Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 64 references

Quantum teleportation of an elemental silicon nanophotonic CNOT gate

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 The paper reports the first experimental teleportation of a controlled-NOT gate on a silicon nanophotonic chip, using a shared EPR pair, two local CNOT operations, and classical communication, with an average gate fidelity of 86.5 ± 2.2%.

desk verdict First on-chip teleportation of a CNOT gate is a plausible experimental milestone, but the paper's unstated local-gate orientations and loose link to a prior SWAP-gate device need referee scrutiny before the claim is fully reproducible. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16783 v1 pith:RHTRJUEP submitted 2025-07-22 quant-ph

Kai-Chi Chang , Xiang Cheng , Felix Ribuot-Hirsch , Murat Can Sarihan , Yujie Chen , Jaime Gonzalo Flor Flores , Mingbin Yu , Patrick Guo-Qiang Lo
show 2 more authors
Dim-Lee Kwong Chee Wei Wong
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881V80 PACS 03.67.Lx42.50.Ex
keywords quantumteleportationCNOTgatesiliconnanophotonicsdistributedcomputingphotonicqubitsBellstatesprocesstomography
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 reports the first experimental teleportation of a controlled-NOT gate on a photonic chip. Using a shared polarization-entangled pair, two local CNOT operations—one on a silicon nanophotonic chip, the other in free space—and classical communication, the authors turn a local chip CNOT into a non-local CNOT acting on two remote polarization qubits. They characterize the teleported gate by truth-table, state-tomography, Bell-state, and process-tomography measurements, reporting an average gate fidelity of 86.5 ± 2.2% and a process fidelity of 83.1 ± 2.0%. The result matters because it shows that chip-scale silicon photonics can supply the non-local two-qubit gates that modular distributed quantum computers need.

What carries the argument

The protocol rests on the gate-teleportation identity $C_{34}C_{12}(|\psi\rangle_{14}\otimes|\Phi\rangle_{23}) = |0+\rangle_{23}\otimes C_{14}|\psi\rangle_{14} + |0-\rangle_{23}\otimes \sigma_1^Z C_{14}|\psi\rangle_{14} + |1+\rangle_{23}\otimes \sigma_4^X C_{14}|\psi\rangle_{14} + |1-\rangle_{23}\otimes (-\sigma_1^Z\sigma_4^X) C_{14}|\psi\rangle_{14}$, where $C_{12}$ is the on-chip CNOT (control qubit 1, target qubit 2), $C_{34}$ is the free-space CNOT (control qubit 3, target qubit 4), and $|\Phi\rangle_{23}$ is the shared EPR pair. Measuring qubits 2 and 3 in the $|\pm\rangle$ basis and applying the corresponding Pauli corrections teleports the local gate $C_{12}$ to a non-local CNOT $C_{14}$ between qubit 1 and qubit 4. The identity carries the argument because it shows the teleported operation is exactly a CNOT, not just an entangling operation.

What would settle it

Reconstruct the teleported process matrix with the free-space CNOT $C_{34}$ configured so that its control and target are swapped relative to the assumed orientation; if the teleported truth table no longer matches the ideal CNOT's 2×2 block structure (fidelity dropping well below 93%), the reported non-local CNOT depends critically on that unstated orientation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that quantum gate teleportation of a CNOT gate can be executed on an integrated silicon platform: a local on-chip CNOT acting on a polarization qubit and a path qubit is converted, through a shared EPR pair and a second local CNOT on Bob's side, into a CNOT acting on the two remote polarization qubits. The paper argues this is the first chip-scale demonstration, and supports it with four independent characterizations: a truth-table fidelity of 93.1 ± 0.3%, an average state fidelity of 87.0 ± 2.2% over fourteen input states, an average Bell-state fidelity of 86.2 ± 0.8% for the four generated Bell states, and a full quantum process tomography with process fidelity 83.1 ± 2.0%, corresponding to an average gate fidelity of 86.5 ± 2.2%.

Load-bearing premise

The teleported operation is a CNOT only if the two local CNOT gates have a specific control-target orientation (qubit 1 controls qubit 2, and qubit 3 controls qubit 4), an orientation the paper does not explicitly state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A chip-scale teleported CNOT gate provides a building block for modular distributed photonic quantum computers, where remote modules are linked by entanglement rather than direct interactions.
  • The demonstrated fidelities, though below fault-tolerance thresholds, are compatible with entanglement distillation or purification, which the authors note as a route to higher-quality non-local gates.
  • The 50×50 µm² chip footprint suggests that many such gates can be integrated, extending the scheme to multiple qubits and multi-chip networks.
  • Because the gate teleportation consumes fewer classical bits than state-teleportation-based gate implementations, it lowers the communication overhead for a distributed CNOT.
  • The approach can be adapted from post-selected to heralded or deterministic entanglement sources, making the teleported gate compatible with future deterministic photonic quantum computing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same gate-teleportation identity, with $C_{12}$ and $C_{34}$ replaced by controlled-Z gates, would teleport a CZ gate with the same classical communication cost, suggesting the result generalizes beyond CNOT.
  • The gap between truth-table fidelity (93.1%) and process fidelity (83.1%) suggests that much of the error comes from state preparation and measurement rather than the teleported logical map, so improving chip polarization-extinction could raise both quantities.
  • The protocol's reliance on post-selected entanglement means the teleported gate succeeds only in coincidence; substituting a deterministic entanglement source would be a natural next step that the authors explicitly mention.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the experimental implementation of quantum gate teleportation of a CNOT gate realized on a silicon photonic chip. Two remote polarization qubits (1 and 4) are entangled via path qubits (2 and 3) prepared in a shared EPR state; local CNOT gates C12 (on-chip) and C34 (free-space) are applied, and measurement of the path qubits in the X basis teleports the local CNOT to a non-local CNOT acting on the polarization qubits 1 and 4. The authors characterize the teleported gate through a truth-table fidelity of 93.1 ± 0.3%, an average quantum state fidelity of 87.0 ± 2.2%, a Bell-state fidelity of 86.2 ± 0.8%, and a process fidelity of 83.1 ± 2.0%, corresponding to an average gate fidelity of 86.5 ± 2.2%. They claim that this is the first quantum teleportation of a chip-scale CNOT gate.

Significance. If the control-target orientation and the post-selection/feed-forward details are as the protocol requires, the result is a genuine milestone: it combines a CMOS-compatible silicon chip, high-fidelity local two-qubit gates, and teleportation-based non-local gate operation on photonic qubits. The measured fidelities are mutually consistent (local gates at 97.9% and 98.1%, entanglement fringe visibility at 93.9% before background subtraction, and teleported gate fidelity at 86.5%), and the central teleportation identity is correct when the CNOT orientations are specified as control-1/target-2 and control-3/target-4. No fitted parameters appear in the reported fidelities, which are measured quantities. The work is of clear interest to modular photonic quantum computing and quantum networking.

major comments (4)
  1. [Results, 'Silicon chip CNOT gate teleportation realization' (gate-teleportation identity)] The gate-teleportation identity C34C12(|Ψ>14⊗|Φ>23) = ... is valid only for a specific control-target pairing: C12 must be the CNOT with control on qubit 1 (polarization) and target on qubit 2 (path), and C34 must be the CNOT with control on qubit 3 (path) and target on qubit 4 (polarization). The manuscript never states these assignments, and the descriptions of the on-chip gate (referenced to Ref. [60], a SWAP-gate paper) and the free-space gate (a 'balanced Mach-Zehnder interferometer' with HWP5 at 45°) do not by themselves fix the orientation. Because the entire claim that the teleported operation is C14 depends on this orientation, please state the convention explicitly (e.g., CNOT_{control→target}) and provide path-resolved truth-table data or an equivalent calibration that establishes the orientation of each local gate.
  2. [Results, 'Teleported chip-scale CNOT gate truth able...' and Fig. 1C/2C] The protocol has four measurement outcomes on qubits 2 and 3, each requiring a distinct Pauli correction (I, Z1, X4, and Z1X4). The paper does not state whether active feed-forward was applied, whether the data were post-selected to a subset of outcomes, or whether the Pauli corrections were applied in post-processing. Since all quoted fidelities are based on coincidence counts without subtracting accidentals, the outcome-selection rule is essential for interpreting the 93.1% truth-table fidelity and the 83.1% process fidelity. Please specify which outcomes were accepted and how the corrections were implemented.
  3. [Results, 'Silicon chip CNOT gate teleportation realization' (device description)] Ref. [60] is titled 'A chip-scale polarization-spatial-momentum quantum SWAP gate in silicon nanophotonics,' yet the text says that the design optimized map of the on-chip CNOT gate is given in that prior study. A SWAP operation is not a CNOT, and the paper does not explain how the same device (or the same chipset) is configured as a CNOT with the orientation required by the teleportation identity. Please clarify the relationship between the SWAP gate in Ref. [60] and the CNOT gate used here, including the operating point or device parameters that distinguish the two operations.
  4. [Supplementary Materials and Data Availability] The main text repeatedly refers to 'Methods in Supplementary Materials' and to Figures S.1–S.7 for source characterization, quantum state tomography, and quantum process tomography details, but the arXiv version contains none of these. In particular, the path-resolved local gate measurements and the exact set of tomographic settings are not in the main text. Without this material the experimental claims cannot be reproduced or fully checked. Please include the supplementary information with the revised submission and ensure that the source-data statement is consistent with what is actually provided.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section heading, 'Teleported chip-scale CNOT gate truth able...'] The heading contains a typo: 'truth able' should be 'truth table'.
  2. [Throughout the equations] Several mathematical expressions are missing fraction bars or contain garbled notation, such as '(00|23 + |11>23) √2⁄', which should be written as (|00>23 + |11>23)/√2. Please ensure all equations are typeset correctly.
  3. [Results, quantum state tomography input states] The text says 14 input polarization states are used in the second analysis and that the remaining two states (|+0> and |+1>) appear in the third analysis; this is confusing because the full set for two-qubit state tomography is 16 states. Please state explicitly that 16 input states are covered across the two sections.
  4. [Results, fidelity terminology] The term 'average gate fidelity' is used both for the truth-table fidelity (93.1%) and for the process-derived average gate fidelity (86.5%). These are different quantities with different definitions; please use 'truth-table fidelity' for the former and reserve 'average gate fidelity' for the process-derived quantity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported teleported-CNOT fidelities are direct measurements against the ideal CNOT, and the gate-teleportation identity is a standard algebraic step rather than a fitted or self-referential construction.

full rationale

The central claim is experimental rather than derivational: the teleported CNOT is characterized by truth-table measurements, quantum state tomography, Bell-state generation, and quantum process tomography, each compared directly with the ideal CNOT. No parameter is fitted to the teleported data and then reported as a prediction; the quoted fidelities are measured coincidence statistics. The local gates are independently characterized in Fig. 2A/B with fidelities of 97.9 ± 0.3% and 98.1 ± 0.3%, so the teleportation claim does not reduce to the self-cited device paper [60]; that citation supplies chip design provenance, while the relevant two-qubit behavior is re-measured in this work. The teleportation identity C34 C12(|ψ>14 ⊗ |Φ>23) = ... is a standard algebraic relation whose premises—shared EPR entanglement, local CNOT operations, and Bell-basis measurements—are each checked by the reported HOM visibility, entanglement visibility, and local truth tables. The skeptic's concern about unspecified control-target orientations is a potential experimental ambiguity or correctness risk, not a circular reduction: no equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input by definition. The missing Methods details and source data in the arXiv version are verifiability and completeness limitations, not circularity. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

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

The central claim rests on standard linear-optics quantum information assumptions: the photonic encoding, the quality of the SPDC entanglement source, the correctness of the gate-teleportation identity, and the unstated control-target orientation of the two local CNOT gates. No free parameters are fitted to data, and no new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Photonic qubits are encoded in polarization and path degrees of freedom and evolve under unitary quantum mechanics.
    The whole experiment relies on this encoding; stated in Results and Methods.
  • domain assumption The SPDC source produces the polarization-entangled state (|HH>+|VV>)/√2 with high fidelity, and the PBS/waveplate setup converts this to the path-entangled state |Φ+>23.
    Post-selected entanglement generation is described in Results and characterized by fringe visibility up to 98.5% after background subtraction.
  • standard math The gate teleportation identity C34 C12(|ψ>14⊗|Φ+>23) = ... is correct.
    The identity is stated without proof in the Results. It is a standard linear-algebra result from Gottesman-Chuang, verifiable by direct calculation, but the paper does not provide the derivation.
  • domain assumption The local CNOT gates C12 (chip) and C34 (free space) have the control-target orientation required by the identity, i.e., C12 controls on qubit 1 and targets qubit 2, C34 controls on qubit 3 and targets qubit 4.
    This orientation is not explicitly stated in the paper; it is essential for the teleported gate to be a CNOT.
  • standard math The process-to-average-gate fidelity conversion F_avg = (d F_proc + 1)/(d+1) is valid for d=4.
    Used to compute average gate fidelity from process fidelity in the fourth analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum teleportation of an elemental silicon nanophotonic CNOT gate." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RHTRJUEP

@misc{pith2026250716783,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum teleportation of an elemental silicon nanophotonic CNOT gate},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RHTRJUEP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16783}
}
read the original abstract

Large-scale quantum computers possess the capacity to effectively tackle practical problems that can be insurmountable for classical computers. The main challenge in building these quantum computers is to realize scalable modules for remote qubits and entanglement. By assembling small, specialized parts into a larger architecture, the modular approach mitigates complexity and uncertainty. Such a distributed architecture requires non-local quantum gate operations between remote qubits. An essential method for implementing such operations, known as quantum gate teleportation, requires only local operations, classical communication, and shared entanglement. Till today, the quantum gate teleportation using a photonic chip has remained elusive. Here we experimentally demonstrate the quantum teleportation of an on-chip controlled-NOT (CNOT) gate, assisted with the scalable silicon chip platform, high-fidelity local quantum logic gates, linear optical components, post-selected entanglement, and coincidence measurements from photonic qubits. First, we measure and characterize our teleported chip-scale CNOT gate with an average truth table fidelity of 93.1 +- 0.3%. Second, for different input polarization states, we obtain an average quantum state fidelity of 87.0 +- 2.2% with our teleported on-chip CNOT gate. Third, we use our non-local CNOT gate for remote entanglement creation of four Bell states, with an average quantum state fidelity of 86.2 +- 0.8%. Fourthly, we fully characterize our teleported on-chip CNOT gate with a quantum process fidelity 83.1 +- 2.0%, and an average non-local CNOT gate fidelity of 86.5 +- 2.2%. Our teleported photonic on-chip quantum logic gate could be extended both to multiple qubits and chip-scale modules towards fault-tolerant and large-scale distributed quantum computation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16783 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Teleported truth table of an on-chip CNOT gate and local CNOT truth tables. A, Simplified experimental setup (detail in Fig. 1C) for truth table measurements of a chip-scale CNOT gate. The local CNOT gate has an average gate fidelity of 97.9 ± 0.3%. B, Free-space CNOT gate truth table and its measurement setup. The second local CNOT gate has an average gate fidelity of 98.1 ± 0.3%. Errors are given as black ranges a… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [60]

    Cheng, K.- C

    X. Cheng, K.- C. Chang, Z. Xie, M. C. Sarihan, Y. S. Lee, Y. Li, X. Xu, A. V. Kumar, S. Kocaman, M. Yu, P. G.-Q. Lo, D.-L. Kwong, J. H. Shapiro, F. N. C. Wong, and C. W. Wong, A chip-scale polarization-spatial-momentum quantum SWAP gate in silicon nanophotonics, Nat. Photon. 17, 656 (2023). 15

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Zhang, G

    J. Zhang, G. Pagano, P. W. Hess, A. Kyprianidis, P. Becker, H. Kaplan, A. V. Gorshkov, Z.- X. Gong and C. Monroe, Observation of a many-body dynamical phase transition with a 53- qubit quantum simulator, Nature 551, 601 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [2]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin, S. Habegger, M. P. Harrigan, M. J. Hartmann, A. Ho, M. Hoffmann, T. Huang, T. S...

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    L. S. Madsen, F. Laudenbach, M. F. Askarani, F. Rortais, T. Vincent, J. F. F. Bulmer, F. M. Miatto, L. Neuhaus, L. G. Helt, M. J. Collins, A. E. Lita, T. Gerrits, S. W. Nam, V. D. Vaidya, M. Menotti, I. Dhand, Z. Vernon, N. Quesada and J. Lavoie, Quantum computational advantage with a programmable photonic processor, Nature 606, 75 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    J. M. Arrazola, V. Bergholm, K. Brádler, T. R. Bromley, M. J. Collins, I. Dhand, A. Fumagalli, T. Gerrits, A. Goussev, L. G. Helt, J. Hundal, T. Isacsson, R. B. Israel, J. Izaac, S. Jahangiri, R. Janik, N. Killoran, S. P. Kumar, J. Lavoie, A. E. Lita, D. H . Mahler, M. Menotti, B. Morrison, S. W. Nam, L. Neuhaus, H. Y. Qi, N. Quesada, A. Repingon, K. K. S...

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation, Nature 607, 667 (2022)

    2022

  7. [6]

    H. Y. Huang, M. Broughton, J. Cotler, S. Chen, J. Li, M. Mohseni, H. Neven, R. Babbush, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, and J. R. McClean, Quantum advantage in learning from experiments, Science 376, 1182 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Zhong, H

    H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y. H. Deng, M. C. Chen, L. C. Peng, Y. H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y. Hu, P. Hu, X. Y. Yang, W. J. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Li, X. Jiang, L. Gan, G. Yang, L. You, Z. Wang, L. Li, N. L. Liu, C. Y. Lu, and J. W. Pan, Quantum computational advantage using photons, Science 370, 1460 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 64 references
  1. [8]

    J. Bao, Z. Fu, T. Pramanik, J. Mao, Y. Chi, Y. Cao, C. Zhai, Y. Mao, T. Dai, X. Chen, X. Jia, L. Zhao, Y. Zheng, B. Tang, Z. Li, J. Luo, W. Wang, Y. Yang, Y. Peng, D. Liu, D. Dai, Q. He, A. Laila Muthali, L. K. Oxenløwe, C. Vigliar, S. Paesani, H. Hou, R . Santagati, J. W. Sil...

    2023

  2. [9]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. B. Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. S. Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić and M. D. Lukin, Logical ...

    2023

  3. [10]

    X. M. Hu, Y. Guo, B. H. Liu, C. F. Li and G. C. Guo, Progress in quantum teleportation, Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 339 (2023)

    2023

  4. [11]

    W. Luo, L. Cao, Y. Shi, L. Wan, H. Zhang, S. Li, G. Chen, Y. Li, S. Li, Y. Wang, S. Sun, M. Faeyz Karim, H. Cai, L. C. Kwek and A. Q. Liu, Recent progress in quantum photonic chips for quantum communication and internet, Light Sci. Appl. 12, 175 (2023)

    2023

  5. [12]

    S. L. N. Hermans, M. Pompili, H. K. C. Beukers, S. Baier, J. Borregaard, and R. Hanson, Qubit teleportation between non-neighbouring nodes in a quantum network, Nature 605, 663 (2022). [13] N. Fiaschi, B. Hensen, A. Wallucks, R. Benevides, J. Li, T. P .M. Alegre, and S. Gröbla...

    2022

  6. [14]

    X. M. Hu, C. Zhang, B. H. Liu, Y. Cai, X. J. Ye, Y. Guo, W. B. Xing, C. X. Huang, Y. F. Huang, C. F. Li, and G. C. Guo, Experimental high-dimensional quantum teleportation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 230501 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Y. H. Luo, H. S. Zhong, M. Erhard, X. L. Wang, L. C. Peng, M. Krenn, X. Jiang, L. Li, N. L. Liu, C. Y. Lu, A. Zeilinger, and J.-W. Pan, Quantum teleportation in high dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 070505 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Pirandola, J

    S. Pirandola, J. Eisert, C. Weedbrook, A. Furusawa, and S. L. Braunstein, Advances in quantum teleportation, Nat. Photon. 9, 641 (2015). 12

    2015

  9. [17]

    M. A. Nielsen, and I. L. Chuang, Programmable quantum gate arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 321 (1997)

    1997

  10. [18]

    Gottesman, and I

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

    1999

  11. [19]

    Knill, R

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

    2001

  12. [20]

    Y. H. Luo, M. C. Chen, M. Erhard, H. S. Zhong, D. Wu, H. Y. Tang, Q. Zhao, X. L. Wang, K. Fujii, L. Li, and N. L. Liu, K. Nemoto, W. J. Munro, C.- Y. Lua, A. Zeilinger and J.- W. Pan, Quantum teleportation of physical qubits into logical code spaces, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118...

    2021

  13. [21]

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

    2010

  14. [22]

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

    2004

  15. [23]

    Pelucchi, G

    E. Pelucchi, G. Fagas, I. Aharonovich, D. Englund, E. Figueroa, Q. Gong, H. Hannes, J. Liu, C. Y. Lu, N. Matsuda, J. W. Pan, F. Schreck, F. Sciarrino, C. Silberhorn, J. Wang and K. D. Jöns The potential and global outlook of integrated photonics for quantum technologies, Nat. ...

    2022

  16. [24]

    Bogaerts, D

    W. Bogaerts, D. Pérez, J. Capmany, D. A. Miller, J. Poon, D. Englund, F. Morichetti, and A. Melloni, Programmable photonic circuits, Nature 586, 207 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    J. Wang, F. Sciarrino, A. Laing, and M. G. Thompson, Integrated photonic quantum technologies, Nat. Photon. 14, 273 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    J. Wang, S. Paesani, Y. Ding, R. Santagati, P. Skrzypczyk, A. Salavrakos, J. Tura, R. Augusiak, L. Mančinska, D. Bacco, D. Bonneau, J. W. Silverstone, Q. Gong, A. Acín, K. Rottwitt, L. K. Oxenløwe, J. L. O’Brien, A. Laing, and M. G. Thompson, Multidimensional quantum entanglem...

    2018

  19. [27]

    Qiang, X

    X. Qiang, X. Zhou, J. Wang, C. M. Wilkes, T. Loke, S. O’Gara, L. Kling, G. D. Marshall, R. Santagati, T. C. Ralph, J. B. Wang, J. L. O’Brien, M. G. Thompson, and J. C. F. Matthews, Large-scale silicon quantum photonics implementing arbitrary two -qubit pr ocessing, Nat. Photon...

    2018

  20. [28]

    X. Sun, Y. Wang, Y. Tian, Q. Wang, L. Tian, Y. Zheng, and K. Peng, Deterministic and universal quantum squeezing gate with a teleportation‐like protocol, Laser Photon. Rev. 16, 2100329 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Postler, S

    L. Postler, S. Heuβen, I. Pogorelov, M. Rispler, T. Feldker, M. Meth, C. D. Marciniak, R. Stricker, M. Ringbauer, R. Blatt, and P. Schindler, M. Müller, and T. Monz, Demonstration of fault-tolerant universal quantum gate operations, Nature 605, 675 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Daiss, S

    S. Daiss, S. Langenfeld, S. Welte, E. Distante, P. Thomas, L. Hartung, O. Morin, and G. Rempe, A quantum logic gate between distant quantum-network modules, Science 371, 614 (2021). 13

    2021

  23. [31]

    Y. Wan, D. Kienzler, S. D. Erickson, K. H. Mayer, T. R. Tan, J. J. Wu, H. M. Vasconcelos, S. Glancy, E. Knill, D. J. Wineland, A. C. Wilson, and D. Leibfried, Quantum gate teleportation between separated qubits in a trapped-ion processor, Science 364, 875 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Reiserer, N

    A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, G. Rempe, and S. Ritter, A quantum gate between a flying optical photon and a single trapped atom, Nature 508, 237 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    K. S. Chou, J.Z . Blumoff, C. S. Wang, P. C. Reinhold, C. J. Axline, Y. Y. Gao, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, L. Jiang, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Deterministic teleportation of a quantum gate between two logical qubits, Nature 561, 368 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    L. T. Feng, M. Zhang, X. Xiong, D. Liu, Y. J. Cheng, F. M. Jing, X. Z. Qi, Y. Chen, D. Y. He, G. P. Guo, and G. C. Guo, Transverse mode-encoded quantum gate on a silicon photonic chip, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 060501 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Zhang, L

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

    2021

  28. [36]

    Zeuner, A

    J. Zeuner, A. N. Sharma, M. Tillmann, R. Heilmann, M. Gräfe, A. Moqanaki, A. Szameit, and P. Walther, Integrated- optics heralded controlled- NOT gate for polarization -encoded qubits, npj Quan. Inf. 4, 13 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Wang, Y.-H

    X.-L. Wang, Y.-H. Luo, H.-L. Huang, M.-C. Chen, Z.-E. Su, C. Liu, C. Chen, W. Li, Y.- Q. Fang, X. Jiang, J. Zhang, L. Li, N.- L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, 18-Qubit entanglement with six photons’ three degrees of freedom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 260502 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    S. M. Wang, Q. Q. Cheng, Y. X. Gong, P. Xu, C. Sun, L. Li, T. Li, and S. N. Zhu, A 14×14 μm2 footprint polarization- encoded quantum controlled- NOT gate based on hybrid waveguide, Nat. Commun. 7, 11490 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    L.-T. Feng, M. Zhang, Z.-Y. Zhou, M. Li, X. Xiong, L. Yu, B.-S. Shi, G.-P. Guo, D.-X. Dai, X.-F. Ren, and G.-C. Guo, On-chip coherent conversion of photonic quantum entanglement between different degrees of freedom, Nat. Commun. 7, 11985 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Crespi, R

    A. Crespi, R. Ramponi, R. Osellame, L. Sansoni, I. Bongioanni, F. Sciarrino, G. Vallone, and P. Mataloni, Integrated photonic quantum gates for polarization qubits, Nat. Commun. 2, 566 (2011)

    2011

  33. [41]

    Politi, M

    A. Politi, M. J. Cryan, J. G. Rarity, S. Yu, and J. L. O'brien, Silica -on-silicon waveguide quantum circuits, Science 320, 646 (2008)

    2008

  34. [42]

    Okamoto, H

    R. Okamoto, H. F. Hofmann, S. Takeuchi, and K. Sasaki, Demonstration of an optical quantum controlled-NOT gate without path interference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 210506 (2005)

    2005

  35. [43]

    Fiorentino and F

    M. Fiorentino and F. N. C. Wong, Deterministic controlled-NOT gate for single-photon two- qubit quantum logic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 070502 (2004)

    2004

  36. [44]

    J. L. O'Brien, G. J. Pryde, A. G. White, T. C. Ralph, and D. Branning, Demonstration of an all-optical quantum controlled-NOT gate, Nature 426, 264 (2003)

    2003

  37. [45]

    Ecker, P

    S. Ecker, P. Sohr, L. Bulla, M. Huber, M. Bohmann, and R. Ursin, Experimental single-copy entanglement distillation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 040506 (2021). 14

    2021

  38. [46]

    X. M. Hu, C. X. Huang, Y. B. Sheng, L. Zhou, B. H. Liu, Y. Guo, C. Zhang, W. B. Xing, Y. F. Huang, C. F. Li, and G. C. Guo, Long- distance entanglement purification for quantum communication, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 010503 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    J. W. Pan, S. Gasparoni, R. Ursin, G. Weihs, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental entanglement purification of arbitrary unknown states, Nature 423, 417 (2003)

    2003

  40. [48]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels , Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 722 (1996)

    1996

  41. [49]

    Vigliar, S

    C. Vigliar, S. Paesani, Y. Ding, J. C. Adcock, J. Wang, S. Morley- Short, D. Bacco, L. K. Oxenløwe, M. G. Thompson, J. G. Rarity, and A. Laing, Error -protected qubits in a silicon photonic chip, Nat. Phys. 17, 1137 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    J. C. Adcock, C. Vigliar, R. Santagati, J. W. Silverstone, and M. G. Thompson, Programmable four-photon graph states on a silicon chip, Nat. Commun. 10, 3528 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    W. B. Gao, P. Xu, X. C. Yao, O. Gühne, A. Cabello, C. Y. Lu, C. Z. Peng, Z. B. Chen, and J. W. Pan, Experimental realization of a controlled-NOT gate with four-photon six-qubit cluster states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 020501 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    H. J. Briegel, D. E. Browne, W. Dür, R. Raussendorf, and M. Van den Nest, Measurement - based quantum computation, Nat. Phys. 5, 19 (2009)

    2009

  45. [53]

    Vallone, E

    G. Vallone, E. Pomarico, F. De Martini, and P. Mataloni, Active one -way quantum computation with two-photon four-qubit cluster states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 160502 (2008)

    2008

  46. [54]

    Prevedel, P

    R. Prevedel, P. Walther, F. Tiefenbacher, P. Böhi, R. Kaltenbaek, T. Jennewein, and A. Zeilinger, High-speed linear optics quantum computing using active feed- forward. Nature 445, 65 (2007)

    2007

  47. [55]

    Walther, K

    P. Walther, K. J. Resch, T. Rudolph, E. Schenck, H. Weinfurter, V. Vedral, M. Aspelmeyer, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental one-way quantum computing, Nature 434, 169 (2005)

    2005

  48. [56]

    L. M. Duan, and R. Raussendorf, Efficient quantum computation with probabilistic quantum gates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 080503 (2005)

    2005

  49. [57]

    M. A. Nielsen, Optical quantum computation using cluster states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 040503 (2004)

    2004

  50. [58]

    B. J. Metcalf, J. B. Spring, P. C. Humphreys, N. Thomas-Peter, M. Barbieri, W. S. Kolthammer, X. M. Jin, N. K. Langford, D. Kundys, J. C. Gates, and B. J. Smith, Quantum teleportation on a photonic chip, Nat. Photon. 8, 770 (2014)

    2014

  51. [59]

    Llewellyn, Y

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

    2019

  52. [61]

    J.-P. Li, X. Gu, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. You, H. Wang, C. Schneider, S. Höfling, Y.-H. Huo, C.-Y. Lu, N.-L. Liu, L. Li, and J.- W. Pan, Heralded nondestructive quantum entangling gate with single-photon sources, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 140501 (2021)

    2021

  53. [62]

    X. H. Bao, T. Y. Chen, Q. Zhang, J. Yang, H. Zhang, T. Yang, and J. W. Pan, Optical nondestructive controlled- NOT gate without using entangled photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 170502 (2007)

    2007

  54. [63]

    Z. Zhao, A. N. Zhang, Y. A. Chen, H. Zhang, J. F. Du, T. Yang, and J. W. Pan, Experimental demonstration of a nondestructive controlled-NOT quantum gate for two independent photon qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 030501 (2005)

    2005

  55. [64]

    Gasparoni, J

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

    2004

  56. [65]

    Nemoto, and W

    K. Nemoto, and W. J. Munro, Nearly deterministic linear optical controlled-NOT gate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 250502 (2004). DATA AVAILABILITY The datasets generated and analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request. Source data ar...

    2004

Pith tools

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