pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.26976 · v1 · pith:22XHUXNSnew · submitted 2026-05-26 · 🪐 quant-ph

Toward Scalable Heterogeneous Quantum Networks: Microwave-Optical Transduction Across Platforms

Tarvir Anjum Aditto , Jaiyan Sadid Ifty , Khondokar Zahin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 16:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords microwave-optical transductionquantum networksoptomechanical transducerselectro-optic transducersmagneto-optic transducersconversion efficiencyadded noisequantum state transfer
0
0 comments X

The pith

A review proposes internal efficiency and magnon decay rate as normalized metrics to compare microwave-optical transducers across optomechanical, electro-optic, and magneto-optic platforms.

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

This review examines the conversion of microwave photons from superconducting processors into optical photons for long-distance transmission in quantum networks. It surveys performance across three physical platforms and introduces internal efficiency eta_in together with magnon decay rate kappa_m/2pi to enable fairer cross-platform comparisons than standard metrics allow. Reported results show optomechanical systems reaching 93 percent internal efficiency with low added noise at millikelvin temperatures, electro-optic devices approaching 99.5 percent internal efficiency and 0.16 quanta noise, and magneto-optic systems offering non-reciprocity despite lower efficiencies. The paper concludes that each platform supplies distinct capabilities needed for heterogeneous networks.

Core claim

The paper surveys recent progress in microwave-to-optical quantum transduction, proposes eta_in and kappa_m/2pi as normalized parameters that enable fairer comparison across heterogeneous implementations, reports platform-specific figures including 93 percent internal phonon-to-photon efficiency in optomechanics and 99.5 percent in electro-optics, and argues that heterogeneous microwave-optical transduction is emerging as a key enabling technology for distributed quantum computing and large-scale quantum networks.

What carries the argument

Internal efficiency eta_in and magnon decay rate kappa_m/2pi, which normalize performance figures for direct comparison across optomechanical, electro-optic, and magneto-optic transduction platforms.

Load-bearing premise

Performance figures drawn from the cited literature can be directly compared using the proposed internal efficiency and magnon decay rate without systematic differences in experimental definitions, calibration, or unaccounted noise sources.

What would settle it

An experiment that applies both conventional metrics and the new eta_in plus kappa_m/2pi to the same set of devices and produces inconsistent platform rankings because of differing noise calibrations would falsify the utility of the normalized parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.26976 by Jaiyan Sadid Ifty, Khondokar Zahin, Tarvir Anjum Aditto.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Quantum transduction concept. Left: Schematic representation of two quantum devices operating at different frequencies connected via a quantum transduction interface. Right: Illustration of microwave-to-optical conversion inside a dilution refrigerator enabling long-distance quantum state transfer. coupling via single-stage or multi-stage configurations through intermediate bosonic modes or direct nonlin￾e… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic of the physical quantities governing one-stage quantum transduction. A single intermediate bosonic mode (phonon or magnon) coherently couples a microwave cavity to an optical cavity. The system is described by cavity and bath operators together with mode frequencies, coherent coupling rates, and intrinsic loss channels. Intrinsic losses are modeled as couplings to thermal baths. Optical and fiber… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Schematic comparison of the three major quan￾tum transduction approaches. Top: zero-stage electro-optic (Pockels) transduction with direct photon-photon interaction. Bottom: one-stage transduction using an intermediate bosonic mode (phonon or magnon). 5.1. Optomechanical Transduction The optomechanical effect couples mechanical motion to light through radiation pressure and the photoelastic effect. In a tr… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Optomechanical transduction platforms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Timeline of key advances in optomechanical microwave-optical quantum transduction (2014–2025) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Electro-optic transducers. (a) AlN cavity electro-optic transducer setup. Adapted from [36]. (b) Thin-film LiNbO3 electro-optic transducer showing racetrack resonators, meander microwave inductor, and bias capacitor. Adapted from [37] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Timeline of advances in electro-optic microwave-optical quantum transduction (2016–2026) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Magneto-optic transduction platforms. (a) YIG sphere in a microwave cavity coupled to a 1550 nm laser via the Faraday effect. Adapted from [44]. (b) Integrated optomagnonic waveguide device. Adapted from [45] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Timeline of advances in magneto-optic microwave-optical quantum transduction (2016–2026). gMO,0 = c θF 4 √ 2εrNs , (25) where c is the speed of light in vacuum, θF is the Fara￾day rotation angle per unit length, and εr is the relative permittivity of the medium. The critical consequence of Eq. (25) is that gMO,0 ∝ 1/ √ Ns: the same large spin number that strengthens microwave coupling simulta￾neously weake… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of microwave-optical quantum transduction platforms in the efficiency-bandwidth plane. Optomechan￾ical systems (squares) achieve the highest conversion efficiencies; electro-optic systems (circles) offer the widest bandwidths; magneto-optic systems (triangles) currently show the lowest efficiencies but offer unique non-reciprocal functionality. The dashed line marks the η = 0.5 threshold requir… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The development of scalable quantum networks requires coherent interfaces capable of converting microwave photons used in superconducting quantum processors into optical photons suitable for long-distance fiber transmission. This review surveys recent progress in microwave-to-optical quantum transduction across optomechanical, electro-optic, and magneto-optic platforms, with emphasis on conversion efficiency, bandwidth, added noise, and operating temperature. In addition to standard metrics, we propose the internal efficiency eta_in and the magnon decay rate kappa_m/2pi as normalized parameters that enable fairer comparison across heterogeneous implementations. Optomechanical systems achieve internal phonon-to-photon efficiencies of 93% with sub-quantum added noise of 0.25 quanta at millikelvin temperatures. Electro-optic devices based on LiNbO3 and AlN have advanced from room-temperature efficiencies below 1% to millikelvin systems with internal efficiencies approaching 99.5%, added noise as low as 0.16 quanta at 60 mK, and bandwidths extending to several tens of megahertz. Magneto-optic (optomagnonic) platforms exhibit the lowest efficiencies (typically $10^{-10}$ to $10^{-8})$, but offer intrinsic non-reciprocity and broadband magnonic operation, with emerging approaches based on topological heterostructures and magnon squeezing predicting enhancements up to $10^{-4}$. Optomechanical systems appear promising for high-fidelity quantum state transfer, electro-optic transducers for high-bandwidth coherent links, and magneto-optic devices for non-reciprocal network components. We discuss the fundamental trade-off between efficiency and added noise across all three platforms, and argue that heterogeneous microwave-optical transduction is emerging as a key enabling technology for distributed quantum computing and large-scale quantum networks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. This review surveys microwave-to-optical quantum transduction across optomechanical, electro-optic, and magneto-optic platforms, reporting literature values for conversion efficiency, bandwidth, added noise, and temperature. It proposes internal efficiency η_in and magnon decay rate κ_m/2π as normalized metrics for cross-platform comparison, assigns platform roles (optomechanics for high-fidelity transfer, electro-optics for bandwidth, magneto-optics for non-reciprocity), and discusses efficiency-noise trade-offs for scalable quantum networks.

Significance. If the proposed normalized metrics prove robust to experimental variations, the compilation could aid platform selection for heterogeneous quantum networks. The review restates external results without new derivations, data, or falsifiable predictions, limiting its impact to synthesis rather than advancing the central claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that η_in and κ_m/2π 'enable fairer comparison across heterogeneous implementations' is load-bearing for the platform role assignments (e.g., 93% internal efficiency and 0.25 quanta noise for optomechanics; 99.5% efficiency and 0.16 quanta noise for electro-optics), yet the text provides no analysis showing how these parameters correct for inconsistent calibrations, loss treatments, or noise floors in the cited source experiments.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that optomechanical systems are 'promising for high-fidelity quantum state transfer' rests on re-expressed literature values; without evidence that the new metrics remove systematic differences, the role assignments do not follow from the reported numbers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful review and for identifying areas where the justification of the proposed metrics requires further elaboration. We address the two major comments point by point below. In both cases we agree that additional explanation is warranted and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that η_in and κ_m/2π 'enable fairer comparison across heterogeneous implementations' is load-bearing for the platform role assignments (e.g., 93% internal efficiency and 0.25 quanta noise for optomechanics; 99.5% efficiency and 0.16 quanta noise for electro-optics), yet the text provides no analysis showing how these parameters correct for inconsistent calibrations, loss treatments, or noise floors in the cited source experiments.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current manuscript does not contain an explicit analysis or derivation demonstrating how η_in and κ_m/2π quantitatively mitigate the cited sources of experimental inconsistency. The internal efficiency η_in is intended to isolate the transduction process from external coupling losses, while κ_m/2π is proposed as an intrinsic magnonic figure of merit independent of optical or microwave port parameters. However, without a dedicated discussion of how these choices interact with calibration variations across the referenced works, the claim remains insufficiently supported. We will add a new subsection (likely in Section II or III) that (i) defines the metrics with explicit formulas, (ii) discusses their sensitivity to common calibration and loss-treatment differences, and (iii) notes remaining limitations where the normalization is only partial. This revision will also include a short table comparing raw versus normalized values for a subset of the cited experiments. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that optomechanical systems are 'promising for high-fidelity quantum state transfer' rests on re-expressed literature values; without evidence that the new metrics remove systematic differences, the role assignments do not follow from the reported numbers.

    Authors: The platform role assignments are indeed derived from the re-expressed literature values under the proposed normalization. Because the manuscript currently provides no quantitative demonstration that the chosen metrics eliminate the systematic differences mentioned, the assignments rest on an unverified assumption. We will revise the abstract and the concluding discussion to (a) qualify the role assignments as provisional and dependent on the robustness of the normalizations, (b) cross-reference the new subsection on metric justification, and (c) add a brief caveats paragraph acknowledging that direct head-to-head experiments under identical conditions would be required for definitive platform ranking. These changes will be made without altering the underlying literature compilation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: review reports external literature values without derivations or self-referential reductions

full rationale

This is a survey paper with no derivations, fits, equations, or predictions. It cites external performance figures from the literature, proposes eta_in and kappa_m/2pi as new comparison parameters, and assigns platform roles on the basis of those reported values. None of the enumerated circularity patterns apply: there are no self-definitional loops, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, smuggled ansatzes, or renamings of known results. The central claims rest on external data rather than reducing to quantities defined inside the paper itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The review depends on the accuracy and completeness of previously published experimental results for the three transduction platforms and on standard quantum-optics assumptions about photon conversion, added noise, and bandwidth definitions.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Reported efficiencies, noise levels, and bandwidths in the cited literature accurately reflect device performance under the stated conditions.
    All numerical comparisons in the abstract rest on the validity of external experimental claims.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5848 in / 1437 out tokens · 42080 ms · 2026-06-29T16:46:42.143072+00:00 · methodology

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

61 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. H. Devoret and R. J. Schoelkopf. Supercon- ducting circuits for quantum information: An out- look.Science, 339(6124):1169–1174, 2013. doi: 10.1126/science.1231930

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1231930 2013

  2. [2]

    Quantum information with continuous vari- ables

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wall- raff. Circuit quantum electrodynamics.Rev. Mod. Phys., 93:025005, 2021. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys. 93.025005

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys 2021

  3. [3]

    Quantum transduction: En- abling quantum networking.IEEE Communica- tions Surveys & Tutorials, 28:4195–4214, 2026

    Marcello Caleffi, Laura d’Avossa, Xu Han, and An- gela Sara Cacciapuoti. Quantum transduction: En- abling quantum networking.IEEE Communica- tions Surveys & Tutorials, 28:4195–4214, 2026. doi: 10.1109/COMST.2025.3631150

    work page doi:10.1109/comst.2025.3631150 2026

  4. [4]

    Sekine, R

    A. Sekine, R. Murakami, and Y. Doi. Microwave-to- optical quantum transduction of photons for quan- tum interconnects. arXiv:2509.26349 [quant-ph],

    work page arXiv

  5. [5]

    Gottesman

    D. Gottesman. An introduction to quantum error correction. InProc. Symposia in Applied Mathemat- ics, volume 68, pages 13–58. American Mathematical Society, 2010

    2010

  6. [6]

    A. N. Cleland.Foundations of Nanomechanics. Springer, Berlin, 2003

    2003

  7. [7]

    H. J. Kimble. The quantum internet.Nature, 453: 1023–1030, 2008. doi: 10.1038/nature07127

    work page doi:10.1038/nature07127 2008

  8. [8]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn. A scheme for efficient quantum computation with lin- ear optics.Nature, 409(6816):46–52, 2001. doi: 10.1038/35051009

    work page doi:10.1038/35051009 2001

  9. [9]

    Teleportation Systems Toward a Quantum Internet,

    David Awschalom, Karl K. Berggren, Hannes Bernien, Sunil Bhave, Lincoln D. Carr, Paul Davids, Sophia E. Economou, Dirk Englund, Andrei Faraon, Martin Fejer, Saikat Guha, Martin V. Gustafsson, Evelyn Hu, Liang Jiang, Jungsang Kim, Boris Ko- rzh, Prem Kumar, Paul G. Kwiat, Marko Lončar, Mikhail D. Lukin, David A.B. Miller, Christopher Monroe, Sae Woo Nam, P...

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum 2021

  10. [10]

    W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek. A single quantum cannot be cloned.Nature, 299:802–803, 1982. doi: 10.1038/299802a0

    work page doi:10.1038/299802a0 1982

  11. [11]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang.Quantum Compu- tation and Quantum Information. Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2000

    2000

  12. [12]

    N. J. Lauk, N. Sinclair, S. Barzanjeh, J. P. Covey, M. Saffman, M. Spiropulu, and C. Simon. Per- spectives on quantum transduction.Quantum Sci. Technol., 5:020501, 2020. doi: 10.1088/2058-9565/ ab743c

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ 2020

  13. [13]

    K. C. Fong, M. C. Collodo, M. Pechal, M. E. Schwartz, A. F. van Loo, and A. Wallraff. Hy- brid quantum systems for microwave–optical con- version.Adv. Quantum Technol., 3:1900077, 2020. doi: 10.1002/qute.201900077

    work page doi:10.1002/qute.201900077 2020

  14. [14]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer. The- ory of superconductivity.Phys. Rev., 108:1175, 1957

    1957

  15. [15]

    B. D. Josephson. Possible new effects in supercon- ductive tunnelling.Phys. Lett., 1:251, 1962

    1962

  16. [16]

    N. J. Lambert, A. Rueda, F. Sedlmeir, and H. G. Schwefel. Coherent conversion between microwave and optical photons: an overview.Adv. Quantum Technol., 2020

    2020

  17. [17]

    X. Han, W. Fu, C.-L. Zou, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang. Microwave-optical quantum frequency conversion. Optica, 8:1050–1064, 2021

    2021

  18. [18]

    J. G. Bartholomew, J. Rochman, and T. Xie. On- chip coherent microwave-to-optical transduction me- diated by silicon photonic nanomechanics.Nat. Com- mun., 2020

    2020

  19. [19]

    C. Wang, I. Gonin, A. Grassellino, S. Kazakov, A. Romanenko, V. P. Yakovlev, and S. Zorzetti. High-efficiency microwave-optical quantum transduc- tion based on a cavity electro-optic superconduct- ing system.npj Quantum Inf., 8:149, 2022. doi: 10.1038/s41534-022-00664-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-022-00664-7 2022

  20. [20]

    Rochman, T

    J. Rochman, T. Xie, K. C. Schwab, and A. Faraon. Microwave-to-optical transduction with erbium ions. Commun. Phys., 2023

    2023

  21. [21]

    C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller.Quantum Noise. Springer, 2004

    2004

  22. [22]

    D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn.Quantum Optics. Springer, 2008

    2008

  23. [23]

    Caruso, V

    F. Caruso, V. Giovannetti, and A. S. Holevo. One-mode bosonic gaussian channels: a full weak- degradability classification.New J. Phys., 8:310, 2006

    2006

  24. [24]

    A. S. Holevo and R. F. Werner. Evaluating capacities of bosonic gaussian channels.Phys. Rev. A, 63: 032312, 2001

    2001

  25. [25]

    Khanna, Y

    M. Khanna, Y. Hu, and T. P. Purdy. All-dielectric resonant cavity electro-optic transduction between microwave and telecom. arXiv:2601.13199 [quant- ph], 2026. Preprint

    work page arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    R. W. Andrews, R. W. Peterson, T. P. Purdy, K. Ci- cak, R. W. Simmonds, C. A. Regal, and K. W. Lehn- ert. Bidirectional and efficient conversion between microwave and optical light.Nat. Phys., 10:321–326,

  27. [27]

    doi: 10.1038/nphys2911

    work page doi:10.1038/nphys2911

  28. [28]

    Vainsencher, K

    A. Vainsencher, K. J. Satzinger, G. A. Peairs, and A. N. Cleland. Bi-directional conversion between microwave and optical frequencies in a piezoelectric optomechanicaldevice.Appl. Phys. Lett., 109:033107,

  29. [29]

    doi: 10.1063/1.4955408

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4955408

  30. [30]

    A. P. Higginbotham, P. S. Burns, M. D. Urmey, R. W. Peterson, N. S. Kampel, B. M. Brubaker, G. Smith, K. W. Lehnert, and C. A. Regal. Harness- ing electro-optic correlations in an efficient mechani- cal converter.Nat. Phys., 14:1038–1042, 2018. doi: 10.1038/s41567-018-0210-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-018-0210-0 2018

  31. [31]

    Stockill, M

    R. Stockill, M. Forsch, F. Hijazi, G. Beaudoin, K. Pantzas, I. Sagnes, R. Braive, and S. Groeblacher. Ultra-low-noise microwave to optics conversion in gallium phosphide.Nat. Commun., 13:6583, 2022. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-34338-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-34338-x 2022

  32. [32]

    Mirhosseini, A

    M. Mirhosseini, A. Sipahigil, M. Kalaee, and O. Painter. Superconducting qubit to optical pho- ton transduction.Nature, 588:599–603, 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-3038-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-3038-6 2020

  33. [33]

    R. Sahu, W. Hease, A. Rueda, G. Arnold, and J. M. Fink. Quantum-enabled operation of a microwave-optical transducer on thin-film lithium niobate.Nat. Commun., 12:5433, 2021. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-25740-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-021-25740-y 2021

  34. [34]

    R. D. Delaney, M. D. Urmey, S. Mittal, B. M. Brubaker, J. M. Kindem, P. S. Burns, C. A. Re- gal, and K. W. Lehnert. Superconducting-qubit readout via low-backaction electro-optic transduc- tion.Nature, 606:489–493, 2022. doi: 10.1038/ s41586-022-04720-2

    2022

  35. [35]

    Blésin, W

    T. Blésin, W. Kao, A. Siddharth, T. J. Kippen- berg, and S. A. Bhave. Bidirectional microwave- optical transduction based on integration of high- overtone bulk acoustic resonators and photonic cir- cuits.Nat. Commun., 15:6096, 2024. doi: 10.1038/ s41467-024-49467-8. 15 Aditto, Ifty & Zahin Microwave-Optical Quantum Transduction

    2024

  36. [36]

    H. Zhao, W. D. Chen, A. Kejriwal, and M. Mirhos- seini. Quantum-enabled microwave-to-optical trans- duction via silicon nanomechanics.Nat. Nan- otechnol., 20:602–608, 2025. doi: 10.1038/ s41565-025-01874-8

    2025

  37. [37]

    Sonar, U

    S. Sonar, U. Hatipoglu, S. Meesala, D. Lake, H. Ren, and O. Painter. High-efficiency low-noise optome- chanical crystal photon-phonon transducers.Optica, 12:99–104, 2025. doi: 10.1364/OPTICA.534881

    work page doi:10.1364/optica.534881 2025

  38. [38]

    Superconducting cavity electro-optics: a platform for coherent photon conversion between superconducting and photonic circuits.Science ad- vances, 4(8):eaar4994, 2018

    Linran Fan, Chang-Ling Zou, Risheng Cheng, Xi- ang Guo, Xu Han, Zheng Gong, Sihao Wang, and Hong X Tang. Superconducting cavity electro-optics: a platform for coherent photon conversion between superconducting and photonic circuits.Science ad- vances, 4(8):eaar4994, 2018

    2018

  39. [39]

    Holzgrafe, N

    J. Holzgrafe, N. Sinclair, D. Zhu, A. Shams-Ansari, M. Colangelo, Y. Hu, M. Zhang, K. K. Berggren, and M. Lončar. Cavity electro-optics in thin-film lithium niobate for efficient microwave-to-optical transduction.Optica, 7:1714–1720, 2020. doi: 10.1364/OPTICA.397513

    work page doi:10.1364/optica.397513 2020

  40. [40]

    H. K. Warner, J. Holzgrafe, B. Yankelevich, D. Bar- ton, S.Poletto, C.J.Xin, N.Sinclair, D.Zhu, E.Sete, B. Langley, E. Batson, M. Colangelo, A. Shams- Ansari, G. Joe, K. K. Berggren, L. Jiang, M. J. Reagor, and M. Lončar. Coherent control of a super- conducting qubit using light.Nat. Phys., 21:831–838,

  41. [41]

    doi: 10.1038/s41567-025-02812-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-025-02812-0

  42. [42]

    Arnold, T

    G. Arnold, T. Werner, R. Sahu, L. N. Kapoor, L. Qiu, and J. M. Fink. All-optical superconducting qubit readout.Nat. Phys., 21:393–400, 2025. doi: 10.1038/ s41567-024-02741-4

    2025

  43. [43]

    R. Sahu, W. Hease, A. Rueda, G. Arnold, L. Qiu, and J. M. Fink. Quantum-enabled operation of a microwave-optical interface.Nat. Commun., 13:1276,

  44. [44]

    doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-28924-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-28924-2

  45. [45]

    T. P. McKenna, J. D. Witmer, R. N. Patel, W. Jiang, R. Van Laer, P. Arrangoiz-Arriola, E. A. Wollack, J. F. Herrmann, and A. H. Safavi-Naeini. Cryogenic microwave-to-optical conversion using a triply reso- nant lithium-niobate-on-sapphire transducer.Optica, 7:1737–1745, 2020. doi: 10.1364/OPTICA.397235

    work page doi:10.1364/optica.397235 2020

  46. [46]

    Hease, A

    W. Hease, A. Rueda, R. Sahu, M. Wulf, G. Arnold, H. G. L. Schwefel, and J. M. Fink. Bidirectional electro-optic wavelength conversion in the quantum ground state.PRX Quantum, 1:020315, 2020. doi: 10.1103/PRXQuantum.1.020315

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.1.020315 2020

  47. [47]

    Rueda, F

    A. Rueda, F. Sedlmeir, M. C. Collodo, U. Vogl, B. Stiller, G. Schunk, D. V. Strekalov, C. Marquardt, J. M. Fink, O. Painter, G. Leuchs, and H. G. L. Schwefel. Efficient microwave to optical photon con- version: an electro-optical realization.Optica, 3: 597–604, 2016. doi: 10.1364/OPTICA.3.000597

    work page doi:10.1364/optica.3.000597 2016

  48. [48]

    Hisatomi, A

    R. Hisatomi, A. Osada, Y. Tabuchi, T. Ishikawa, A. Noguchi, R. Yamazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Naka- mura. Bidirectional conversion between microwave and light via ferromagnetic magnons.Phys. Rev. B, 93:174427, 2016. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.174427

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.93.174427 2016

  49. [49]

    N.Zhu, X.Zhang, X.Han, C.-L.Zou, C.Zhong, C.-H. Wang, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang. Waveguide cavity optomagnonics for microwave-to-optics conversion. Optica, 7:1291–1297, 2020. doi: 10.1364/OPTICA. 401466

    work page doi:10.1364/optica 2020

  50. [50]

    Osada, R

    A. Osada, R. Hisatomi, A. Noguchi, Y. Tabuchi, R. Yamazaki, K. Usami, M. Sadgrove, R. Yalla, M. Nomura, and Y. Nakamura. Cavity optomagnon- ics with spin-orbit coupled photons.Phys. Rev. Lett., 116:223601, 2016. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116. 223601

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116 2016

  51. [51]

    Zhang, N

    X. Zhang, N. Zhu, C.-L. Zou, and H. X. Tang. Optomagnonic whispering gallery microresonators. Phys. Rev. Lett., 117:123605, 2016. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.117.123605

    2016

  52. [52]

    Microwave-to-optical quantum transduction utilizing the topological faraday effect of topological-insulator heterostructures.Physical Review Applied, 22(2): 024071, 2024

    Akihiko Sekine, Mari Ohfuchi, and Yoshiyasu Doi. Microwave-to-optical quantum transduction utilizing the topological faraday effect of topological-insulator heterostructures.Physical Review Applied, 22(2): 024071, 2024

    2024

  53. [53]

    Sekine and Y

    A. Sekine and Y. Doi. Microwave-to-optical quantum transduction with antiferromagnets. arXiv:2412.12907 [quant-ph], 2024. Preprint

    work page arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Xie, L.-W

    H. Xie, L.-W. He, X. Lin, et al. Enhancement of opto- magnonic coupling and microwave-optical conversion via magnetic anisotropy.EPJ Quantum Technol., 13: 11, 2026. doi: 10.1140/epjqt/s40507-025-00458-8

    work page doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507-025-00458-8 2026

  55. [55]

    Tabuchi, S

    Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura. Hybridizing ferro- magnetic magnons and microwave photons in the quantum limit.Phys. Rev. Lett., 113:083603, 2014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.083603

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.083603 2014

  56. [56]

    Zhang , author C.-L

    X. Zhang, C.-L. Zou, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang. Strongly coupled magnons and cavity microwave photons.Phys. Rev. Lett., 113:156401, 2014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.156401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.156401 2014

  57. [57]

    B. Z. Rameshti, S. V. Kusminskiy, J. A. Haigh, K. Usami, D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Nakamura, C.- M. Hu, H. X. Tang, G. E. W. Bauer, and Y. M. Blanter. Cavity magnonics.Phys. Rep., 979:1–61,

  58. [58]

    doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.06.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2022.06.001 2022

  59. [59]

    N. Zhu, X. Han, C.-L. Zou, M. Xu, and H. X. Tang. Magnon-photon strong coupling for tunable microwave circulators.Phys. Rev. A, 101:043842,

  60. [60]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.101.043842

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.101.043842

  61. [61]

    C. Möhl, A. Riedhauser, M. Glantschnig, D. Caimi, U. Drechsler, A. Olziersky, D. Sabonis, D. I. In- dolese, T. M. Karg, and P. Seidler. Bidirectional 16 Aditto, Ifty & Zahin Microwave-Optical Quantum Transduction microwave-optical conversion with an integrated soft- ferroelectric barium titanate transducer.Phys. Rev. X, 15:041044, 2025. doi: 10.1103/1gvf-w6lx. 17

    work page doi:10.1103/1gvf-w6lx 2025