Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 69 references

Coupled integrated photonic quantum memristors using a single photon source made of a colour center

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two coupled photonic quantum memristors with crossed feedback produce inter-memristor hysteresis loops that are larger and self-intersect—behaviour a single device cannot show, pointing to scalable quantum neuromorphic building blocks.

desk verdict First coupled crossed-feedback photonic quantum memristors: a credible experiment, but an unsupported NARMA claim and polarization-drift risk need attention before I trust the headline numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.14736 v2 pith:EQNPNF2P submitted 2026-02-16 quant-ph

Alessio Baldazzi , Roy Philip George Konnoth Ancel , Sebastiano Guaraldo , Ivan Fattori , Xuan Chen , Ziad Abi Akar , Regis Deturche , Stefano Azzini
show 2 more authors
Christophe Couteau Lorenzo Pavesi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords photonicquantummemristorcrossedfeedbackneuromorphiccomputingreservoirsiliconnitrideintegratedcircuitsilicon-vacancycolorcentersingle-photonsourcehysteresisloop
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 sets out to show that a pair of photonic quantum memristors—integrated Mach–Zehnder interferometers whose splitting ratio is updated by past photon-count measurements—can be coupled so that each memristor's history is driven by the other's input flux (crossed feedback). Working on a silicon nitride chip fed by a room-temperature silicon-vacancy color-center single-photon source, the authors report inter-memristor input-output hysteresis curves that are not pinched at the origin, reach form factors up to about 0.95 (versus about 0.58 for a single memristor), and self-intersect for one inter-relation at a time. Simulations show these features emerge from the interplay of memory depth T/Tosc and the relative phase between the two sinusoidal inputs. If correct, the result would establish coupled photonic quantum memristors as scalable nonlinear elements for quantum neuromorphic and reservoir computing, using only measurement-induced dynamics and standard integrated photonics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Mach–Zehnder-interferometer photonic quantum memristor in dual-rail encoding: a single photon is split between a reference path and an interferometer whose reflectance R(t) acts as the memristive state. R(t) is updated from the history of measured average input photon number over a sliding buffer of M time bins (Eq. 6), which is what makes the dynamics measurement-induced and non-Markovian. The novel element is the crossed-feedback law of Eq. (7), where the reflectance of each memristor is updated from the other memristor's input history, interleaved with a π/2 phase-shift trick that lets one detector per memristor sample both interferometer outputs. The coupled dyn

What would settle it

Run the coupled-memristor protocol with four detectors so both outputs of each MZI are monitored simultaneously, and add active polarization stabilization at the input. If the inter-memristor self-intersection or the form factor above the single-memristor value (≈0.95 vs ≈0.58) fails to appear under stabilized conditions, the claimed topology is an artifact of the polarization-sensitive single-port reconstruction rather than of crossed feedback.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated in the abstract and Section 4, is that two parallel photonic quantum memristors governed by the crossed feedback laws R^(1)(t_k) = 1/2 + (1/M) Σ (⟨N_in^(2)(t_j)⟩ − 1/2) and symmetrically for R^(2) realize non-Markovian input-output dynamics that a single PQM or two uncoupled parallel memristors cannot produce. The experimental signatures are inter-memristor hysteresis loops that are large—simulated form factor up to ≈0.95 versus ≈0.58 for a single memristor—and self-intersect, with a self-intersection occurring for exactly one inter-relation at a time. The same chip and source also reproduce the known single-memristor hysteresis behaviour, and the abstract reports a

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the measured photon counts faithfully encode the memristor input and output fluxes—but the counts are reconstructed from one output port using a polarization-sensitive calibration of each interferometer, and Section 4 concedes that in-fiber polarization cannot be actively controlled and can drift after realignment, so any polarization or calibration error during a 20-second bin corrupts every inferred flux and therefore the reported hysteresis

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, two crossed-feedback PQMs already produce dynamics—larger-area, non-pinched, self-intersecting hysteresis—that a single PQM cannot, so network connectivity itself becomes a resource for nonlinearity and memory.
  • The crossed-feedback correlations arise without any direct coupling between the photonic modes; they are mediated entirely by the measurement feedback, so the scheme can be extended to many memristors on a single photonic chip with few detectors.
  • Room-temperature operation of both the source and the memristors removes a cryogenic bottleneck that limits other single-photon-source PQM demonstrations, easing integration into compact quantum neuromorphic hardware.
  • The parameter maps for form factor and self-intersection provide a practical recipe for choosing buffer length and input phase to engineer a desired hysteresis topology.
  • Using one detector per memristor with the π/2 output phase relation halves hardware requirements at the cost of doubled experiment time; future on-chip detection could remove that cost.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: because the feedback law uses averaged photon numbers, the same chip driven by a classical coherent state at comparable flux should reproduce much of the hysteresis; comparing the two settings would isolate the genuinely single-photon contribution.
  • Inference: replacing the single-port, two-phase reconstruction with simultaneous monitoring of both outputs and active polarization stabilization is the natural robustness check; if the self-intersection disappears under stabilized conditions, the topology is an artifact of the measurement chain rather than of crossed feedback.
  • Inference: the observation that only one inter-relation self-intersects at a time suggests a structural constraint in the crossed-feedback equations; this could serve as a diagnostic for non-Markovian cross-correlations in larger memristor networks.
  • Inference: the two-memristor crossed feedback is the minimal case of cyclic coupling; extending to three or more memristors with staggered phase lags could produce programmable hysteresis geometries for reservoir computing, though this goes beyond the paper's data.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the experimental implementation and characterization of a photonic integrated circuit containing two parallel Mach–Zehnder-based photonic quantum memristors (PQMs) with crossed feedback, driven by a room-temperature SiV− single-photon source. The central claim is that the crossed feedback law (Eq. 7) produces non-Markovian inter-memristor dynamics that a single PQM or independent pair cannot produce, evidenced by hysteresis curves with larger form factors and self-intersecting loops. The paper also reports single-PQM results that reproduce Ref. [34], and it presents numerical simulations mapping the form factor and self-intersection behavior over the (Φ, T/Tosc) plane. The abstract further claims an experimental NARMA test, but no NARMA experiment appears in the main text or appendices.

Significance. If the measured hysteresis features are genuine, the work would be a meaningful step beyond isolated PQMs: it demonstrates that crossed feedback between integrated photonic memristors generates richer input–output relations and could serve as a building block for quantum neuromorphic and reservoir computing. The use of a portable, room-temperature SiV− single-photon source coupled to a silicon nitride PIC is also a practical advance. The single-memristor results matching the independent prior experiment [34] provide a useful sanity check. However, the quantitative edge of the paper—larger form factors and self-intersecting loops—rests partly on simulations whose parameters are fitted per dataset (Appendix D, Tables 2–3), and the experimental hysteresis curves are shown without error bars or a direct experimental form-factor measurement. The manuscript itself flags that in-fiber polarization control is infeasible and that the polarization-sensitive MZIs require recalibration after realignment, which is a load-bearing measurement risk for the coupled-device claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 and Appendix C, Eqs. (8)–(10); Appendix D, Eq. (15)] The central observable—the hysteresis loop—is reconstructed from single-output-port detector clicks using the calibrated MZI law R = ½[1−V cos(φ_real)] and the π/2 output-phase-shift relation. The paper states that in-fiber polarization control is not feasible and that the input polarization can change after each realignment, while the MZIs are designed for TE0 and are polarization-sensitive. Under these conditions, any polarization drift during a 20 s time bin or over a run changes V and the effective phase, biasing every reconstructed ⟨N_in⟩ and ⟨N_out⟩ and hence the feedback update in Eq. (7). The headline features—larger form factors and self-intersections—are loop-shape properties that a slow time-dependent calibration error could mimic or destroy. Since Tables 2–3 fit a single static V and δφ_sta per dataset, they cannot distinguish a slowly drifting polarization from genuine memri
  2. [Section 4 and Appendix D, Eqs. (14)–(16); Tables 2–3; Figs. 5–6] The curves labeled 'simulation' in Figs. 3–4 are not parameter-free predictions: the visibilities and static phase errors in Tables 2–3 are obtained from an optimization routine per experiment, bounded only by calibration values, and stochastic noise is set to zero. Thus the experiment–simulation agreement is partly a fitting exercise. Moreover, the quantitative headline numbers—inter-relation form factors up to ≈0.95 and the self-intersection map in Figs. 5–6—are simulation outputs at the red-marked parameter choices; the paper does not report experimentally measured form factors or uncertainties for the data in Fig. 4. This overstates the experimental support for the central claim. Please either generate simulations using calibration data alone with full uncertainty propagation, or explicitly report experimental form factors with error bars and separate simulation-only statements from
  3. [Abstract] The abstract states: 'We experimentally test the performance of our system in the NARMA task.' I could not find any NARMA experiment, data, or analysis in the main text, Methods, or appendices; Section 5 only discusses possible reservoir-computing applications. This claim is unsupported and should be removed unless the corresponding experiment and results are added.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2] Typo: 'photonic quantum meristors' should be 'memristors'; also 'briigthness' should be 'brightness'.
  2. [Section 4] 'non-unitary visibilities' appears to be a typo for 'non-ideal visibilities' or 'non-unit visibilities'.
  3. [Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 captions] The figures show experimental points and simulation curves but no error bars or confidence bands on the experimental data. Adding uncertainty estimates would greatly help the reader assess the significance of loop shapes, especially for the claimed self-intersection.
  4. [Appendix D, Eq. (16)] The stochastic term ξ_err is introduced but then set to zero in the simulations. Please specify its assumed distribution/amplitude and whether any residual noise was included in the fits.
  5. [Fig. 6 caption] Typo: 'self-intesecting' should be 'self-intersecting'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Simulation curves in Figs. 3-4 are fitted per experiment via optimized visibilities and phase offsets, making the 'simulation confirms model' step partly circular; the central experimental and parameter-free map content remains independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix D (Simulations of the experiments), Tables 2-3; Figs. 3-4]
    "The simulated results shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 are obtained by putting to zero the stochastic noises and using the parameters reported in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. These parameters are found through an optimization routine by keeping the visibilities bounded by the value founded in the calibration routine and the static systematic phase error of the order of 0.1 rad."

    The visibility V and static phase offset delta_phi_sta used to generate each simulated hysteresis curve are optimized per experiment, within calibration bounds, rather than fixed a priori or predicted independently. The same experimental curves in Figs. 3-4 are then compared with these optimized simulations as if the agreement independently confirmed the memristive model and the claimed emergence of enhanced form factors and self-intersections. The agreement is therefore partly arranged by fitting, so the simulations are not an independent test of the effect. The parameter-free form-factor and self-intersection maps in Figs. 5-6 do retain independent model content.

full rationale

The core dynamics, Eq. (7), is an explicit crossed-feedback rule adopted from the independent prior PQM implementation [34], and the experimental hysteresis loops are direct click-derived measurements rather than outputs of the fitted simulation. Thus the central experimental claim of coupled memristive behavior with enhanced form factors and self-intersecting loops is not itself circular. The main circularity is confined to the validation loop: Appendix D states that the blue simulation curves in Figs. 3-4 use per-experiment optimized visibilities and static phase errors bounded only by calibration values, so the agreement between those curves and the data is partly by construction. This does not undermine the independent theoretical consequences shown in the parameter maps of Figs. 5-6, nor the reported agreement of the single-PQM loops with the different-group result [34]. The polarization-drift concern raised in Section 4 is a real measurement-validity risk but is not a circularity: it affects whether the calibrated MZI response accurately converts clicks into fluxes, but it does not make any derivation equal to its input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central physics rests on the PQM feedback model of prior work [34] plus per-experiment fitted non-ideality parameters (visibilities, static phase errors, detector efficiency); no new physical entities are postulated. The main cost is that the simulated 'predictions' share fit parameters with the data they are compared against, and the quantum character of the input is reduced to classical photon-number averages.

free parameters (3)
  • MZI effective visibility V per device = 0.80–1.00 (Tables 2–3)
    Interference visibilities for MZI-0/MZI-1/MZI-2/MZI-M1/MZI-M2, bounded by calibration but individually tuned per experiment via an optimization routine (Appendix D); these directly shape the simulated hysteresis curves in Figs. 3–4.
  • static systematic phase error δφ_sta = −0.20 to +0.17 rad (Tables 2–3)
    Per-MZI static phase offset 'of the order of 0.1 rad' set by the same optimization routine; enters φ_real = φ_theo + δφ_sta + δφ_err and therefore every reflectance R and every hysteresis curve.
  • detector efficiency η = not tabulated
    Appears in the non-ideality model ⟨N_out⟩ = η[1−R_mem]⟨N_in⟩ + N_dark + ξ_err (Appendix D, Eq. 16); Tables 2–3 omit its value and the noise terms are set to zero.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Memristor feedback law R(t_k) = 1/2 + (1/M)Σ(⟨N_in(t_j)⟩ − 1/2), lifted unchanged from prior PQM work
    Eq. (6)/(9) in Section 3 and Appendix C; adopted from Spagnolo et al. [34]. All results in the paper are consequences of this chosen update rule rather than derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption The dynamics are fully characterized by the average photon numbers ⟨N_in⟩ and ⟨N_out⟩; qubit coherence and phase information are discarded
    Section 3, after Eq. (4): 'the evolution of the quantum memristor can be fully characterized by the dynamics of the measurable input and output average photon numbers.' This converts single-photon dual-rail qubit dynamics into classical flux dynamics.
  • standard math MZI unitary map U(t) (Eq. 3) with reflectance R(t) and partial trace over mode C (Eq. 4) giving ⟨N_out⟩ = (1−R)⟨N_in⟩
    Standard linear-optical MZI transformation used as the basis of the input-output relation; not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Calibrated phase-to-reflectance law R = ½[1 − V cos(φ_real)] holds during each measurement bin
    Appendix D, Eq. (15). Requires TE-polarized light; the authors state in Section 4 that in-fiber polarization control is not feasible and that polarization can change after each realignment, so the law may not hold exactly.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coupled integrated photonic quantum memristors using a single photon source made of a colour center." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EQNPNF2P

@misc{pith2026260214736,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coupled integrated photonic quantum memristors using a single photon source made of a colour center},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EQNPNF2P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.14736}
}
abstract

Photonic quantum memristors provide a measurement-induced route to nonlinear and history-dependent quantum dynamics. Experimental demonstrations have so far focused on isolated devices or simple cascaded devices configurations. Here, we experimentally realize and characterize a network of two coupled photonic quantum memristors with crossed feedback, implemented on a silicon nitride photonic integrated circuit and fed by a room-temperature single-photon source based on a silicon-vacancy color center SiV$^-$ in a nanodiamond. Each memristor consists of an integrated Mach-Zehnder interferometer whose transfer function is adaptively updated by photon detection events on another memristor, thus generating novel non-Markovian input-output dynamics with an enhanced memristive behaviour compared to single devices. In particular, we report inter-memristor input-output hysteresis curves exhibiting larger form factors and displaying self-intersecting loops, respectively revealing marked bistability and self-intersecting hysteresis geometry. Furthermore, numerical simulations show how these features emerge from the interplay between memory depth and relative input phase, for both intra- and inter-memristor input-output relations. We experimentally test the performance of our system in the NARMA task. Our results establish coupled integrated photonic quantum memristors as scalable nonlinear building blocks and highlight their potential for implementing compact quantum neuromorphic and reservoir computing architectures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.14736 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) The photoluminescence spectrum of the SiV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Dual-rail scheme of the photonic quantum memristor, where the input state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Experimental and simulation results of a single photonic quantum memristor with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Schematic representation of the coupled photonic memristors with crossed feed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulations of the form factor F of the intra- and inter-memristor hysteresis curves of two coupled photonic quantum memristors with crossed feedbacks as a function of the relative phase Φ between their inputs and the ratio T /Tosc between the buffer length of the memr…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulations results revealing the presence (yellow regions) of a self-intesecting hys [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A simplified image of the setup. The PL and correlation measurements were made at UTT using a 633 nm Helium Neon laser to excite the SiV− through a 100X air objective with numerical aperture of 0.95 for optimal collection of the emitted photons. The laser is first dire…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The basic principle behind triangulation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The layout of the circuit implementing single memristor and two coupled memristors. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Experimental photonic quantum memristor

    M. Spagnolo, J. Morris, S. Piacentini, M. Antesberger, F. Massa, A. Crespi, F. Ceccarelli, R. Osellame, and P. Walther. “Experimental photonic quantum memristor”. In:Nature Photonics16.4 (2022), pp. 318–323

    2022

  2. [1]

    Deep learning

    Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton. “Deep learning”. In:nature521.7553 (2015), pp. 436– 444

    2015

  3. [2]

    Deep learning for time series classification: a review

    H. Ismail Fawaz, G. Forestier, J. Weber, L. Idoumghar, and P.-A. Muller. “Deep learning for time series classification: a review”. In:Data mining and knowledge discovery33.4 (2019), pp. 917–963

    2019

  4. [3]

    Deep learning in robotics: a review of recent research

    H. A. Pierson and M. S. Gashler. “Deep learning in robotics: a review of recent research”. In:Advanced Robotics31.16 (2017), pp. 821–835

    2017

  5. [4]

    Quantum advantage in learning from experiments

    H.-Y. Huang, M. Broughton, J. Cotler, S. Chen, J. Li, M. Mohseni, H. Neven, R. Bab- bush, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, et al. “Quantum advantage in learning from experiments”. In: Science376.6598 (2022), pp. 1182–1186

    2022

  6. [5]

    Experimental Machine Learning of Quantum States

    J. Gao, L.-F. Qiao, Z.-Q. Jiao, Y.-C. Ma, C.-Q. Hu, R.-J. Ren, A.-L. Yang, H. Tang, M.-H. Yung, and X.-M. Jin. “Experimental Machine Learning of Quantum States”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett.120 (24 2018), p. 240501.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.240501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.240501 2018

  7. [6]

    Machine learning and the physical sciences

    G. Carleo, I. Cirac, K. Cranmer, L. Daudet, M. Schuld, N. Tishby, L. Vogt-Maranto, and L. Zdeborov´ a. “Machine learning and the physical sciences”. In:Reviews of Modern Physics91.4 (2019), p. 045002

    2019

  8. [7]

    Quantum machine learning

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd. “Quantum machine learning”. In:Nature549.7671 (2017), pp. 195–202

    2017

Show all 69 references
  1. [8]

    Efficient learning for linear properties of bounded-gate quantum circuits

    Y. Du, M.-H. Hsieh, and D. Tao. “Efficient learning for linear properties of bounded-gate quantum circuits”. In:Nature Communications16.1 (2025), p. 3790

    2025

  2. [9]

    Parameterized quantum comb and simpler circuits for reversing unknown qubit-unitary operations

    Y. Mo, L. Zhang, Y.-A. Chen, Y. Liu, T. Lin, and X. Wang. “Parameterized quantum comb and simpler circuits for reversing unknown qubit-unitary operations”. In:npj Quantum Information11.1 (2025), p. 32

    2025

  3. [10]

    Shadows of quantum machine learning

    S. Jerbi, C. Gyurik, S. C. Marshall, R. Molteni, and V. Dunjko. “Shadows of quantum machine learning”. In:Nature Communications15.1 (2024), p. 5676

    2024

  4. [11]

    Experimental quantum speed-up in rein- forcement learning agents

    V. Saggio, B. E. Asenbeck, A. Hamann, T. Str¨ omberg, P. Schiansky, V. Dunjko, N. Friis, N. C. Harris, M. Hochberg, D. Englund, et al. “Experimental quantum speed-up in rein- forcement learning agents”. In:Nature591.7849 (2021), pp. 229–233

    2021

  5. [12]

    A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn. “A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics”. In:nature409.6816 (2001), pp. 46–52

    2001

  6. [13]

    Measurement-induced nonlinearity in linear optics

    S. Scheel, K. Nemoto, W. J. Munro, and P. L. Knight. “Measurement-induced nonlinearity in linear optics”. In:Physical Review A68.3 (2003), p. 032310

    2003

  7. [14]

    Nonlinear coupling of nanomechanical resonators to Josephson quantum circuits

    X. Zhou and A. Mizel. “Nonlinear coupling of nanomechanical resonators to Josephson quantum circuits”. In:Physical review letters97.26 (2006), p. 267201

    2006

  8. [15]

    A photon–photon quantum gate based on a single atom in an optical resonator

    B. Hacker, S. Welte, G. Rempe, and S. Ritter. “A photon–photon quantum gate based on a single atom in an optical resonator”. In:Nature536.7615 (2016), pp. 193–196

    2016

  9. [16]

    Single-photon non-linear optics with a quantum dot in a waveguide

    A. Javadi, I S¨ ollner, M. Arcari, S. L. Hansen, L. Midolo, S. Mahmoodian, G Kirˇ sansk˙ e, T. Pregnolato, E. Lee, J. Song, et al. “Single-photon non-linear optics with a quantum dot in a waveguide”. In:Nature communications6.1 (2015), p. 8655

    2015

  10. [17]

    Controlled-Phase Gate Using Dynamically Coupled Cavities and Optical Nonlinearities

    M. Heuck, K. Jacobs, and D. R. Englund. “Controlled-Phase Gate Using Dynamically Coupled Cavities and Optical Nonlinearities”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.124 (16 2020), p. 160501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.160501

    2020 doi

  11. [18]

    Memristor – The Missing Circuit Element

    L. O. Chua. “Memristor – The Missing Circuit Element”. In:IEEE Transactions on Circuit Theory18.5 (1971), pp. 507–519.doi:10.1109/TCT.1971.1083337. 20

    1971

  12. [19]

    Di Ventra and Y

    M. Di Ventra and Y. V. Pershin.Memristors and Memelements. Springer, 2023.url: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-25625-7

    2023 doi

  13. [20]

    Opto-electronic memristors: Prospects and challenges in neuromorphic computing

    A. Emboras, A. Alabastri, P. Lehmann, K. Portner, C. Weilenmann, P. Ma, B. Cheng, M. Lewerenz, E. Passerini, U. Koch, J. Aeschlimann, F. Ducry, J. Leuthold, and M. Luisier. “Opto-electronic memristors: Prospects and challenges in neuromorphic computing”. In: Applied Physics Le...

    2020 doi

  14. [21]

    Dynamical memristors for higher-complexity neuromorphic computing

    S. Kumar, X. Wang, J. P. Strachan, Y. Yang, and W. D. Lui. “Dynamical memristors for higher-complexity neuromorphic computing”. In:Nature Reviews Materials7.7 (2022), pp. 575–591

    2022

  15. [22]

    Quantum memristors

    P. Pfeiffer, I. L. Egusquiza, M. Di Ventra, M. Sanz, and E. Solano. “Quantum memristors”. en. In:Scientific Reports6.1 (2016), p. 29507.issn: 2045-2322.doi:10.1038/srep29507

    2016 doi

  16. [23]

    Quantum Memristors with Superconducting Circuits

    J. Salmilehto, F. Deppe, M. Di Ventra, M. Sanz, and E. Solano. “Quantum Memristors with Superconducting Circuits”. en. In:Scientific Reports7.1 (2017), p. 42044.issn: 2045- 2322.doi:10.1038/srep42044

    2017 doi

  17. [24]

    Model of Cou- pled Quantum Memristors Based on a Single Trapped 171Yb+ Ion

    S. Y. Stremoukhov, P. A. Forsh, K. Y. Khabarova, and N. N. Kolachevsky. “Model of Cou- pled Quantum Memristors Based on a Single Trapped 171Yb+ Ion”. en. In:JETP Letters 119.5 (2024), pp. 352–356.issn: 0021-3640, 1090-6487.doi:10.1134/S0021364024600381

    2024 doi

  18. [25]

    Double quantum dot memristor

    Y. Li, G. W. Holloway, S. C. Benjamin, G. A. D. Briggs, J. Baugh, and J. A. Mol. “Double quantum dot memristor”. en. In:Physical Review B96.7 (2017), p. 075446.issn: 2469- 9950, 2469-9969.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.96.075446

    2017 doi

  19. [26]

    Very-large-scale integrated quantum graph photonics

    J. Bao, Z. Fu, T. Pramanik, J. Mao, Y. Chi, Y. Cao, C. Zhai, Y. Mao, T. Dai, X. Chen, et al. “Very-large-scale integrated quantum graph photonics”. In:Nature Photonics17.7 (2023), pp. 573–581

    2023

  20. [27]

    Status and potential of lithium niobate on insulator (LNOI) for photonic integrated circuits

    A. Boes, B. Corcoran, L. Chang, J. Bowers, and A. Mitchell. “Status and potential of lithium niobate on insulator (LNOI) for photonic integrated circuits”. In:Laser & Pho- tonics Reviews12.4 (2018), p. 1700256

    2018

  21. [28]

    Photonic quantum information processing: A concise review

    S. Slussarenko and G. J. Pryde. “Photonic quantum information processing: A concise review”. In:Applied physics reviews6.4 (2019)

    2019

  22. [29]

    Hybrid integration methods for on-chip quantum photonics

    J.-H. Kim, S. Aghaeimeibodi, J. Carolan, D. Englund, and E. Waks. “Hybrid integration methods for on-chip quantum photonics”. In:Optica7.4 (2020), pp. 291–308

    2020

  23. [30]

    Quantum advantage with membosonsampling

    J. Gao, X.-W. Wang, W.-H. Zhou, Z.-Q. Jiao, R.-J. Ren, Y.-X. Fu, L.-F. Qiao, X.-Y. Xu, C.-N. Zhang, X.-L. Pang, H. Li, Y. Wang, and X.-M. Jin. “Quantum advantage with membosonsampling”. In:Chip1.2 (2022), p. 100007.issn: 2709-4723.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.chip.2022.100007

    2022

  24. [31]

    Measurement-induced photonic topological insulators

    Q. Liu, W. Liu, Y. Jia, K. Ziegler, A. Al` u, and F. Chen. “Measurement-induced photonic topological insulators”. In:Science Advances11.29 (2025), eadx0595

    2025

  25. [32]

    Quantum memristors in quantum photonics

    M. Sanz, L. Lamata, and E. Solano. “Quantum memristors in quantum photonics”. en. In:APL Photonics3.8 (2018), p. 080801.issn: 2378-0967.doi:10.1063/1.5036596

    2018 doi

  26. [33]

    S. D. Micco, B. Polacchi, T. Giordani, and F. Sciarrino.Quantum memristor with vacuum– one-photon qubits. arXiv:2503.02466 [quant-ph]. 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Broadband mid- infrared frequency comb generation in a Si3N4 microresonator

    K. Luke, Y. Okawachi, M. R. Lamont, A. L. Gaeta, and M. Lipson. “Broadband mid- infrared frequency comb generation in a Si3N4 microresonator”. In:Optics letters40.21 (2015), pp. 4823–4826. 21

    2015

  28. [36]

    Integrated lithium niobate electro-optic modulators operating at CMOS-compatible voltages

    C. Wang, M. Zhang, X. Chen, M. Bertrand, A. Shams-Ansari, S. Chandrasekhar, P. Winzer, and M. Lonˇ car. “Integrated lithium niobate electro-optic modulators operating at CMOS-compatible voltages”. In:Nature562.7725 (2018), pp. 101–104

    2018

  29. [37]

    High-performance hybrid silicon and lithium niobate Mach–Zehnder modulators for 100 Gbit s- 1 and beyond

    M. He, M. Xu, Y. Ren, J. Jian, Z. Ruan, Y. Xu, S. Gao, S. Sun, X. Wen, L. Zhou, et al. “High-performance hybrid silicon and lithium niobate Mach–Zehnder modulators for 100 Gbit s- 1 and beyond”. In:Nature photonics13.5 (2019), pp. 359–364

    2019

  30. [38]

    Coupling of single nanodiamonds hosting SiV color centers to plasmonic double bowtie microantennas

    S. Lindner, N. Rahbany, C. Pauly, L. Gines, S. Mandal, O. A. Williams, A. Muzha, A. Krueger, R. Bachelot, C. Couteau, et al. “Coupling of single nanodiamonds hosting SiV color centers to plasmonic double bowtie microantennas”. In:Nanotechnology36.13 (2025), p. 135001

    2025

  31. [39]

    Quantum photonic circuits integrated with color centers in designer nanodiamonds

    K. Ngan, Y. Zhan, C. Dory, J. Vˇ ckovi´ c, and S. Sun. “Quantum photonic circuits integrated with color centers in designer nanodiamonds”. In:Nano Letters23.20 (2023), pp. 9360– 9366

    2023

  32. [40]

    Purcell-enhanced emission from individ- ual SiV- center in nanodiamonds coupled to a Si3N4-based, photonic crystal cavity

    K. G. Fehler, A. P. Ovvyan, L. Antoniuk, N. Lettner, N. Gruhler, V. A. Davydov, V. N. Agafonov, W. H. Pernice, and A. Kubanek. “Purcell-enhanced emission from individ- ual SiV- center in nanodiamonds coupled to a Si3N4-based, photonic crystal cavity”. In: Nanophotonics9.11 (20...

    2020

  33. [41]

    Quantum memory based on SiV-centers in nanodiamonds

    A. Berezhnoi, A. Zakirov, and A. Kalachev. “Quantum memory based on SiV-centers in nanodiamonds”. In:Laser Physics Letters19.12 (2022), p. 125206

    2022

  34. [42]

    Coherent control of the silicon-vacancy spin in diamond

    B. Pingault, D.-D. Jarausch, C. Hepp, L. Klintberg, J. N. Becker, M. Markham, C. Becher, and M. Atat¨ ure. “Coherent control of the silicon-vacancy spin in diamond”. In:Nature communications8.1 (2017), p. 15579

    2017

  35. [43]

    Silicon-vacancy spin qubit in diamond: a quantum memory exceeding 10 ms with single-shot state readout

    D. D. Sukachev, A. Sipahigil, C. T. Nguyen, M. K. Bhaskar, R. E. Evans, F. Jelezko, and M. D. Lukin. “Silicon-vacancy spin qubit in diamond: a quantum memory exceeding 10 ms with single-shot state readout”. In:Physical review letters119.22 (2017), p. 223602

    2017

  36. [44]

    Quantum network nodes based on diamond qubits with an efficient nanophotonic interface

    C. Nguyen, D. Sukachev, M. Bhaskar, B. Machielse, D. Levonian, E. Knall, P. Stroganov, R. Riedinger, H. Park, M Lonˇ car, et al. “Quantum network nodes based on diamond qubits with an efficient nanophotonic interface”. In:Physical review letters123.18 (2019), p. 183602

    2019

  37. [45]

    Entangled quantum memristors

    S. Kumar, F. A. C´ ardenas-L´ opez, N. N. Hegade, X. Chen, F. Albarr´ an-Arriagada, E. Solano, and G. Alvarado Barrios. “Entangled quantum memristors”. en. In:Physical Re- view A104.6 (2021), p. 062605.issn: 2469-9926, 2469-9934.doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.104. 062605

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    Tripartite Entanglement in Quantum Memristors

    S. Kumar, F. C´ ardenas-L´ opez, N. Hegade, F. Albarr´ an-Arriagada, E. Solano, and G. A. Barrios. “Tripartite Entanglement in Quantum Memristors”. en. In:Physical Review Ap- plied18.3 (2022), p. 034004.issn: 2331-7019.doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.18.034004

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    Entanglement and coherence dynamics in photonic quantum memristors

    A. Ferrara and R. Lo Franco. “Entanglement and coherence dynamics in photonic quantum memristors”. en. In:Physical Review A111.1 (2025), p. 012421.issn: 2469-9926, 2469-9934. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.111.012421

    2025 doi

  40. [48]

    Selimovi´ c, I

    M. Selimovi´ c, I. Agresti, M. Siemaszko, J. Morris, B. Daki´ c, R. Albiero, A. Crespi, F. Cec- carelli, R. Osellame, M. Stobi´ nska, and P. Walther.Experimental neuromorphic computing based on quantum memristor. arXiv:2504.18694 [quant-ph]. 2025

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Quantum optical reservoir com- puting powered by boson sampling

    A. Sakurai, A. Hayashi, W. J. Munro, and K. Nemoto. “Quantum optical reservoir com- puting powered by boson sampling”. In:Optica Quantum3.3 (2025), pp. 238–245

    2025

  42. [50]

    Quantum optical neural networks

    G. R. Steinbrecher, J. P. Olson, D. Englund, and J. Carolan. “Quantum optical neural networks”. In:npj Quantum Information5.1 (2019), p. 60. 22

    2019

  43. [51]

    Color centers in diamond for quantum applications

    G. Thiering and A. Gali. “Color centers in diamond for quantum applications”. In:An- nual Review of Condensed Matter Physics11 (2020), pp. 1–27.doi:10.1146/annurev- conmatphys-031218-013615

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    The nitrogen-vacancy colour centre in diamond

    M. W. Doherty, N. B. Manson, P. Delaney, F. Jelezko, J. Wrachtrup, and L. C. L. Hollen- berg. “The nitrogen-vacancy colour centre in diamond”. In:Physics Reports528.1 (2013), pp. 1–45.doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2013.02.001

    2013 doi

  45. [53]

    Creation of silicon-vacancy color centers in diamond by ion implantation

    S Lagomarsino, A. Flatae, H Kambalathmana, F Sledz, L Hunold, N Soltani, P Reuschel, S Sciortino, N Gelli, M Massi, et al. “Creation of silicon-vacancy color centers in diamond by ion implantation”. In:Frontiers in Physics8 (2021), p. 601362

    2021

  46. [54]

    Quantum nanopho- tonics with group IV defects in diamond

    C. Bradac, W. Gao, J. Forneris, M. E. Trusheim, and I. Aharonovich. “Quantum nanopho- tonics with group IV defects in diamond”. In:Nature communications10.1 (2019), p. 5625

    2019

  47. [55]

    Creation of Silicon-Vacancy Color Centers in Diamond

    S. Lagomarsino, V. Agafonov, M. Cialone, P. Olivero, et al. “Creation of Silicon-Vacancy Color Centers in Diamond”. In:Frontiers in Physics8 (2021), p. 601362.doi:10.3389/ fphy.2020.601362

    2021

  48. [56]

    Strongly inhomogeneous distribution of spectral properties of silicon-vacancy centers in nanodiamonds

    S. Lindner, F. Dortat, S. Gsell, S. Greulich-Weber, and E. Neu. “Strongly inhomogeneous distribution of spectral properties of silicon-vacancy centers in nanodiamonds”. In:Physical Review B98.7 (2018), p. 075302.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.98.075302

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    Memristive devices and systems

    L. Chua and S. M. Kang. “Memristive devices and systems”. In:Proceedings of the IEEE 64.2 (1976), pp. 209–223.doi:10.1109/PROC.1976.10092

    1976

  50. [58]

    The missing memristor found

    D. B. Strukov, G. S. Snider, D. R. Stewart, and R. S. Williams. “The missing memristor found”. In:Nature453.7191 (2008), pp. 80–83.doi:10.1038/nature06932

    2008 doi

  51. [59]

    Circuit Elements With Memory: Mem- ristors, Memcapacitors, and Meminductors

    M. Di Ventra, Y. V. Pershin, and L. O. Chua. “Circuit Elements With Memory: Mem- ristors, Memcapacitors, and Meminductors”. In:Proceedings of the IEEE97.10 (2009), pp. 1717–1724.doi:10.1109/JPROC.2009.2021077

    2009

  52. [60]

    Optical multi-mode interference devices based on self-imaging: principles and applications

    L. Soldano and E. C. M. Pennings. “Optical multi-mode interference devices based on self-imaging: principles and applications”. In:Journal of Lightwave Technology13 (1995), pp. 615–627

    1995

  53. [61]

    Efficient, compact and low loss thermo-optic phase shifter in silicon

    N. C. Harris, Y. Ma, J. Mower, T. Baehr-Jones, D. Englund, M. Hochberg, and C. Galland. “Efficient, compact and low loss thermo-optic phase shifter in silicon”. In:Opt. Express 22.9 (2014), pp. 10487–10493.doi:10.1364/OE.22.010487

    2014 doi

  54. [62]

    A linear photonic swap test circuit for quantum kernel estimation

    A. Baldazzi, N. Leone, M. Sanna, S. Azzini, and L. Pavesi. “A linear photonic swap test circuit for quantum kernel estimation”. In:Quantum Science and Technology9.4 (2024), p. 045053

    2024

  55. [63]

    One Strategy for Nanoparticle Assembly onto 1D, 2D, and 3D Polymer Micro and Nanostructures

    A. Issa, I. Izquierdo, M. Merheb, D. Ge, A. Broussier, N. Ghabri, S. Marguet, C. Couteau, R. Bachelot, and S. Jradi. “One Strategy for Nanoparticle Assembly onto 1D, 2D, and 3D Polymer Micro and Nanostructures”. In:ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces13.35 (2021), pp. 41846–4185...

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    Quantum Dot-Polymer Ar- chitectures by Two-Photon Polymerization: From 4D Microfabrication to Quantum Light Sources

    T. Ritacco, A. Issa, R. Beccherelli, S. Jradi, and R. Bachelot. “Quantum Dot-Polymer Ar- chitectures by Two-Photon Polymerization: From 4D Microfabrication to Quantum Light Sources”. In:Advanced Optical Materials13.29 (2025), e03288.doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1002/adom.202403288

    2025 doi

  57. [65]

    Photonic Indistinguishability of the Tin-Vacancy Center in Nanostructured Diamond

    J. Arjona Mart ´ ınez, R. A. Parker, K. C. Chen, C. M. Purser, L. Li, C. P. Michaels, A. M. Stramma, R. Debroux, I. B. Harris, M. Hayhurst Appel, E. C. Nichols, M. E. Trusheim, D. A. Gangloff, D. Englund, and M. Atat¨ ure. “Photonic Indistinguishability of the Tin-Vacancy Cent...

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    Near-optimal single- photon sources in the solid state

    N. Somaschi, V. Giesz, L. De Santis, J. C. Loredo, M. P. Almeida, G. Hornecker, S. L. Portalupi, T. Grange, C. Ant´ on, J. Demory, C. G´ omez, I. Sagnes, N. D. Lanzillotti-Kimura, A. Lema ´ ıtre, A. Auffeves, A. G. White, L. Lanco, and P. Senellart. “Near-optimal single- photo...

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    Low Power Reconfigurability and Reduced Crosstalk in Integrated Photonic Circuits Fabricated by Femtosecond Laser Micromachining

    F. Ceccarelli, S. Atzeni, C. Pentangelo, F. Pellegatta, A. Crespi, and R. Osellame. “Low Power Reconfigurability and Reduced Crosstalk in Integrated Photonic Circuits Fabricated by Femtosecond Laser Micromachining”. In:Photonics Reviews14.10 (Aug. 2020).issn: 1863-8899.doi:10....

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    Experimental realization of any discrete unitary operator

    M. Reck, A. Zeilinger, H. J. Bernstein, and P. Bertani. “Experimental realization of any discrete unitary operator”. In:Physical Review Letters73.1 (1994), pp. 58–61.doi:10. 1103/PhysRevLett.73.58

    1994

  61. [69]

    Optimal design for universal multiport interferometers

    W. R. Clements, P. C. Humphreys, B. J. Metcalf, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walmsley. “Optimal design for universal multiport interferometers”. In:Optica3.12 (2016), pp. 1460– 1465.issn: 2334-2536.doi:10.1364/OPTICA.3.001460. 24

    2016 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.