Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 66 references

A single erbium-doped microring on thin-film lithium niobate stores telecom photons with 23% on-chip efficiency for 100 ns, routes them by fast electrical control, and preserves their time-energy entanglement.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review

2026-08-02 14:01 UTC pith:7PMT3HVU

load-bearing objection Strong integrated erbium-TFLN memory; measured efficiency and entanglement witness hold up, but the impedance-matching model relies on a cavity-loss decomposition with a real Q discrepancy. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2605.14777 v2 pith:7PMT3HVU submitted 2026-05-14 quant-ph physics.optics

Programmable cavity-enhanced telecom quantum memory in thin-film lithium niobate

Chengdong Yang , Hanwen Guo , Yu-Yang An , Qian He , Chi Lu , Ziheng Jiang , Yan-Qing Lu , Shining Zhu
show 1 more author
Xiao-Song Ma
This is my paper
classification quant-ph physics.optics
keywords quantum memoryatomic frequency comberbiumthin-film lithium niobatetelecom bandcavity impedance matchingelectro-optic tuningtime-energy entanglement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper reports a single integrated device—an erbium-doped thin-film lithium niobate microring—that combines three functions previously split across separate experiments: efficient storage of telecom photons (23.3% on-chip efficiency for 100 ns), fast electrical frequency selection and routing (up to 20 MHz with crosstalk below 10^-4), and preservation of time-energy entanglement during storage. The authors show that cavity impedance matching between the microring and the erbium ensemble boosts storage efficiency, while the material's electro-optic response allows the cavity resonance to be tuned electrically at high speed. This establishes erbium-doped TFLN as a practical programmable light–matter interface for spectrally multiplexed quantum networks. The demonstration uses a short 100-ns delay, and the authors state that longer storage is the next key challenge.

Core claim

The central claim is that a 167Er3+-doped thin-film lithium niobate microring can serve as a programmable telecom quantum memory. By preparing a persistent atomic frequency comb using hyperfine shelving states (comb lifetime 277.6 s) and matching the cavity's external coupling to the ion ensemble loss, the device stores photons with 23.3±0.5% on-chip efficiency for 100 ns. Using the Pockels effect, the cavity resonance is shifted electro-optically, enabling frequency-selective storage and routing at rates up to 20 MHz with inter-channel crosstalk below 10^-4. The memory also stores time-energy-entangled telecom photons, violating an entanglement witness by more than 11 standard deviations, c

What carries the argument

The device is a racetrack microring resonator in isotopically purified 167Er3+-doped thin-film lithium niobate, coupled to a bus waveguide. Three mechanisms carry the argument: (1) atomic frequency comb (AFC) storage, where a periodic absorption spectrum is burned into the inhomogeneously broadened erbium transition and re-emits the photon after a fixed delay; (2) cavity impedance matching, where the external coupling rate balances the sum of intrinsic loss and ion absorption to maximize retrieval; and (3) the electro-optic (Pockels) effect, which tunes the cavity resonance by applied voltage. The AFC provides the storage protocol, the cavity provides the efficiency enhancement, and the elec

Load-bearing premise

The reported 23.3% efficiency and the extracted ion-cavity cooperativity assume that at the highest probe power the erbium ions are completely saturated, so the measured high-power cavity loss is purely the ion-free loss; any residual ion absorption at that reference power would shift all derived efficiencies.

What would settle it

Measure the storage efficiency under a second, independently calibrated cavity coupling condition (e.g., a device with a different bus-ring gap) and compare with the prediction of Eq. (1) using the extracted κ_ions = 1778 MHz and κ_loss = 119 MHz; a systematic disagreement would indicate that the loss decomposition is wrong. Alternatively, a power-dependent transmission curve that does not asymptotically flatten at high power would show that saturation is incomplete.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Spectrally multiplexed quantum networks become feasible with a single chip that stores many frequency channels and routes them electrically.
  • The memory can lock onto fixed-frequency sources (such as the entangled photon source used here) by electro-optic tuning, removing the need for slow thermal or mechanical stabilization.
  • Temporal multiplexing of up to 18 modes within 200 ns is demonstrated on the same device, increasing the effective rate of a quantum repeater node.
  • With reduced propagation losses and deeper hole burning, the authors project storage efficiencies exceeding 70%.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the impedance-matching model survives independent checks, the same design recipe (isotopically purified rare-earth doping + TFLN microring + electrodes) could be applied to other rare-earth ions to build memories at different wavelengths.
  • The high-speed cavity tuning demonstrated here suggests a new control primitive: shifting the cavity frequency mid-storage without disturbing the ion coherence could be used for on-demand release or spectral shaping, beyond simple routing.
  • A direct test of the saturation assumption—measuring storage efficiency while varying the cavity coupling strength—would sharpen the confidence in the reported efficiency numbers.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an integrated quantum memory in isotopically purified 167Er3+-doped thin-film lithium niobate (TFLN) microring resonators. The authors demonstrate cavity-enhanced atomic frequency comb (AFC) storage with a measured on-chip efficiency of 23.3±0.5% for a 100-ns delay, a persistent AFC lifetime of 277.6±52.6 s, electro-optic frequency-selective routing with crosstalk below 10^-4 at modulation rates up to 20 MHz, and storage/retrieval of time-energy-entangled telecom photons, with an entanglement witness violated by more than 11 standard deviations. The central physical picture is that the cavity is impedance-matched via the erbium ensemble absorption, and the storage efficiency is described by Eq. (1), which combines the cavity coupling ratio, cooperativity, comb finesse, and spectral preparation efficiency. The measured efficiency is quoted as matching the model prediction of 24.6% when independently measured parameters are inserted.

Significance. If correct, this work would be a significant advance: it integrates efficient cavity-enhanced quantum storage in the telecom band with fast on-chip electro-optic programming in a single monolithic TFLN platform, addressing a long-standing gap for spectrally multiplexed quantum networks. The direct measurements—23.3% on-chip efficiency, sub-10^-4 crosstalk routing, and entanglement preservation without background subtraction—are impressive and important. The internal cross-check of Eq. (1) using independently measured cavity parameters (κ_ext, κ_loss, κ_ions, η_spectral) strengthens the central efficiency claim. The demonstration of entanglement storage with a raw-data witness violation is a notable strength. However, the quantitative interpretation of the efficiency rests on a Fano-fit decomposition of cavity losses whose internal consistency is not fully established (see major comments).

major comments (2)
  1. [Device Design, Fig. 1D/F and Eq. (1)] The ion-free cavity loss rate is stated to be determined from Fig. 1D with Q_loaded = 1.78×10^5, while the power sweep of the same resonance in Fig. 1F asymptotes to Q_loaded ≈ 1.5×10^5 at the highest input power. This 16% discrepancy is not explained. If the high-power data represent the true ion-saturated limit, then κ_total = κ_ext + κ_loss ≈ 2π×1.30 GHz instead of 2π×1.11 GHz, and the deduced κ_ions becomes ≈2π×1.57 GHz rather than 2π×1.78 GHz. Recomputing Eq. (1) with these values yields an efficiency of roughly 13%, not the 24.6% quoted as the model prediction. The paper must clarify the measurement conditions of Fig. 1D (e.g., whether it was taken at a wavelength outside the inhomogeneous absorption profile, after optical pumping, or at a different probe power), and provide a power-dependent model consistent with both the Q and extinction-ratio data across the full range.
  2. [Quantum Storage, Eq. (1) and Fig. 2C] The theoretical curve in Fig. 2C is said to assume η_spectral = 0.95 and the cavity parameters extracted from Fano fits, but the manuscript does not report the Fano fit parameters, the complex-coupling phase, the uncertainties in κ_ext, κ_loss, and κ_ions, or the sensitivity of the predicted efficiency to these values. Without this information, the claimed agreement between the measured 23.3±0.5% and the model cannot be independently verified. Please provide the full fitting details, a sensitivity analysis (e.g., the predicted efficiency as a function of κ_ions/κ_total within its confidence interval), and explicitly state whether η_spectral or any other parameter was adjusted to match the data. This is load-bearing because the impedance-matching narrative and the quantitative model tie the measured efficiency to the cavity parameters.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and body] The AFC lifetime is given as '277.6(52.6) s' in the abstract but '277.6±52.6 s' in the body; please use a consistent uncertainty notation.
  2. [Eq. (1)] The displayed equation is not cleanly typeset; the bracket structure is ambiguous. Please format it properly with clear parentheses and ensure it matches the standard Afzelius–Simon form.
  3. [Fig. 2C caption] The caption lists 'theoretical efficiency curve (blue solid line), coupling parameter K (green dashed line), and effective cooperativity C′' but does not specify which curve corresponds to which axis or provide a legend in the main text. Please label the curves or add a legend.
  4. [High-speed routing section] The statement 'It is intriguing that the coherence of the erbium ensemble remains unperturbed during the reconfiguration of cavity resonances' is an interpretation; please either provide a control measurement comparing echo efficiency with a static cavity or rephrase it as 'the retrieved echo indicates that the stored coherence survives the cavity reconfiguration'.
  5. [Methods/on-chip efficiency definition] The term 'on-chip efficiency' is used without a formal definition in the main text. Please state explicitly how the off-resonance input reference is defined and how coupling losses are excluded.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the 23.3% efficiency is a directly measured result cross-checked against external cavity-AFC theory with in-situ parameters, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The loaded-Q/Fano parameters (κ_ext/2π = 991 MHz, κ_loss/2π = 119 MHz, κ_ions/2π = 1778 MHz) are measured in-situ from power-dependent transmission (Device Design, Fig. 1E,F): 'By comparing the total loss rate at the lowest input power, (κ_ext + κ_loss + κ_ions)/2π, with the ion-free cavity loss rate, (κ_ext + κ_loss)/2π (determined from Fig. 1D), we deduce the additional loss introduced by the erbium ensemble to be about κ_ions/2π = 1778 MHz.' These values, together with η_spectral ≈ 0.95 from the AFC transmission profile (Fig. 2B), enter the independent cavity-AFC efficiency formula Eq. (1) (refs 41/42/57); the directly measured 23.3±0.5% (Fig. 2D) is then compared with that curve, not used to set the parameters. The AFC lifetime, temporal-mode counts, EO-routing crosstalk, and Franson visibilities are raw observables. Self-citations [24,25] provide the photon-pair source and the witness expression ⟨W⟩ = 1/(g^(2)_si(0)+2) − V/2, but this is a parameter-free separable-state inequality and the 11σ violation is computed from raw coincidence data, so no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation. The skeptical note about the ion-free reference (Q = 1.78×10^5 in Fig. 1D versus Q ≈ 1.5×10^5 at the highest power in Fig. 1F) is a legitimate modeling-consistency concern about the Fano decomposition and the inferred cooperativity, but it does not make the efficiency claim an input to the theory; it is a correctness/robustness question, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

Everything the headline numbers need: the AFC rephasing formula and cavity-AFC efficiency equation (Eq. 1) come from external, peer-reviewed theory (refs 14, 41, 42) with parameters measured in-situ (κ_ext = 991 MHz, κ_loss = 119 MHz, κ_ions = 1778 MHz, η_spectral ≈ 0.95, T2 = 93 µs) — no fit to the target efficiency. The entanglement witness (W = 1/(g^(2)(0)+2) − V/2) is the authors' own prior formula (ref 24), applied to raw data against the independent separable bound W ≥ 0. No new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are postulated. Experimental controls (B = 1.855 T, FM = 2 MHz, electrode voltages) are disclosed and motivated, though the superhyperfine side-hole placement rationale is only in S7. The least-externally-checked ingredients are (i) the validity of the witness for this source's noise model and (ii) the single-cooperativity uniform-coupling assumption for the ensemble in the ring.

free parameters (5)
  • DC magnetic field B = 1.855 T
    Optimized so 93Nb/7Li superhyperfine side-holes fall in AFC troughs rather than on teeth ('the optimal field is 1.855 T'); a disclosed experimental setting, not a hidden constant.
  • AFC tooth-width frequency-modulation amplitude FM = 2 MHz (100-ns storage)
    Sets tooth width and comb finesse F ≈ 4.86; tuned to maximize efficiency along the Fig. 2C model curve.
  • Electro-optic channel voltages V1, V2 (drive) = ±0.8 V square wave
    Define the two routing frequency channels f1, f2 via 1.11 GHz/V tuning; an experimental control setting.
  • AFC comb spacing Δ = 10 MHz
    Determined by the 100-ns target storage time via the standard AFC echo relation (echo time = 1/Δ); not ad hoc, but the storage time itself is a chosen demonstration target.
  • T_AFC decay parameters = τ = 277.6 ± 52.6 s (single exponential)
    Fitted decay constant of hole depth vs wait time (Fig. 2A); a measured material property feeding the 'persistent comb' claim, but fit over less than one lifetime of data.
axioms (5)
  • standard math AFC rephasing model: echo efficiency η_d = exp(−π²/(2 ln 2·F²)) and the comb-finesse relation
    Invoked in Eq. (1); established in Afzelius et al., PRA 79, 052329 (2009) (ref 14).
  • domain assumption Cavity-enhanced AFC efficiency formula (Eq. 1) and impedance-matching condition: the ensemble acts as a homogeneously coupled collective absorber described by a single cooperativity C = κ_ions/κ_total
    From Afzelius & Simon, PRA 82, 022310 (2010) and Moiseev et al., PRA 82, 022311 (2010) (refs 41/42); assumes uniform ion–mode coupling across the ring.
  • domain assumption Superhyperfine side-hole model: 93Nb and 7Li host nuclei produce field-dependent side-holes at ~20 and ~30 MHz from the central hole at 1.855 T
    Used to place side-holes in troughs rather than on comb teeth; detail deferred to S7, not in main text.
  • domain assumption Entanglement witness bound W ≥ 0 for separable states, with W = 1/(g^(2)(0)+2) − V/2, and the Franson-interferometer visibility definition
    Formula and bound taken from the authors' own peer-reviewed prior work (ref 24, Jiang et al., Nat. Commun. 14, 6995 (2023)); applied to raw data without background subtraction.
  • domain assumption Hahn-echo T2 = 93.0 ± 4.8 µs measured after oxygen anneal characterizes the optical coherence of the ions participating in AFC storage
    Coherence measured at a probe configuration (S6) is assumed to apply during the 100-ns AFC echo; since T2 ≫ 100 ns, the assumption is mild.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Programmable cavity-enhanced telecom quantum memory in thin-film lithium niobate." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7PMT3HVU

@misc{pith2026260514777,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Programmable cavity-enhanced telecom quantum memory in thin-film lithium niobate},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7PMT3HVU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.14777}
}
Share X LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Spectrally multiplexed telecom quantum networks require quantum memories combining efficient storage with programmable frequency addressing. An integrated implementation should therefore unite a native telecom transition, efficient storage, and fast on-chip spectral control. Here we demonstrate a cavity-enhanced memory in an isotopically purified $^{167}\mathrm{Er}^{3+}$-doped thin-film lithium niobate microring. Long-lived hyperfine shelving states enable persistent, high-contrast atomic frequency comb preparation with a single-component lifetime of $277.6(52.6)$~s, while cavity impedance matching yields $23.3(5)\%$ on-chip efficiency for 100-ns storage. The intrinsic electro-optic response enables frequency-selective storage and routing at rates up to 20~MHz. We further store and retrieve time-energy-entangled telecom photons, violating an entanglement-witness bound by more than 11 standard deviations. Our results establish erbium-doped thin-film lithium niobate as a programmable light--matter interface for spectrally multiplexed quantum networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.14777 by Chengdong Yang, Chi Lu, Hanwen Guo, Qian He, Shining Zhu, Xiao-song Ma, Yan-qing Lu, Yu-Yang An, Ziheng Jiang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Briegel, W

    H.-J. Briegel, W. Dür, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Physical Review Letters81, 5932 (1998)

    1998

  2. [2]

    L.-M. Duan, M. D. Lukin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Na- ture414, 413 (2001)

    2001

  3. [3]

    H. J. Kimble, Nature453, 1023 (2008)

    2008

  4. [4]

    Sangouard, C

    N. Sangouard, C. Simon, H. De Riedmatten, and N. Gisin, Reviews of Modern Physics83, 33 (2011)

    2011

  5. [5]

    Wehner, D

    S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, Science362, eaam9288 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    Sinclair, E

    N. Sinclair, E. Saglamyurek, H. Mallahzadeh, J. A. Slater, M. George, R. Ricken, M. P. Hedges, D. Oblak, C. Simon, W. Sohler, and W. Tittel, Physical Review Letters113, 053603 (2014)

    2014

  7. [7]

    Saglamyurek, M

    E. Saglamyurek, M. Grimau Puigibert, Q. Zhou, L. Giner, F. Marsili, V. B. Verma, S. Woo Nam, L. Oesterling, D. Nippa, D. Oblak, and W. Tittel, Nature Communications7, 11202 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    A. Seri, D. Lago-Rivera, A. Lenhard, G. Corrielli, R. Osellame, M. Mazzera, and H. de Riedmatten, Phys- ical Review Letters123, 080502 (2019)

    2019

  9. [9]

    A. I. Lvovsky, B. C. Sanders, and W. Tittel, Nature Pho- tonics3, 706 (2009)

    2009

  10. [10]

    Y. Lei, F. Kimiaee Asadi, T. Zhong, A. Kuzmich, C. Si- mon, and M. Hosseini, Optica10, 1511 (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    Thiel, T

    C. Thiel, T. Böttger, and R. Cone, Journal of Lumines- cence131, 353 (2011)

    2011

  12. [12]

    Zhong, M

    M. Zhong, M. P. Hedges, R. L. Ahlefeldt, J. G. Bartholomew, S. E. Beavan, S. M. Wittig, J. J. Longdell, and M. J. Sellars, Nature517, 177 (2015)

    2015

  13. [13]

    Ma, Y.-Z

    Y. Ma, Y.-Z. Ma, Z.-Q. Zhou, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Nature Communications12, 2381 (2021)

    2021

  14. [14]

    Afzelius, C

    M. Afzelius, C. Simon, H. de Riedmatten, and N. Gisin, Physical Review A79, 052329 (2009), arXiv:0805.4164 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  15. [15]

    Reiserer, Reviews of Modern Physics94, 041003 (2022)

    A. Reiserer, Reviews of Modern Physics94, 041003 (2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    Lauritzen, J

    B. Lauritzen, J. Minář, H. De Riedmatten, M. Afzelius, N. Sangouard, C. Simon, and N. Gisin, Physical Review Letters104, 080502 (2010). 9

    2010

  17. [17]

    Saglamyurek, J

    E. Saglamyurek, J. Jin, V. B. Verma, M. D. Shaw, F. Marsili, S. W. Nam, D. Oblak, and W. Tittel, Nature Photonics9, 83 (2015)

    2015

  18. [18]

    M. F. Askarani, M. G. Puigibert, T. Lutz, V. B. Verma, M. D. Shaw, S. W. Nam, N. Sinclair, D. Oblak, and W. Tittel, Physical Review Applied11, 054056 (2019)

    2019

  19. [19]

    Zhang, B

    X. Zhang, B. Zhang, S. Wei, H. Li, J. Liao, C. Li, G. Deng, Y. Wang, H. Song, L. You, B. Jing, F. Chen, G. Guo, and Q. Zhou, Science Advances9, eadf4587 (2023)

    2023

  20. [20]

    Rančić, M

    M. Rančić, M. P. Hedges, R. L. Ahlefeldt, and M. J. Sellars, Nature Physics14, 50 (2018)

    2018

  21. [21]

    Craiciu, M

    I. Craiciu, M. Lei, J. Rochman, J. M. Kindem, J. G. Bartholomew, E. Miyazono, T. Zhong, N. Sinclair, and A. Faraon, Physical Review Applied12, 024062 (2019)

    2019

  22. [22]

    J. V. Rakonjac, Y.-H. Chen, S. P. Horvath, and J. J. Longdell, Physical Review B101, 184430 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    J. S. Stuart, M. Hedges, R. Ahlefeldt, and M. Sellars, Physical Review Research3, L032054 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    Jiang, W

    M.-H. Jiang, W. Xue, Q. He, Y.-Y. An, X. Zheng, W.- J. Xu, Y.-B. Xie, Y. Lu, S. Zhu, and X.-S. Ma, Nature Communications14, 6995 (2023)

    2023

  25. [25]

    Y.-Y. An, Q. He, W. Xue, M.-H. Jiang, C. Yang, Y.-Q. Lu, S. Zhu, and X.-S. Ma, Physical Review Letters135, 010804 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Craiciu, M

    I. Craiciu, M. Lei, J. Rochman, J. G. Bartholomew, and A. Faraon, Optica8, 114 (2021)

    2021

  27. [27]

    Liu, P.-Y

    D.-C. Liu, P.-Y. Li, T.-X. Zhu, L. Zheng, J.-Y. Huang, Z.-Q. Zhou, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Physical Review Letters129, 210501 (2022)

    2022

  28. [28]

    Z. Li, Y. Lei, T. Kling, and M. Hosseini, Optica Quantum 3, 295 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    A. M. Dibos, M. Raha, C. M. Phenicie, and J. D. Thomp- son, Physical Review Letters120, 243601 (2018)

    2018

  30. [30]

    K. Xia, F. Sardi, C. Sauerzapf, T. Kornher, H.-W. Becker, Z. Kis, L. Kovacs, D. Dertli, J. Foglszinger, R. Kolesov, and J. Wrachtrup, Optica9, 445 (2022)

    2022

  31. [31]

    Ulanowski, B

    A. Ulanowski, B. Merkel, and A. Reiserer, Science Ad- vances8, eabo4538 (2022)

    2022

  32. [32]

    L. Yang, S. Wang, M. Shen, J. Xie, and Hong X. Tang, Nature Communications14, 1718 (2023)

    2023

  33. [33]

    Ourari, Ł

    S. Ourari, Ł. Dusanowski, S. P. Horvath, M. T. Uysal, C. M. Phenicie, P. Stevenson, M. Raha, S. Chen, R. J. Cava, N. P. de Leon, and J. D. Thompson, Nature620, 977 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    Y. Yu, D. Oser, G. Da Prato, E. Urbinati, J. C. Ávila, Y. Zhang, P. Remy, S. Marzban, S. Gröblacher, and W. Tittel, Physical Review Letters131, 170801 (2023)

    2023

  35. [35]

    Huang, P.-J

    J.-Y. Huang, P.-J. Liang, L. Zheng, P.-Y. Li, Y.-Z. Ma, D.-C. Liu, J.-H. Xie, Z.-Q. Zhou, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Chinese Physics Letters40, 070301 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Gritsch, A

    A. Gritsch, A. Ulanowski, J. Pforr, and A. Reiserer, Na- ture Communications16, 64 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    M. T. Uysal, Ł. Dusanowski, H. Xu, S. P. Horvath, S. Ourari, R. J. Cava, N. P. de Leon, and J. D. Thomp- son, Physical Review X15, 011071 (2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    Ulanowski, J

    A. Ulanowski, J. Früh, F. Salamon, A. Holzäpfel, and A. Reiserer, Cavity-enhanced optical readout and control of nuclear spin qubits (2026), arXiv:2603.01987 [quant- ph]

    arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    M. F. Askarani, T. Lutz, M. G. Puigibert, N. Sinclair, D. Oblak, and W. Tittel, Journal of the Optical Society of America B37, 352 (2020), arXiv:1907.07780 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    Barya, A

    P. Barya, A. Prabhu, L. Heller, E. Chow, and E. A. Gold- schmidt, Nature Communications16, 10496 (2025)

    2025

  41. [41]

    Afzelius and C

    M. Afzelius and C. Simon, Physical Review A82, 022310 (2010)

    2010

  42. [42]

    S. A. Moiseev, S. N. Andrianov, and F. F. Gubaidullin, Physical Review A82, 022311 (2010)

    2010

  43. [43]

    Assumpcao, D

    D. Assumpcao, D. Renaud, A. Baradari, B. Zeng, C. De- Eknamkul, C. J. Xin, A. Shams-Ansari, D. Barton, B. Machielse, and M. Loncar, Nature Communications 15, 10459 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    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. Sil- berhorn, J. Wang, and K. D. Jöns, Nature Reviews Physics4, 194 (2021)

    2021

  45. [45]

    C. Wang, M. Zhang, X. Chen, M. Bertrand, A. Shams- Ansari, S. Chandrasekhar, P. Winzer, and M. Lončar, Nature562, 101 (2018)

    2018

  46. [46]

    A. Boes, L. Chang, C. Langrock, M. Yu, M. Zhang, Q. Lin, M. Lončar, M. Fejer, J. Bowers, and A. Mitchell, Science379, eabj4396 (2023)

    2023

  47. [47]

    Saglamyurek, N

    E. Saglamyurek, N. Sinclair, J. Jin, J. A. Slater, D. Oblak, F. Bussières, M. George, R. Ricken, W. Sohler, and W. Tittel, Nature469, 512 (2011)

    2011

  48. [48]

    Jiang, D

    X. Jiang, D. Pak, A. Nandi, Y. Xuan, and M. Hosseini, Applied Physics Letters115, 071104 (2019)

    2019

  49. [49]

    Dutta, Y

    S. Dutta, Y. Zhao, U. Saha, D. Farfurnik, E. A. Gold- schmidt, and E. Waks, ACS Photonics10, 1104 (2023)

    2023

  50. [50]

    Sinclair, D

    N. Sinclair, D. Oblak, C. W. Thiel, R. L. Cone, and W. Tittel, Physical Review Letters118, 100504 (2017)

    2017

  51. [51]

    Dutta, E

    S. Dutta, E. A. Goldschmidt, S. Barik, U. Saha, and E. Waks, Nano Letters20, 741 (2020)

    2020

  52. [52]

    See supplementary materials

  53. [53]

    Sabooni, Q

    M. Sabooni, Q. Li, S. Kröll, and L. Rippe, Physical Re- view Letters110, 133604 (2013)

    2013

  54. [54]

    Jobez, I

    P. Jobez, I. Usmani, N. Timoney, C. Laplane, N. Gisin, and M. Afzelius, New Journal of Physics16, 083005 (2014)

    2014

  55. [55]

    J. H. Davidson, P. Lefebvre, J. Zhang, D. Oblak, and W. Tittel, Physical Review A101, 042333 (2020)

    2020

  56. [56]

    Duranti, S

    S. Duranti, S. Wengerowsky, L. Feldmann, A. Seri, B. Casabone, and H. De Riedmatten, Optics Express32, 26884 (2024)

    2024

  57. [57]

    Zhong, J

    T. Zhong, J. M. Kindem, J. G. Bartholomew, J. Rochman, I. Craiciu, E. Miyazono, M. Bettinelli, E.Cavalli, V.Verma, S.W.Nam, F.Marsili, M.D.Shaw, A. D. Beyer, and A. Faraon, Science357, 1392 (2017)

    2017

  58. [58]

    Meng, P.-X

    R.-R. Meng, P.-X. Liu, X. Liu, T.-X. Zhu, P.-J. Liang, C. Zhang, Z.-Y. Tang, H.-Z. Zhang, J.-M. Cui, M. Jin, Z.-Q. Zhou, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Nature Photonics 20, 437 (2026)

    2026

  59. [59]

    J. D. Franson, Physical Review Letters62, 2205 (1989)

    1989

  60. [60]

    Thiel, R

    C. Thiel, R. Macfarlane, T. Böttger, Y. Sun, R. Cone, and W. Babbitt, Journal of Luminescence130, 1603 (2010)

    2010

  61. [61]

    T. Lutz, L. Veissier, C. W. Thiel, P. J. Woodburn, R. L. Cone, P. E. Barclay, and W. Tittel, Journal of Lumines- cence191, 2 (2017)

    2017

  62. [62]

    X. Zhu, Y. Hu, S. Lu, H. K. Warner, X. Li, Y. Song, L. Magalhães, A. Shams-Ansari, A. Cordaro, N. Sinclair, and M. Lončar, Photonics Research12, A63 (2024)

    2024

  63. [63]

    Z.-Q. Zhou, C. Liu, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, D. Oblak, M. Lei, A. Faraon, M. Mazzera, and H. de Riedmatten, Laser & Photonics Reviews17, 2300257 (2023). 10

    2023

  64. [64]

    Y.-F. Pu, N. Jiang, W. Chang, H.-X. Yang, C. Li, and L.-M. Duan, Nature Communications8, 15359 (2017)

    2017

  65. [65]

    Teller, S

    M. Teller, S. Plascencia, S. Grandi, and H. de Ried- matten, Physical Review X15, 031053 (2025), arXiv:2509.11910 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Ou, T.-X

    Z.-W. Ou, T.-X. Zhu, P.-J. Liang, X.-M. Hu, Z.-Q. Zhou, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Multichannel and high di- mensional integrated photonic quantum memory (2025), arXiv:2508.19605 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.