High-Performance Quantum Transduction with Correlated Noise

Changchun Zhong; Pengbo Li; Xiaoan Ai; Yu-Bo Hou

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

High-Performance Quantum Transduction with Correlated Noise

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that correlated thermal noise between microwave and mechanical modes can be made to interfere destructively, suppressing transduction noise and expanding the region of positive quantum capacity, potentially relaxing…

desk verdict The EQT analysis is clean and internally consistent, but the proposed mechanism does not produce the stationary correlation it relies on, so the physical claims outrun the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06683 v1 pith:DOGMGDYT submitted 2026-08-07 quant-ph

Yu-Bo Hou , Xiaoan Ai , Pengbo Li , Changchun Zhong This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.-a42.50.Ex85.25.-j

keywords correlatednoisequantumtransductionmicrowave-opticalconversioncapacityelectro-optomechanicscontinuous-variableteleportationentanglementthermal

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that thermal noise, usually the enemy of microwave-to-optical quantum transduction, can be turned into a resource if the microwave and mechanical noise baths are correlated. For direct transduction, it shows that correlated-noise terms interfere destructively with independent noise when the electromechanical coupling phase $\phi$ lies between $\pi$ and $2\pi$, lowering the effective channel noise and pushing the quantum-capacity lower bound positive over a much larger region of cooperativity space. For entanglement-based transduction, the same correlations strengthen the shared microwave-optical entanglement generated by an electro-optomechanical system, which lowers the added noise of the teleportation-induced channel and gives positive quantum capacity where independent noise yields zero. A sympathetic reader would care because this promises to relax the deep cryogenic requirements that currently bottleneck hybrid quantum networks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the linearized electro-optomechanical scattering matrix that maps Gaussian input noise to Gaussian output fields, and from it every result follows. For direct transduction the key identity is Eq. (8): the correlated-noise interference terms equal $8\sqrt{C_{\mathrm{em}}(1-\zeta_e)C_{\mathrm{om}}\zeta_o}\,\sin\phi/(1+C_{\mathrm{om}}+C_{\mathrm{em}})^2$, which becomes negative for $\pi<\phi<2\pi$ and cancels part of the independent noise. For entanglement-based transduction the machinery is the covariance matrix $V_{\mathrm{oe}}$ of the output microwave-optical state, whose elements $u$, $v$, and $w$ depend on $\chi\sin\theta$; these feed the teleportation channel with added noise $n'_e=(v\kappa^2+u-2w\kappa)/(2|1-\kappa^2|)-1/2$, in which the feedforward gain $\kappa$ is optimized. The proposed correlation-engineering mechanism uses a two-mode-squeezing electromechanical interaction plus a resonant parametric drive on the microwave mode to generate nonzero cross moments between the mechanical and microwave output noise fields.

What would settle it

Measure the cross-correlation $\langle \hat{b}_{\mathrm{out}} \hat{c}^\dagger_{\mathrm{out},i}\rangle$ of the mechanical and microwave output noise fields after the correlation-engineering stage, and separately measure the direct-transduction channel noise $n_e$ at $\phi=0$ and $\phi=\pi/2$; if the cross-correlation is zero or decays before the transduction window, or if $n_e$ is not smaller at $\phi=\pi/2$ than at $\phi=0$, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that correlations between the intrinsic thermal noise of the microwave mode and that of the mechanical mode, quantified by $\chi$ with $\langle \hat{c}^\dagger_{\mathrm{in},i}\hat{b}_{\mathrm{in}}\rangle = n_{\mathrm{th}}\chi$, are not merely a nuisance but a controllable resource. In the direct-transduction regime the effective channel noise acquires interference terms proportional to $\chi\sin\phi$, so by choosing the electromechanical coupling phase $\phi$ in $(\pi,2\pi)$ the correlated contribution subtracts from the independent-noise background. In the entanglement-based protocol the same correlations alter the covariance matrix of the generated two-mode Gaussian state, and at the optimal phase, around $\phi=\pi/2$ in the phenomenological model, the logarithmic negativity exceeds the independent-noise value, with the advantage growing at higher bath occupation; the teleportation-induced transduction channel then has lower added noise and a positive quantum-capacity lower bound over a broad region of the $C_{\mathrm{om}}$--$C_{\mathrm{em}}$ plane, including areas outside where a pure-loss direct channel could ever work. The paper also proposes a two-mode squeezing interaction plus parametric drive on the microwave mode as a concrete mechanism for producing the required correlation structure.

Load-bearing premise

The entire advantage rests on the environment providing a correlation of exactly the form $\langle \hat{c}^\dagger_{\mathrm{in},i}\hat{b}_{\mathrm{in}}\rangle = n_{\mathrm{th}}\chi$ between the microwave and mechanical thermal inputs, with $0\le|\chi|\le1$, and on that correlation surviving long enough to take part in the interference; the paper's own engineering section notes that under the Markov approximation such correlations decay exponentially and vanish in the long-time limit, so if the transduction is slower than the noise memory time the predicted gains disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the direct protocol, correlated noise can make the effective channel noise $n_e$ nearly vanish over a broad cooperativity region at $\phi=\pi/2$, and the positive-quantum-capacity region almost covers the entire regime where a pure-loss channel could support transduction.
In the entanglement-based protocol with $\chi=0.9$, positive quantum capacity appears in regions where independent noise gives zero, and the capacity region extends beyond the $\eta=1/2$ bound of pure-loss direct transduction.
The optimal operating point is not the largest possible microwave extraction ratio: the capacity is nonmonotonic in $\zeta_e$, peaking between 0.8 and 0.9 for the parameters studied, and the correlated-noise advantage disappears at $\zeta_e=1$.
The teleportation-induced added noise can be reduced to less than half its uncorrelated value near the optimal phase, which matters for single-photon-level transduction.
Because the mechanism is interference between correlated noise inputs, the paper argues it should transfer to hybrid platforms beyond the electro-optomechanical setup studied here.

Reading between the lines

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

The quantitative predictions assume the phenomenological correlation $\langle \hat{c}^\dagger_{\mathrm{in},i}\hat{b}_{\mathrm{in}}\rangle = n_{\mathrm{th}}\chi$ persists through the transduction; a finite-bandwidth calculation of the correlation-generation stage would show how the noise memory lifetime limits the achievable $\chi$ and whether the optimal phase shifts from $\pi/2$.
A direct experimental fingerprint would be to measure the cross-spectrum of the microwave and mechanical noise fields leaving their loss ports: the predicted interference requires a nonzero phase-insensitive component with controlled phase, so this measurement doubles as a device-characterization tool.
The same interference construction could be applied to other noise pairs, such as optical and mechanical baths, or to quantum-state-transfer schemes beyond teleportation, wherever two dissipation channels feed one output.
The engineered correlation mechanism produces phase-sensitive cross moments in addition to the phase-insensitive ones used in the main model, so experiments should check whether the two correlation structures give quantitatively different capacity predictions.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

Here's my read on the Hou et al. paper. The cleanest thing in it is the EQT analysis: given a stationary, phase-insensitive correlation = n_th chi between the microwave and mechanical baths, the paper derives explicit closed-form expressions for the MO covariance matrix and shows that the teleportation-induced transduction channel gains positive quantum capacity over a broad cooperativity region. The math is internally consistent and the Appendix A formulas check out. That part is a genuine extension of the earlier DQT result.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test puts it. Section V does not actually produce the resource the rest of the paper assumes. The proposed two-mode-squeezing-plus-parametric-drive stage generates output noise with transient correlations that decay on the cavity timescale, and the paper then says "we use the initial values of the correlated second moments." That is not a controlled approximation. The main formulas (7), (17), and (A1)-(A5) require white, delta-correlated input noise; a decaying correlation is not that. Moreover, the engineered field contains phase-sensitive cross moments that don't appear in the phase-insensitive model (17), so even the structure of the resource is different.

I don't think this sinks the phenomenological model—it's a legitimate question to ask what happens if such correlations exist. But the paper overreaches when it uses the mechanism parameters to produce the performance plots in Figs. 5 and 6 and claims the mechanism "demonstrates" the improvements. Those plots inherit the initial-value approximation without a timescale justification. The authors are aware of the decay—they state it in the text—but they don't resolve the tension.

The DQT section is a review of their own prior work, and the scattering matrix is quoted without re-derivation. That's acceptable, but it means the new content is the EQT piece and the mechanism, and the EQT piece is solid while the mechanism is incomplete.

Who should read this? Someone working on electro-optomechanical transduction or noise engineering in hybrid quantum networks. The phenomenological EQT analysis could be a useful reference point, even if the mechanism as written is not convincing.

For peer review, I'd send it out. The core idea is worth referee time, and the authors can probably fix the presentation by separating the two claims: (1) if stationary correlations exist, here's the improvement (well supported); (2) here's a speculative mechanism (needs timescale analysis or reframing as future work). As it stands, the physical claim is not established.

Best, [Your name]

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes direct quantum transduction (DQT) and entanglement-based quantum transduction (EQT) in an electro-optomechanical system under the assumption of correlated microwave and mechanical noise. For DQT, it revisits the correlated-noise model of Ref. [38] and shows that the coupling phase can produce destructive interference that suppresses the effective thermal noise. For EQT, it derives the covariance matrix of the microwave-optical entangled resource (Appendix A) and the resulting teleportation-induced channel, demonstrating that correlated noise can enhance entanglement and expand the region of positive quantum capacity. Section V proposes a two-mode-squeezing plus parametric-drive mechanism intended to engineer the required noise correlations, and applies it to both protocols in Figs. 5 and 6.

Significance. If stationary, phase-insensitive correlated noise with controllable phase can be physically produced, the paper's conditional results are valuable: the EQT covariance matrix is given in explicit closed form, the capacity calculations are internally consistent, and the predicted broadening of the positive-capacity region is a concrete, falsifiable claim. The paper is also honest in acknowledging that the proposed mechanism produces correlations that decay on the cavity timescale and that it uses initial values rather than a stationary spectrum. However, because Section V does not demonstrate that the engineered output fields provide the stationary, white, phase-insensitive correlation assumed in Eqs. (6) and (17), the physical significance of the performance predictions in Figs. 5 and 6 is not yet established. The phenomenological analysis stands as a conditional resource analysis, but the mechanism-to-model connection is the key missing link.

major comments (3)

[Section V, Eqs. (31)-(34) and following paragraph] The scattering matrix S and output noise correlation matrix W_out describe only the noise-engineering stage, whereas the transduction analysis in Sections III and IV requires white, delta-correlated, stationary input noise with the phase-insensitive cross moment <c†_in,i b_in> = n_th χ. The paper states that 'under the Markov approximation, the intermode correlations decay exponentially and vanish in the long-time limit' and then 'we use the initial values of the correlated second moments.' This substitution is uncontrolled: a transient initial correlation is not equivalent to a stationary noise spectral density, and the relevant memory lifetime is never quantified. Without a demonstrated separation of timescales or a frequency-domain calculation showing that the transduction bandwidth sees an approximately constant cross-spectral density, the performance plots in Figs. 5 and 6 do not follow from the proposed mechanism.
[Section V, W_out and comparison with Eq. (17)] The engineered output contains phase-sensitive cross moments such as <b_out c_out,i> in W_out, whereas the phenomenological model (17) contains only phase-insensitive cross moments. The authors acknowledge this discrepancy when comparing Fig. 6(a) with Fig. 2, but then proceed to evaluate the transduction performance using the phase-insensitive framework. Since the two correlation structures are inequivalent, the capacity results in Figs. 6(c)-6(d) cannot be attributed to the engineered resource without an additional argument (for example, a local operation that converts the phase-sensitive correlations into phase-insensitive ones without changing the entanglement resource).
[Section V, Eqs. (25)-(26); Figs. 3-6] The connection between the phenomenological parameter χ and the mechanism's parameters (C_g, C_ν, θ, n_th) is never derived. Figures 5 and 6 use specific values of C_g, C_ν, and θ but do not specify the corresponding χ, while Figs. 3 and 4 use χ = 0.7, 0.8, 0.9 without indicating how these map onto the mechanism. This prevents the reader from assessing whether the χ values that produce the predicted improvements are reachable with the proposed engineering, and it leaves the quantitative comparison between the phenomenological and mechanistic results ambiguous.

minor comments (5)

[Section III, after Eq. (2)] The sentence 'where g_om and g_om denote the pump-enhanced coupling rates' should read 'g_om and g_em'; also, a few lines later 'the the total cavity linewidths' contains a doubled definite article.
[Eq. (7)] The scattering-matrix elements S_13 and S_15 are not defined in the present paper and are inherited from Ref. [38]; a one-line definition or an explicit reference to the corresponding scattering matrix would make the DQT section self-contained.
[Figs. 2 and 6(a)] The optimal coupling phase is φ = π/2 for the phenomenological model and φ = 3π/2 for the engineered-correlation model; the text should state this difference explicitly to avoid the appearance of an inconsistency.
[Eq. (24)] The special-case formula for κ = 1 (random displacement channel) is stated without derivation; a citation to the derivation in Ref. [28] or a brief derivation would be helpful.
[Fig. 4 captions] The axis label 'Ce(o)m' is confusing; it should read C_em and C_om separately, as in the other figures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the correlated-noise advantage is a derived conditional result, not a fitted prediction; the admitted transient-correlation issue in Sec. V is a physical-support gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. Starting from the linearized Hamiltonians (2) and (9) and the explicit phenomenological correlation ansatz (6)/(17), the paper derives the DQT channel noise (7), the EQT covariance-matrix elements (A1)-(A5), and the teleportation-channel added noise (22). These are analytic consequences of the stated assumptions, and the capacity plots evaluate those formulas at declared parameters; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The reference to the authors' earlier work [38] for the correlated-noise model is attribution of a shared premise, and it is not load-bearing for the new EQT derivation. The one substantive weakness is in Sec. V: the paper states that "under the Markov approximation, the intermode correlations decay exponentially and vanish in the long-time limit" and then says "we use the initial values of the correlated second moments" to connect the engineered noise to the transduction analysis. This is an uncontrolled approximation, so the physical mechanism does not rigorously justify the stationary, phase-insensitive chi used in Eqs. (6) and (17); however, it is not circular, because the transduction formulas are not defined in terms of this section's output and no result is being assumed as its own conclusion. The conditional claims of Sections III-IV stand on their stated assumptions, and the score reflects only the minor non-load-bearing self-citation plus the transparently assumed resource.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a postulated correlation structure chi that is not derived from a first-principles Hamiltonian in Sections III-IV; the Section V mechanism is a proposed route but its correlations are assumed to persist. The remaining entries are standard modeling assumptions (input-output theory, narrow bandwidth, same-temperature baths, capacity lower bounds). No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

chi (noise correlation degree) = 0.7, 0.8, 0.9 in Figs. 2-4
Phenomenological correlation coefficient introduced by hand in Eq. (6)/(17); the central improvement scales with this parameter and its physical value is not derived within the model.
feedforward gain kappa = optimized for each parameter set
Free control parameter optimized to maximize the capacity lower bound; results depend on this optimization.
coupling phase phi = pi/2 for EQT, 3pi/2 in Sec. V; pi < phi < 2pi for DQT noise cancellation
Controllable phase chosen to maximize destructive interference; a tuning parameter, not a measured quantity.
mechanism parameters C_g, C_nu, theta = C_g=C_nu=0.1, theta=0 (Fig. 5); C_g=C_nu=0.05, theta=0 (Fig. 6)
Strengths of the proposed two-mode squeezing and parametric drive; chosen by hand for representative performance, not derived from a specific device.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Markovian input-output theory with white-noise Langevin equations describes the EOM system.
Used throughout Sections III-V; standard for cavity optomechanics.
domain assumption Narrow-bandwidth limit (omega=0) accurately captures the transduction channel.
All scattering relations solved at zero frequency; bandwidth effects and frequency-dependent capacities are not analyzed.
domain assumption The microwave and mechanical intrinsic baths have the same temperature T and n_th = [exp(hbar omega/k_B T)-1]^{-1} with omega_m = omega_e = 10 GHz.
Used to set n_e and the input noise matrix W_in; real devices may have different mode temperatures.
ad hoc to paper The correlation <c†_in,i b_in> = n_th chi with 0 <= |chi| <= 1 and chi real positive is physically available.
This is the resource; the Section V mechanism is a proposed route to generating it, but the persistence and exact structure are assumed.
ad hoc to paper The generated noise correlations persist long enough; their initial values can be used in the transduction analysis.
Section V states correlations decay exponentially under the Markov approximation, yet calculations use initial values; this memory assumption is not quantified.
standard math Quantum capacity lower bounds (Eqs. 5 and 24) are valid and the optimal gain kappa is unrestricted.
Standard results from Gaussian quantum information [13, 28].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-Performance Quantum Transduction with Correlated Noise." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DOGMGDYT

@misc{pith2026260806683,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-Performance Quantum Transduction with Correlated Noise},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DOGMGDYT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06683}
}

read the original abstract

Quantum transduction, which coherently converts quantum states between microwave and optical frequency domains, is a key technology for hybrid quantum architectures. Its performance, however, is fundamentally limited by thermal noise. Direct quantum transduction is particularly susceptible to noise and often fails to achieve positive quantum capacity. Entanglement-based quantum transduction, which realizes state conversion through quantum teleportation assisted by microwave-optical entanglement, is intrinsically more robust against thermal noise. However, generating sufficiently strong entanglement in a realistic thermal environment remains a major challenge. In this paper, we exploit correlated noise as a resource for quantum transduction. For direct quantum transduction, it is shown that the noise correlations give rise to controllable interference terms that substantially suppress the effective channel noise. For entanglement-based quantum transduction, the same correlations enhance the generation of microwave-optical entanglement, thereby improving the fidelity of teleportation-based conversion. As a result, both transduction protocols exhibit broad regions of positive quantum capacity over experimentally relevant ranges of cooperativity. We further discuss a possible physical mechanism for engineering the required noise correlations, providing theoretical guidance for experimental implementations. These results suggest that correlated noise can substantially relax the stringent cryogenic requirements for microwave-optical quantum transduction and facilitate the realization of practical hybrid quantum networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06683 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Logarithmic negativity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Effective added noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Quantum capacity lower bound [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Performance of direct quantum transduction. (a) Effective channel noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Performance of entanglement-based quantum transduction. (a) Logarithmic negativity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[38]

Y.-B. Hou, X. Ai, R. You, and C. Zhong, Correlated noise can be beneficial to quantum transducers, Phys. Rev. Res.7, L032042 (2025)

work page 2025
[1]

N. Lauk, N. Sinclair, S. Barzanjeh, J. P. Covey, M. Saffman, M. Spiropulu, and C. Simon, Perspectives on quantum transduction, Quantum Sci. and Technol.5, 020501 (2020)

work page 2020
[2]

Awschalom, K

D. Awschalom, K. K. Berggren, H. Bernien, S. Bhave, L. D. Carr, P. Davids, S. E. Economou, D. Englund, A. Faraon, M. Fejer, S. Guha, M. V. Gustafsson, E. Hu, L. Jiang, J. Kim, B. Korzh, P. Kumar, P. G. Kwiat, M. Lonˇ car, M. D. Lukin, D. A. Miller, C. Mon- roe, S. W. Nam, P. Narang, J. S. Orcutt, M. G. Raymer, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, M. Spiropulu, K. Srini- ...

2021
[3]

N. J. Lambert, A. Rueda, F. Sedlmeir, and H. G. L. Schwefel, Coherent conversion between microwave and optical photons—an overview of physical implementa- tions, Adv. Quantum Technol.3, 1900077 (2020)

work page 2020
[4]

J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, H. J. Kimble, and H. Mabuchi, Quantum state transfer and entanglement distribution among distant nodes in a quantum network, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 3221 (1997)

1997
[5]

H. J. Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature453, 1023 (2008)

2008
[6]

Blais, A

A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025005 (2021)

2021
[7]

R. J. Schoelkopf and S. M. Girvin, Wiring up quantum systems, Nature451, 664 (2008)

work page 2008

Show all 53 references

[8]

Wendin, Quantum information processing with su- perconducting circuits: a review, Rep

G. Wendin, Quantum information processing with su- perconducting circuits: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys.80, 106001 (2017)

2017
[9]

Tittel, J

W. Tittel, J. Brendel, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, Vio- lation of bell inequalities by photons more than 10 km apart, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 3563 (1998)

1998
[10]

J. Yin, Y. Cao, Y.-H. Li, S.-K. Liao, L. Zhang, J.-G. Ren, W.-Q. Cai, W.-Y. Liu, B. Li, H. Dai, G.-B. Li, Q.-M. Lu, Y.-H. Gong, Y. Xu, S.-L. Li, F.-Z. Li, Y.-Y. Yin, Z.-Q. Jiang, M. Li, J.-J. Jia, G. Ren, D. He, Y.-L. Zhou, X.-X. Zhang, N. Wang, X. Chang, Z.-C. Zhu, N.-L. Liu,...

2017
[11]

Takesue, S

H. Takesue, S. D. Dyer, M. J. Stevens, V. Verma, R. P. Mirin, and S. W. Nam, Quantum teleportation over 100 km of fiber using highly efficient superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors, Optica2, 832 (2015)

2015
[12]

Y.-A. Chen, Q. Zhang, T.-Y. Chen, W.-Q. Cai, S.-K. Liao, J. Zhang, K. Chen, J. Yin, J.-G. Ren, Z. Chen, S.-L. Han, Q. Yu, K. Liang, F. Zhou, X. Yuan, M.-S. Zhao, T.-Y. Wang, X. Jiang, L. Zhang, W.-Y. Liu, Y. Li, Q. Shen, Y. Cao, C.-Y. Lu, R. Shu, J.-Y. Wang, L. Li, N.- L. Liu,...

2021
[13]

Weedbrook, S

C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Gaussian quantum information, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 621 (2012)

2012
[14]

X. Han, W. Fu, C. Zhong, C.-L. Zou, Y. Xu, A. A. Sayem, M. Xu, S. Wang, R. Cheng, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Cavity piezo-mechanics for superconducting- nanophotonic quantum interface, Nat. Commun.11, 10.1038/s41467-020-17053-3 (2020)

2020 doi
[15]

W. Fu, M. Xu, X. Liu, C.-L. Zou, C. Zhong, X. Han, M. Shen, Y. Xu, R. Cheng, S. Wang, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Cavity electro-optic circuit for microwave- to-optical conversion in the quantum ground state, Phys. Rev. A103, 053504 (2021)

2021
[16]

Zhong, Z

C. Zhong, Z. Wang, C. Zou, M. Zhang, X. Han, W. Fu, M. Xu, S. Shankar, M. H. Devoret, H. X. Tang, and L. Jiang, Proposal for heralded generation and detection of entangled microwave–optical-photon pairs, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 010511 (2020)

2020
[17]

R. W. Andrews, R. W. Peterson, T. P. Purdy, K. Cicak, R. W. Simmonds, C. A. Regal, and K. W. Lehnert, Bidi- rectional and efficient conversion between microwave and optical light, Nat. Phys.10, 321 (2014)

2014
[18]

Mirhosseini, A

M. Mirhosseini, A. Sipahigil, M. Kalaee, and O. Painter, Superconducting qubit to optical photon transduction, Nature588, 599 (2020)

2020
[19]

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 optomechanical device, Appl. Phys. Lett.109, 10.1063/1.4955408 (2016)

2016 doi
[20]

A. P. Higginbotham, P. S. Burns, M. D. Urmey, R. W. Pe- terson, N. S. Kampel, B. M. Brubaker, G. Smith, K. W. Lehnert, and C. A. Regal, Harnessing electro-optic cor- relations in an efficient mechanical converter, Nat. Phys. 14, 1038 (2018)

2018
[21]

Zhang, C.-L

M. Zhang, C.-L. Zou, and L. Jiang, Quantum transduc- tion with adaptive control, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 020502 (2018)

2018
[22]

Zhong, M

C. Zhong, M. Xu, A. Clerk, H. X. Tang, and L. Jiang, Quantum transduction is enhanced by single mode squeezing operators, Phys. Rev. Res.4, L042013 (2022)

2022
[23]

Shi and Q

H. Shi and Q. Zhuang, Overcoming the fundamental limit of quantum transduction via intraband entanglement, Opt. Quantum2, 475 (2024)

2024
[24]

Hou, R.-Z

Y.-B. Hou, R.-Z. You, D.-J. Zhang, P. Li, and C. Zhong, 12 Intraband entanglement–assisted cavity electro-optic quantum transducer, Phys. Rev. Appl.25, 014010 (2026)

2026
[25]

Barzanjeh, M

S. Barzanjeh, M. Abdi, G. J. Milburn, P. Tombesi, and D. Vitali, Reversible optical-to-microwave quantum in- terface, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 130503 (2012)

2012
[26]

J. Wu, C. Cui, L. Fan, and Q. Zhuang, Deterministic microwave-optical transduction based on quantum tele- portation, Phys. Rev. Appl.16, 064044 (2021)

2021
[27]

Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, S

R. Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, S. Pirandola, S. Lloyd, and J. H. Shapiro, Reverse coherent information, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 210501 (2009)

2009
[28]

Zhong, X

C. Zhong, X. Han, and L. Jiang, Microwave and opti- cal entanglement for quantum transduction with electro- optomechanics, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 054061 (2022)

2022
[29]

Tian, Robust photon entanglement via quantum in- terference in optomechanical interfaces, Phys

L. Tian, Robust photon entanglement via quantum in- terference in optomechanical interfaces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 233602 (2013)

2013
[30]

Rueda, W

A. Rueda, W. Hease, S. Barzanjeh, and J. M. Fink, Electro-optic entanglement source for microwave to tele- com quantum state transfer, npj Quantum Inf.5, 10.1038/s41534-019-0220-5 (2019)

2019 doi
[31]

Zhang, S

Z. Zhang, S. Mouradian, F. N. C. Wong, and J. H. Shapiro, Entanglement-enhanced sensing in a lossy and noisy environment, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 110506 (2015)

2015
[32]

Y. Xia, A. R. Agrawal, C. M. Pluchar, A. J. Brady, Z. Liu, Q. Zhuang, D. J. Wilson, and Z. Zhang, Entanglement-enhanced optomechanical sensing, Nat. Photon.17, 470 (2023)

2023
[33]

Salhov, Q

A. Salhov, Q. Cao, J. Cai, A. Retzker, F. Jelezko, and G. Genov, Protecting quantum information via destruc- tive interference of correlated noise, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 223601 (2024)

2024
[34]

Yanay, J

Y. Yanay, J. C. Sankey, and A. A. Clerk, Quantum back- action and noise interference in asymmetric two-cavity optomechanical systems, Phys. Rev. A93, 063809 (2016)

2016
[35]

Singh, C

K. Singh, C. E. Bradley, S. Anand, V. Ramesh, R. White, and H. Bernien, Mid-circuit correc- tion of correlated phase errors using an array of spectator qubits, Science380, 1265 (2023), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.ade5337

2023 doi
[36]

Pirandola, C

S. Pirandola, C. Ottaviani, C. S. Jacobsen, G. Spedalieri, S. L. Braunstein, T. Gehring, and U. L. Andersen, Environment-assisted bosonic quantum communications, Npj Quantum Inf.7, 77 (2021)

2021
[37]

Lingenfelter and A

A. Lingenfelter and A. A. Clerk, Surpassing spectator qubits with photonic modes and continuous measurement for Heisenberg-limited noise mitigation, npj Quantum In- formation9, 81 (2023)

2023
[39]

Aspelmeyer, T

M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Cavity optomechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 1391 (2014)

2014
[40]

Bochmann, A

J. Bochmann, A. Vainsencher, D. D. Awschalom, and A. N. Cleland, Nanomechanical coupling between mi- crowave and optical photons, Nat. Phys.9, 712 (2013)

2013
[41]

Barzanjeh, D

S. Barzanjeh, D. Vitali, P. Tombesi, and G. J. Milburn, Entangling optical and microwave cavity modes by means of a nanomechanical resonator, Phys. Rev. A84, 042342 (2011)

2011
[42]

Bagci, A

T. Bagci, A. Simonsen, S. Schmid, L. G. Villanueva, E. Zeuthen, J. Appel, J. M. Taylor, A. Sørensen, K. Us- ami, A. Schliesser, and E. S. Polzik, Optical detection of radio waves through a nanomechanical transducer, Na- ture507, 81 (2014)

2014
[43]

Vidal and R

G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Computable measure of en- tanglement, Phys. Rev. A65, 032314 (2002)

2002
[44]

Furusawa, J

A. Furusawa, J. L. Sørensen, S. L. Braunstein, C. A. Fuchs, H. J. Kimble, and E. S. Polzik, Unconditional quantum teleportation, Science282, 706 (1998)

1998
[45]

Pirandola and S

S. Pirandola and S. Mancini, Quantum teleportation with continuous variables: A survey, Laser Physics16, 1418 (2006)

2006
[46]

Pirandola, J

S. Pirandola, J. Eisert, C. Weedbrook, A. Furusawa, and S. L. Braunstein, Advances in quantum teleportation, Nat. Photonics9, 641 (2015)

2015
[47]

E. X. DeJesus and C. Kaufman, Routh-hurwitz criterion in the examination of eigenvalues of a system of nonlinear ordinary differential equations, Phys. Rev. A35, 5288 (1987)

1987
[48]

Y.-D. Wang, S. Chesi, and A. A. Clerk, Bipartite and tri- partite output entanglement in three-mode optomechan- ical systems, Phys. Rev. A91, 013807 (2015)

2015
[49]

F. A. Mele, L. Lami, and V. Giovannetti, Restoring quantum communication efficiency over high loss optical fibers, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 180501 (2022)

2022
[50]

M. Xu, X. Han, C.-L. Zou, W. Fu, Y. Xu, C. Zhong, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Radiative cooling of a su- perconducting resonator, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 033602 (2020)

2020
[51]

Meesala, D

S. Meesala, D. Lake, S. Wood, P. Chiappina, C. Zhong, A. D. Beyer, M. D. Shaw, L. Jiang, and O. Painter, Quan- tum entanglement between optical and microwave pho- tonic qubits, Phys. Rev. X14, 031055 (2024)

2024
[52]

Albanese, S

B. Albanese, S. Probst, V. Ranjan, C. W. Zollitsch, M. Pechal, A. Wallraff, J. J. L. Morton, D. Vion, D. Es- teve, E. Flurin, and P. Bertet, Radiative cooling of a spin ensemble, Nat. Phys.16, 751 (2020)

2020
[53]

H. Wu, S. Mirkhanov, W. Ng, and M. Oxborrow, Bench- top cooling of a microwave mode using an optically pumped spin refrigerator, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 053604 (2021)

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [38]

Y.-B. Hou, X. Ai, R. You, and C. Zhong, Correlated noise can be beneficial to quantum transducers, Phys. Rev. Res.7, L032042 (2025)

work page 2025

[2] [1]

N. Lauk, N. Sinclair, S. Barzanjeh, J. P. Covey, M. Saffman, M. Spiropulu, and C. Simon, Perspectives on quantum transduction, Quantum Sci. and Technol.5, 020501 (2020)

work page 2020

[3] [2]

Awschalom, K

D. Awschalom, K. K. Berggren, H. Bernien, S. Bhave, L. D. Carr, P. Davids, S. E. Economou, D. Englund, A. Faraon, M. Fejer, S. Guha, M. V. Gustafsson, E. Hu, L. Jiang, J. Kim, B. Korzh, P. Kumar, P. G. Kwiat, M. Lonˇ car, M. D. Lukin, D. A. Miller, C. Mon- roe, S. W. Nam, P. Narang, J. S. Orcutt, M. G. Raymer, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, M. Spiropulu, K. Srini- ...

2021

[4] [3]

N. J. Lambert, A. Rueda, F. Sedlmeir, and H. G. L. Schwefel, Coherent conversion between microwave and optical photons—an overview of physical implementa- tions, Adv. Quantum Technol.3, 1900077 (2020)

work page 2020

[5] [4]

J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, H. J. Kimble, and H. Mabuchi, Quantum state transfer and entanglement distribution among distant nodes in a quantum network, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 3221 (1997)

1997

[6] [5]

H. J. Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature453, 1023 (2008)

2008

[7] [6]

Blais, A

A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025005 (2021)

2021

[8] [7]

R. J. Schoelkopf and S. M. Girvin, Wiring up quantum systems, Nature451, 664 (2008)

work page 2008