz...

  8. [8]

    Sequential CAPS networking with single-photon sources To evaluate the performance of sequential CAPS network- ing, we derive two key metrics: conditional fidelity and suc- cess probability for the protocol in which sequential CAPS gates and a final photonic measurement are used to generate entanglement between Alice (A) and Bob (B) assisted by an ancilla ...

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    First,weprepare the photonic Bell state, Ψ+;𝑓 A, 𝑓B 𝑝 =|0;𝑓 A⟩ 𝑝|1;𝑓 B⟩ 𝑝+|1;𝑓 A⟩ 𝑝|0;𝑓 B⟩ 𝑝 √ 2 , (D12) by, e.g., spontaneous parametric downconversion (SPDC) or quantum emitters

    CAPS networking with photon-pair sources Here,weconsidertheHEGprotocolwithentangledphoton- pair sources, in which a photonic Bell state is loaded into the atomicqubitsofAliceandBob(seealsoRef.[73]thatproposes anefficientrepeaterprotocolleveragingthis). First,weprepare the phot...

  2. [10]

    Emission-CAPS networking Emission-CAPSnetworkingconsistsofanatom-photonen- tanglement generation followed by memory loading. Alice first prepares the atom-photon Bell state, Φ+;𝑓 𝑎 𝑝=|0⟩A 𝑎|0;𝑓⟩ 𝑝+|1⟩A 𝑎|1;𝑓⟩ 𝑝 √ 2 ,(D18) which can be realized with, e.g., a four-level system i...

  3. [11]

    HEG with two-photon interference To clarify how the photon purity affects the generated Bell states in the two-photon-interference-based protocol, we present the fidelity of the atom-photon Bell states given by Eq. (D22). For the case of polarization encoding used for the phot...

  4. [12]

    C.GidneyandM.Ekerå,Howtofactor2048bitRSAintegersin 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits, Quantum5, 433 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    M. E. Beverland, P. Murali, M. Troyer, K. M. Svore, T. Hoe- fler, V. Kliuchnikov, G. H. Low, M. Soeken, A. Sundaram, and A.Vaschillo,Assessingrequirementstoscaletopracticalquan- tum advantage (2022), arXiv:2211.07629 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Monroe, R

    C. Monroe, R. Raussendorf, A. Ruthven, K. R. Brown, P. Maunz, L.-M. Duan, and J. Kim, Large-scale modular quantum-computer architecture with atomic memory and pho- tonic interconnects, Phys. Rev. A89, 022317 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    J. P. Covey, H. Weinfurter, and H. Bernien, Quantum networks with neutral atom processing nodes, npj Quantum Information 9, 1 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Sunami, S

    S. Sunami, S. Tamiya, R. Inoue, H. Yamasaki, and A. Goban, Scalable networking of neutral-atom qubits: Nanofiber-based approach for multiprocessor fault-tolerant quantum computers, PRX Quantum6, 010101 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    J. F. Fitzsimons, Private quantum computation: an introduction toblindquantumcomputingandrelatedprotocols,npjQuantum Information3, 23 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    D.Gottesman,T.Jennewein,andS.Croke,Longer-baselinetele- scopes using quantum repeaters, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 070503 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    E. T. Khabiboulline, J. Borregaard, K. De Greve, and M. D. Lukin, Optical interferometry with quantum networks, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 070504 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Azuma, S

    K. Azuma, S. E. Economou, D. Elkouss, P. Hilaire, L. Jiang, H.-K. Lo, and I. Tzitrin, Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 045006 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Pattison, G

    C. Pattison, G. Baranes, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, M. D. Lukin, and H. Zhou, Constant-rate entanglement distillation for fast quantum interconnects, inProceedings of the 52nd Annual In- ternational Symposium on Computer Architecture, ISCA ’25 (Association for Computing Machinery,...

  14. [22]

    90, 253601 (2003)

    L.-M.DuanandH.J.Kimble,Efficientengineeringofmultiatom entanglementthroughsingle-photondetections,Phys.Rev.Lett. 90, 253601 (2003)

    2003

  15. [23]

    H. K. Beukers, M. Pasini, H. Choi, D. Englund, R. Hanson, and J. Borregaard, Remote-entanglement protocols for station- ary qubits with photonic interfaces, PRX Quantum5, 010202 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Li and J

    Y. Li and J. D. Thompson, High-rate and high-fidelity modular interconnects between neutral atom quantum processors, PRX Quantum5, 020363 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Sinclair, J

    J. Sinclair, J. Ramette, B. Grinkemeyer, D. Bluvstein, M. D. Lukin, and V. Vuletić, Fault-tolerant optical interconnects for neutral-atom arrays, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 013313 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Kikura, R

    S. Kikura, R. Inoue, H. Yamasaki, A. Goban, and S. Sunami, Taming the recoil effect in cavity-assisted quantum intercon- nects, PRX Quantum6, 040351 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    W.Huie,S.G.Menon,H.Bernien,andJ.P.Covey,Multiplexed telecommunication-bandquantumnetworkingwithatomarrays in optical cavities, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 043154 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    L.-M.DuanandH.J.Kimble,Scalablephotonicquantumcom- putation through cavity-assisted interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 127902 (2004)

    2004

  21. [29]

    Reiserer, N

    A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, G. Rempe, and S. Ritter, A quantum gate between a flying optical photon and a single trapped atom, Na- ture508, 237 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    T. G. Tiecke, J. D. Thompson, N. P. D. Leon, L. R. Liu, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Nanophotonic quantum phase switch with a single atom, Nature508, 241 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    J. Volz, M. Scheucher, C. Junge, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Non- linear𝜋phase shift for single fibre-guided photons interacting withasingleresonator-enhancedatom,NaturePhotonics8,965 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    L.-M. Duan, B. Wang, and H. J. Kimble, Robust quantum gates on neutral atoms with cavity-assisted photon scattering, Phys. Rev. A72, 032333 (2005)

    2005

  25. [33]

    Lin, Z.-W

    X.-M. Lin, Z.-W. Zhou, M.-Y. Ye, Y.-F. Xiao, and G.-C. Guo, One-step implementation of a multiqubit controlled-phase-flip gate, Phys. Rev. A73, 012323 (2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    S.-L. Su, Q. Guo, L. Zhu, H.-F. Wang, and S. Zhang, Atomic quantuminformationprocessinginlow-qcavityintheinterme- diate coupling region, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B29, 2827 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    N.Kalb,A.Reiserer,S.Ritter,andG.Rempe,Heraldedstorage ofaphotonicquantumbitinasingleatom,Phys.Rev.Lett.114, 220501 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    B.Hacker,S.Welte,G.Rempe,andS.Ritter,Aphoton–photon quantum gate based on a single atom in an optical resonator, Nature536, 193 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Distante, S

    E. Distante, S. Daiss, S. Langenfeld, L. Hartung, P. Thomas, O.Morin,G.Rempe,andS.Welte,Detectinganitinerantoptical photontwicewithoutdestroyingit,Phys.Rev.Lett.126,253603 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Welte, B

    S. Welte, B. Hacker, S. Daiss, S. Ritter, and G. Rempe, Photon- mediatedquantumgatebetweentwoneutralatomsinanoptical cavity, Phys. Rev. X8, 011018 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    C. M. Knaut, A. Suleymanzade, Y.-C. Wei, D. R. Assumpcao, P.-J. Stas, Y. Q. Huan, B. Machielse, E. N. Knall, M. Sutula, G.Baranes,N.Sinclair,C.De-Eknamkul,D.S.Levonian,M.K. Bhaskar, H. Park, M. Lončar, and M. D. Lukin, Entanglement ofnanophotonicquantummemorynodesinatelecomnet...

    2024

  32. [40]

    Goto and K

    H. Goto and K. Ichimura, Condition for fault-tolerant quan- tum computation with a cavity-QED scheme, Phys. Rev. A82, 032311 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    Asaoka, Y

    R. Asaoka, Y. Tokunaga, R. Kanamoto, H. Goto, and T. Aoki, Requirements for fault-tolerant quantum computation with cavity-QED-based atom-atom gates mediated by a photon with a finite pulse length, Phys. Rev. A104, 043702 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Asaoka, Y

    R. Asaoka, Y. Suzuki, and Y. Tokunaga, Fault-tolerant logi- cal state construction based on cavity-QED network (2025), arXiv:2503.11500 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    T.Utsugi,R.Asaoka,Y.Tokunaga,andT.Aoki,Optimalcavity designforminimizingerrorsincavity-QED-basedatom-photon entanglinggateswithfinitetemporalduration,Phys.Rev.A111, L011701 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    Zhang, S.-L

    J.-L. Zhang, S.-L. Su, S. Zhang, A.-D. Zhu, and H.-F. Wang, Complete and nondestructive polarization-entangled cluster state analysis assisted by a cavity input–output process, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B33, 342 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    Cohen and K

    I. Cohen and K. Mølmer, Deterministic quantum network for distributed entanglement and quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A98, 030302 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    M. G. Raymer, C. Embleton, and J. H. Shapiro, The Duan- Kimblecavity-atomquantummemoryloadingschemerevisited, Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 044013 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    H. Goto, S. Mizukami, Y. Tokunaga, and T. Aoki, Figure of merit for single-photon generation based on cavity quantum 24 electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. A99, 053843 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Hastrup and U

    J. Hastrup and U. L. Andersen, Protocol for generating optical gottesman-kitaev-preskill states with cavity QED, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 170503 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Shadmany, A

    D. Shadmany, A. Kumar, A. Soper, L. Palm, C. Yin, H. Ando, B. Li, L. Taneja, M. Jaffe, S. David, and J. Simon, Cavity QED inahighNAresonator,ScienceAdvances11,eads8171(2025)

    2025

  42. [50]

    Lett.50, 5294 (2025)

    S.Horikawa,S.Kato,R.Inoue,T.Aoki,A.Goban,andH.Kon- ishi, Low-loss telecom-band nanofiber cavity for interfacing yb atomic qubits, Opt. Lett.50, 5294 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    Grinkemeyer, E

    B. Grinkemeyer, E. Guardado-Sanchez, I. Dimitrova, D. Shchepanovich, G. E. Mandopoulou, J. Borregaard, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Error-detected quantum opera- tions with neutral atoms mediated by an optical cavity, Science 387, 1301 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    Y.-T. Chen, M. Szurek, B. Hu, J. de Hond, B. Braverman, and V. Vuletić, High finesse bow-tie cavity for strong atom-photon coupling in Rydberg arrays, Opt. Express30, 37426 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Chen, Y.-T

    M.L.Peters,G.Wang,D.C.Spierings,N.Drucker,B.Hu,M.- W. Chen, Y.-T. Chen, and V. Vuletić, Cavity-enabled real-time observationofindividualatomiccollisions,Phys.Rev.Lett.135, 093402 (2025)

    2025

  46. [54]

    R.M.Kroeze,B.P.Marsh,K.-Y.Lin,J.Keeling,andB.L.Lev, High cooperativity using a confocal-cavity-QED microscope, PRX Quantum4, 020326 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Horikawa, S

    S. Horikawa, S. Yang, T. Tanaka, T. Aoki, and S. Kato, High- finesse nanofiber Fabry–Pérot resonator in a portable storage container, Review of Scientific Instruments95, 073103 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    J.Ramette,J.Sinclair,N.P.Breuckmann,andV.Vuletić,Fault- tolerant connection of error-corrected qubits with noisy links, npj Quantum Information10, 58 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    D.Main,P.Drmota,D.P.Nadlinger,E.M.Ainley,A.Agrawal, B. C. Nichol, R. Srinivas, G. Araneda, and D. M. Lucas, Dis- tributed quantum computing across an optical network link, Nature638, 383 (2025)

    2025

  50. [58]

    M. D. Eisaman, J. Fan, A. Migdall, and S. V. Polyakov, Invited review article: Single-photon sources and detectors, Review of Scientific Instruments82, 071101 (2011)

    2011

  51. [59]

    C.FabreandN.Treps,Modesandstatesinquantumoptics,Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 035005 (2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    G.S.Vasilev,D.Ljunggren,andA.Kuhn,Singlephotonsmade- to-measure, New Journal of Physics12, 063024 (2010)

    2010

  53. [61]

    Utsugi, A

    T. Utsugi, A. Goban, Y. Tokunaga, H. Goto, and T. Aoki, Gaussian-wave-packet model for single-photon generation based on cavity quantum electrodynamics under adiabatic and nonadiabatic conditions, Phys. Rev. A106, 023712 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    Meraner, A

    M. Meraner, A. Mazloom, V. Krutyanskiy, V. Krcmarsky, J. Schupp, D. A. Fioretto, P. Sekatski, T. E. Northup, N. San- gouard, and B. P. Lanyon, Indistinguishable photons from a trapped-ion quantum network node, Phys. Rev. A102, 052614 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    K.Tanji, H.Takahashi, W.Roga,andM.Takeoka,Rate-fidelity tradeoff in cavity-based remote entanglement generation, Phys. Rev. A110, 042405 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    S.Kikura,R.Asaoka,M.Koashi,andY.Tokunaga,High-purity single-photon generation based on cavity QED, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 013251 (2025)

    2025

  57. [65]

    P. P. Rohde, T. C. Ralph, and M. A. Nielsen, Optimal photons for quantum-information processing, Phys. Rev. A72, 052332 (2005)

    2005

  58. [66]

    C. K. Law and H. J. Kimble, Deterministic generation of a bit- stream of single-photon pulses, Journal of Modern Optics44, 2067 (1997)

    1997

  59. [67]

    K. A. Fischer, R. Trivedi, and D. Lukin, Particle emission from open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A98, 023853 (2018)

    2018

  60. [68]

    Trivedi, K

    R. Trivedi, K. A. Fischer, J. Vučković, and K. Müller, Gener- ation of non-classical light using semiconductor quantum dots, Advanced Quantum Technologies3, 1900007 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    A. N. Craddock, J. Hannegan, D. P. Ornelas-Huerta, J. D. Siverns, A. J. Hachtel, E. A. Goldschmidt, J. V. Porto, Q. Quraishi, and S. L. Rolston, Quantum interference between photons from an atomic ensemble and a remote atomic ion, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 213601 (2019)

    2019

  62. [70]

    V.Krutyanskiy,M.Galli,V.Krcmarsky,S.Baier,D.A.Fioretto, Y.Pu,A.Mazloom,P.Sekatski,M.Canteri,M.Teller,J.Schupp, J. Bate, M. Meraner, N. Sangouard, B. P. Lanyon, and T. E. Northup, Entanglement of trapped-ion qubits separated by 230 meters, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 050803 (2023)

    2023

  63. [71]

    A.ReisererandG.Rempe,Cavity-basedquantumnetworkswith single atoms and optical photons, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1379 (2015)

    2015

  64. [72]

    Calsamiglia and N

    J. Calsamiglia and N. Lütkenhaus, Maximum efficiency of a linear-optical bell-state analyzer, Applied Physics B72, 67 (2001)

    2001

  65. [73]

    Hartung, M

    L. Hartung, M. Seubert, S. Welte, E. Distante, and G. Rempe, Aquantum-networkregisterassembledwithopticaltweezersin an optical cavity, Science385, 179 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    Canteri, Z

    M. Canteri, Z. X. Koong, J. Bate, A. Winkler, V. Krutyanskiy, andB.P.Lanyon,Photon-interfacedten-qubitregisteroftrapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 080801 (2025)

    2025

  67. [75]

    Vendeiro, and V

    B.Hu,J.Sinclair,E.Bytyqi,M.Chong,A.Rudelis,J.Ramette, Z. Vendeiro, and V. Vuletić, Site-selective cavity readout and classical error correction of a 5-bit atomic register, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 120801 (2025)

    2025

  68. [76]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, S. J. Evered, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, G. Baranes, A. Gu, T. Manovitz, M. Xu, M. Kalinowski, S. Majidy, C. Kokail, N. Maskara, E. C. Trapp, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, H. Zhou, M. J. Gullans, S. F. Yelin, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, M. Cain, and ...

    2026

  69. [77]

    Greene, and J

    A.P.Burgers,S.Ma,S.Saskin,J.Wilson,M.A.Alarcón,C.H. Greene, and J. D. Thompson, Controlling Rydberg excitations usingion-coretransitionsinalkaline-earthatom-tweezerarrays, PRX Quantum3, 020326 (2022)

    2022

  70. [78]

    L. Li, X. Hu, Z. Jia, W. Huie, W. K. C. Sun, Aakash, Y. Dong, N.Hiri-O-Tuppa,andJ.P.Covey,Parallelizedtelecomquantum networking with an ytterbium-171 atom array, Nature Physics 21, 1826 (2025)

    2025

  71. [79]

    Z. Aqua, M. L. Peters, D. C. Spierings, G. Wang, E. Bytyqi, T. Propson, and V. Vuletić, Mode multiplexing for scalable cavity-enhanced operations in neutral-atom arrays, PRX Quan- tum7, 020334 (2026)

    2026

  72. [80]

    Német, D

    N. Német, D. White, S. Kato, S. Parkins, and T. Aoki, Transfer- matrix approach to determining the linear response of all-fiber networks of cavity-QED systems, Phys. Rev. Appl.13, 064010 (2020)

    2020

  73. [81]

    X. Wang, J. He, Z. Liao, and M. S. Zubairy, Tunable ultrahigh broadband reflection via collective atom-atom interaction in a waveguide-qed system, Phys. Rev. A111, 013706 (2025)

    2025

  74. [82]

    Sunami, Y

    S. Sunami, Y. Hirano, T. Hinokuma, and H. Yamasaki, En- tanglement boosting: Low-volume logical bell pair prepara- tion for distributed fault-tolerant quantum computation (2025), arXiv:2511.10729 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Sunami, A

    S. Sunami, A. Goban, and H. Yamasaki, Transversal surface- codegamepoweredbyneutralatoms(2025),arXiv:2506.18979 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  76. [84]

    J.-W.Ji,S.Sunami,S.Kikura,A.Goban,andC.Simon,Global 25 quantum network with ground-based single-atom memories in optical cavities and satellite links, Phys. Rev. Appl.25, 024050 (2026)

    2026

  77. [85]

    C. J. Wood and J. M. Gambetta, Quantification and characteri- zation of leakage errors, Phys. Rev. A97, 032306 (2018)

    2018

  78. [86]

    L.H.Pedersen,N.M.Møller,andK.Mølmer,Fidelityofquan- tum operations, Physics Letters A367, 47 (2007)

    2007

  79. [87]

    K.C.Chen,E.Bersin,andD.Englund,Apolarizationencoded photon-to-spin interface, npj Quantum Information7, 1 (2021)

    2021

  80. [88]

    N. Tomm, S. Mahmoodian, N. O. Antoniadis, R. Schott, S. R. Valentin,A.D.Wieck,A.Ludwig,A.Javadi,andR.J.Warbur- ton, Photon bound state dynamics from a single artificial atom, Nature Physics19, 857 (2023)

    2023

  81. [89]

    S. Kato, N. Német, K. Senga, S. Mizukami, X. Huang, S.Parkins,andT.Aoki,Observationofdressedstatesofdistant atoms with delocalized photons in coupled-cavities quantum electrodynamics, Nature Communications10, 1 (2019)

    2019

  82. [90]

    S. M. Spillane, T. J. Kippenberg, O. J. Painter, and K. J. Va- hala,Idealityinafiber-taper-coupledmicroresonatorsystemfor applicationtocavityquantumelectrodynamics,Phys.Rev.Lett. 91, 043902 (2003)

    2003

  83. [91]

    Bechler, A

    O. Bechler, A. Borne, S. Rosenblum, G. Guendelman, O. E. Mor, M. Netser, T. Ohana, Z. Aqua, N. Drucker, R. Finkelstein, Y. Lovsky, R. Bruch, D. Gurovich, E. Shafir, and B. Dayan, A passive photon–atom qubit swap operation, Nature Physics14, 996 (2018)

    2018

  84. [92]

    F.Campaioli,J.H.Cole,andH.Hapuarachchi,Quantummaster equations: Tips and tricks for quantum optics, quantum com- puting, and beyond, PRX Quantum5, 020202 (2024)

    2024

  85. [93]

    A. H. Kiilerich and K. Mølmer, Input-output theory with quan- tum pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 123604 (2019)

    2019

  86. [94]

    A. H. Kiilerich and K. Mølmer, Quantum interactions with pulses of radiation, Phys. Rev. A102, 023717 (2020)

    2020

  87. [95]

    Lambert, E

    N. Lambert, E. Giguère, P. Menczel, B. Li, P. Hopf, G. Suárez, M. Gali, J. Lishman, R. Gadhvi, R. Agarwal, A. Galicia, N. Shammah, P. Nation, J. Johansson, S. Ahmed, S. Cross, A. Pitchford, and F. Nori, QuTiP 5: The quantum toolbox in python, Physics Reports1153, 1 (2026)

    2026

  88. [96]

    O.Morin,C.Fabre,andJ.Laurat,Experimentallyaccessingthe optimal temporal mode of traveling quantum light states, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 213602 (2013)

    2013

  89. [97]

    Ollivier, S

    H. Ollivier, S. E. Thomas, S. C. Wein, I. M. de Buy Wenniger, N. Coste, J. C. Loredo, N. Somaschi, A. Harouri, A. Lemaitre, I.Sagnes,L.Lanco,C.Simon,C.Anton,O.Krebs,andP.Senel- lart,Hong-Ou-Mandelinterferencewithimperfectsinglephoton sources, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 063602 (2021)

    2021

  90. [98]

    I.H.Deutsch,R.J.C.Spreeuw,S.L.Rolston,andW.D.Phillips, Photonic band gaps in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. A52, 1394 (1995)

    1995

  91. [99]

    Z. Liao, X. Zeng, S.-Y. Zhu, and M. S. Zubairy, Single-photon transportthroughanatomicchaincoupledtoaone-dimensional nanophotonic waveguide, Phys. Rev. A92, 023806 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

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