Heralded deterministic Knill-Laflamme-Milburn entanglement generation for solid-state emitters via waveguide-assisted photon scattering

Fang-Fang Du; Qiu-Lin Tan; Xin-Shan Du; Zhuo-Ya Bai

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 78 references

Heralded deterministic Knill-Laflamme-Milburn entanglement generation for solid-state emitters via waveguide-assisted photon scattering

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a heralded scheme in which a single auxiliary photon, scattered by waveguide-coupled solid-state emitters, generates two-, three-, and N-qubit Knill-Laflamme-Milburn states and converts scattering errors into discarded…

desk verdict A plausible but under-derived waveguide-QED scheme for heralded KLM states; the optics networks are carefully assembled, but the spin-dependent scattering rule that everything rides on is asserted rather than derived. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00387 v1 pith:CKKE7AVO submitted 2025-05-31 quant-ph

Fang-Fang Du , Xin-Shan Du , Zhuo-Ya Bai , Qiu-Lin Tan This is my paper

classification quant-ph MSC 81P4081P6881V80 PACS 03.67.Bg42.50.Ex

keywords KLMstateheraldedprotocolwaveguidequantumelectrodynamicssingle-photonscatteringsolid-stateemittersPurcellfactorfeedforwardcorrectionN-qubitentanglement

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes protocols that use a single auxiliary photon, scattered off solid-state emitters coupled to a one-dimensional waveguide, to generate two-, three-, and general $N$-qubit Knill-Laflamme-Milburn (KLM) entangled states. The central move is to turn every imperfect scattering event--caused by frequency detuning, weak coupling, or decay into other modes--into a detectable error that is discarded, so each run either succeeds or fails in a heralded way. At resonance with a Purcell factor $P=100$, the success probabilities are 96.10% for two qubits and 94.20% for three qubits, and fidelities stay high under detuning and inhomogeneous broadening because failed events are rejected rather than included.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is the scattering relation of Eq. (5): a photon reflected off a four-level emitter flips its polarization, $H\leftrightarrow V$, and acquires a sign that depends on whether the emitter's ground state is $\lvert g_+\rangle$ or $\lvert g_-\rangle$. This sign flip converts an emitter superposition $\lvert +\rangle$ into $\lvert -\rangle$ and, together with polarizing beam splitters, wave plates, and feedforward, implements the heralded $Z$ gate. The ancillary detector $D'_i$ in each emitter stage plays the heralding role: an erroneous interaction routes the photon to the detector, so the run is discarded and the remaining states are untouched.

What would settle it

Measure the four scattering amplitudes of a single emitter in the Fig. 1(b) geometry with the emitter prepared separately in $\lvert g_+\rangle$ and $\lvert g_-\rangle$. If the $H\rightarrow V$ reflected amplitudes for the two ground states differ in magnitude, or their relative phase is not $\pi$, then Eq. (5) is violated and the two-emitter output fidelity falls below one; a scan of these amplitudes versus detuning would settle the scheme's validity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a spin-dependent sign flip in photon scattering can be assembled into a heralded $Z$ gate and then into KLM-state generators. The scattering rule is: an $H$-polarized photon reflected off an emitter in ground state $\lvert g_+\rangle$ returns $V$-polarized with amplitude $r$, and the reflected amplitude carries the opposite sign when the emitter starts in $\lvert g_-\rangle$; the same holds with $H$ and $V$ interchanged. Starting from each emitter in $\lvert +\rangle=(\lvert g_+\rangle+\lvert g_-\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, the auxiliary photon's path and polarization record which emitters flipped to $\lvert -\rangle$, and the final single-photon detection projects the emitters into the KLM state up to classical feedforward operations. The success probability factors as $|r^2|^2$ for two qubits and $|r^3|^2$ for three qubits, giving 96.10% and 94.20% at $P=100$ and zero detuning.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol stands on Eq. (5): the two ground-state transitions must scatter the photon with the same reflection amplitude $r$, opposite signs, and clean $H\leftrightarrow V$ polarization conversion. If the two transitions couple unequally, pick up different phases, or mix polarizations, the emitter superposition does not evolve as claimed and the output is no longer a KLM state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At $P=100$ and zero detuning, the two-qubit KLM state is produced with probability 96.10%; at $\Delta/\gamma_{1D}=0.15$ the probability drops to 81.15%.
The three-qubit success probability is 94.20% at $P=100$ and zero detuning, falling to 73.10% at $\Delta/\gamma_{1D}=0.15$.
Because each of the four detector outcomes corresponds to a known feedforward operation, every successful run yields the same KLM state up to local $\sigma_z$ corrections.
For $N$ qubits the success probability is $|r^N|^2$, so the rate decays exponentially in $N$ unless the per-emitter reflection is near unity.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct test of Eq. (5) on a real emitter would calibrate how much asymmetry the scheme can tolerate; if the two transitions differ, one could add an extra heralding stage or an adaptive phase plate to restore the required sign relation.
Because the auxiliary photon also carries the final measurement outcome, the same scattering event could in principle double as a communication photon in a quantum repeater, a role the paper does not discuss.
The exponential factor $|r^N|^2$ makes the practical scaling target explicit: pushing the Purcell factor well above $P=100$ is the bottleneck for going beyond three qubits.
The interferometric layout, with its input superposition and feedforward table, resembles a parametrized family of state generators, so changing the input photon weights may produce other path-encoded multi-qubit states.

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

The genuinely new thing here is applying the standard single-photon scattering toolkit of waveguide QED to the generation of KLM states for stationary emitter qubits. The two-, three-, and N-qubit optical networks are assembled with evident care, and the feedforward correction tables are internally consistent. The success-probability scaling (p_N = |r^N|^2) follows directly from counting scattering events, and the plots against Purcell factor and detuning match that formula. I did not find a non-KLM state hiding in the network algebra for the ideal scattering rule; the BS/HWP algebra checks out on paper.

The soft spot, and it is a load-bearing one, is Eq. (5). The paper derives Eq. (4) for a two-level emitter without polarization, then simply asserts that for the four-level system an H photon reflected off |g±> comes back as V with amplitude ±r, and similarly for V input. That sign flip is the entire mechanism that converts |+> to |->. No Hamiltonian, level scheme, or selection rule is given for the four-level case, so the reader cannot verify that the two ground states scatter with equal magnitude and opposite phase, and that polarization is fully converted rather than mixed. If those conditions fail, the heralded state acquires extra phases or amplitude imbalances and Eq. (14) is not the KLM state. The paper also omits the fidelity formulas behind Fig. 8; the curves appear qualitatively sensible, but the definitions are never written down. Minor notational annoyance: the symbol r is used for the emitter scattering amplitude and also for the transmission coefficients r_j of the wave plates; in Sec. III the meaning must be inferred from context.

A separate concern is the word "deterministic" in the title. The scheme is postselected and heralded, with success probability below 1 for any finite Purcell factor; "deterministic" is doing promotional work rather than technical work. The success probabilities themselves are honest: they are computed from the cited Shen-Fan scattering amplitude, not fitted, and the parameter choices are design degrees of freedom. The paper does not hide its limitations, and the discussion of detuning and inhomogeneous broadening is reasonable, even if the fidelity analysis is incomplete.

Verdict: conditional, not reject. This is a credible engineering proposal in the “one more entangling protocol” genre. The central scattering assumption needs to be derived or supported by a specific emitter level scheme before the claims can be trusted. I would send it to an expert referee rather than desk reject, and I would phrase the main request as: derive Eq. (5), give the fidelity formulas, and drop “deterministic” from the title unless the asymptotic sense is defined.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes heralded schemes for generating two-qubit, three-qubit, and N-qubit Knill-Laflamme-Milburn (KLM) states encoded in the degenerate ground states of solid-state emitters coupled to one-dimensional waveguides. A single auxiliary photon scatters off the emitters, and polarization-resolved detection, together with classical feedforward, projects the emitters onto a KLM state whenever the heralding detectors do not fire. The success probabilities are quoted as p2 = |r^2|^2 and p3 = |r^3|^2, reaching 96.10% and 94.20% for Purcell factor P = 100 at resonance, with robustness claims supported by fidelity plots under detuning and inhomogeneous broadening.

Significance. If the underlying scattering rule in Eq. (5) is physically justified and the linear-optics algebra is corrected, the scheme would provide a simple, scalable interface between a flying photon and stationary emitter qubits, converting nonideal scattering events into heralded failures. A strength is that the success-probability curves are computed directly from the standard Shen-Fan scattering coefficient without fitting, and the extension from two to N qubits is conceptually natural. However, the central four-level scattering assumption is asserted rather than derived, and several load-bearing linear-optics details, including the feedforward tables and the fidelity formulas, are not verifiable as written. The proposal is therefore promising but currently not fully supported.

major comments (5)

[Sec. II, Eq. (5)] The four-level scattering rule in Eq. (5) is the cornerstone of the entire protocol, but it is asserted rather than derived. Equation (4) is obtained for a two-level emitter with no polarization degree of freedom, and it does not by itself imply that an H-polarized photon is converted to V polarization upon reflection, nor that the two ground states |g+> and |g-> produce opposite signs. A realistic four-level emitter has transition dipole moments, detunings, and possibly different couplings for the two transitions; nothing in the manuscript guarantees r_{g+} = -r_{g-} and exact H-to-V conversion. If these conditions fail, the superposition |+> does not evolve to |-> and Eq. (14) is not the KLM state. Please provide a microscopic Hamiltonian and selection rules for the four-level system, or cite a direct derivation of Eq. (5), and state the parameter conditions under which this scattering rule holds.
[Table I and Table II] The feedforward operations for two of the four detection outcomes appear to be interchanged. Using the definitions in Table I and the state in Eq. (13), the state for |H7> is A - B - C with A = |+>|+>, B = |+>|->, C = |->|->; applying I⊗σz gives A + B + C, whereas σz⊗σz gives A + B - C. The table lists σz⊗σz for D3 and I⊗σz for D4, which is the reverse of what Eq. (13) requires. Similarly, from Eq. (18), |H10> requires I⊗σz⊗I and |V10> requires σz⊗σz⊗σz, but Table II lists the opposite assignment. Unless a different convention is intended, two of the four heralding outcomes will produce the wrong emitter state, so the claim of deterministic KLM generation with feedforward is not supported as written.
[Sec. III.C, Eq. (20)] The N-qubit generalization is asserted rather than derived. Equation (20) is written down after a verbal description of the setup, but no step-by-step state evolution, no inductive proof, and no explicit success probability p_N are provided. Since the correctness of the VBS reflectivity schedule and the T-wave-plate placements is central to the extension, the N-qubit claim is not verifiable in the current form. Please include either a full derivation for general N or a rigorous induction argument, and state the resulting p_N.
[Sec. IV, Fig. 8] The fidelity curves in Fig. 8 are presented without any defining formula. The text introduces a Gaussian inhomogeneous broadening distribution ρ(δ), but it never states how the fidelity F2 or F3 is computed from this distribution, nor whether the fidelity is conditioned on successful heralding. Without the explicit expression, the robustness claim under inhomogeneous broadening cannot be reproduced or assessed. Please define F and give the integral or averaging procedure used to generate Fig. 8.
[Sec. III.A and III.B] The notation for the T wave plates is confusing and appears not to enter the stated evolution. The text introduces transmission coefficients r_j for T_j, but the state equations such as Eq. (12) contain only the emitter scattering amplitude r, and the symbol r is also used for the scattering amplitude in Eq. (4). In Sec. III.A the success probability is written as p2 = |r2|^2, which is ambiguous between r^2 and r_2. Please use distinct symbols for the scattering amplitude and the wave-plate coefficients, show explicitly where the T_j coefficients affect the amplitudes, and state whether the quoted success probabilities include any losses from these wave plates.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The abstract contains the typo 'protocolfs' and should be corrected to 'protocols'.
[Sec. IV] The numerical values for P = 100 and Δ/γ1D = 0 are inconsistent: the text first states p2 = 96.10% and p3 = 94.20%, then later states p2 = 96.02% and p3 = 94.10% for the same parameters. Please reconcile these numbers.
[Sec. II, Eq. (6)] Equation (6) drops the transmitted component |ψ_t> that is present in Eq. (5), but the text does not explicitly state that this is a conditional description valid only when the heralding detector does not fire. Please state this postselection explicitly.
[Sec. II, Eq. (4)] The sentence 'In contrast, when Δ ≠ 0, the incident photon is unaffected by the emitter' is only true in the large-detuning limit; for moderate detuning Eq. (4) gives nontrivial t and r. Please phrase this as a limit statement.
[Fig. 2 caption] The transformations for BS' and BS are given using symbols |mu> and |ml>, but these spatial-mode labels are not defined in the caption or in the text. Please define them clearly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scattering coefficient is taken from an external derivation, the protocol's output states are linear-optical bookkeeping of that coefficient, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Equation (4) for r and t is adopted from the external Shen-Fan result [73], not from the present authors' prior work, and it is parameter-free with stated assumptions; the paper does not fit r to any data. The four-level scattering rule Eq. (5) is an explicit physical assumption introduced by the paper. While it is not derived from the two-level Hamiltonian, it is not defined in terms of the target KLM state, so the protocol's output is a genuine consequence of a stated input rather than an equation that reduces to its own conclusion. Given Eq. (5), the states in Eqs. (14), (19), and (20) follow by path and interference bookkeeping. The success probabilities p2=|r^2|^2 and p3=|r^3|^2 are just powers of the single-interaction success probability |<psi|psi_r>|=|r|^2 because two and three emitter interactions must all succeed; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The inhomogeneous-broadening fidelity plots are averages of the same r over a Gaussian detuning distribution. The main weakness is that Eq. (5) is asserted without a microscopic derivation for the four-level system, but that is a physical-validity or correctness risk, not circularity. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain and no uniqueness claim imported from the authors' earlier papers.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All quantitative predictions are built on the known single-photon scattering amplitude r of Shen and Fan. The protocols add linear optical networks with hand-chosen transmission and reflectivity parameters. No new physical entities are introduced. The main burden is on the assumed spin-dependent scattering rule and on the perfect linear-optics assumptions.

free parameters (3)

Transmission coefficients r_j of T wave plates (two-qubit scheme) = unspecified; appear as r in Eq. (12)
The final state amplitudes are written with factor r^2, implying the T plates are set to the emitter scattering amplitude r. The required values are not stated, and r varies with detuning and Purcell factor.
Reflectivity schedule of VBS/BS in N-qubit scheme = (N-k+1)/(N-k+2) for BS k
The beam-splitter reflectivities are chosen by hand to produce the uniform KLM amplitude distribution. Different choices would give a different entangled state.
Initial single-photon superposition amplitudes = (1, sqrt(2))/sqrt(3) for two-qubit; (1, sqrt(3))/2 for three-qubit
The HWP angles are set so the photon enters a specific superposition required to balance the output state; these coefficients are design choices, not derived from measurement.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Eq. (5): spin-dependent reflection rule for the four-level emitter
The scattering of H/V photons on |g+> and |g-> is asserted to be identical in amplitude and opposite in sign, enabling the |+> to |-> flip. No Hamiltonian or selection rules are given for this four-level system.
domain assumption Single-photon scattering amplitude r from Shen-Fan (2005)
The Hamiltonian and scattering coefficients in Eqs. (1)-(4) are taken from a cited standard result and are assumed valid for the multi-level emitter and for repeated scattering of the same photon.
domain assumption Perfect temporal and spectral overlap at beam splitters
The final interference at BS requires simultaneous arrival of photon pulses from different arms; the paper mentions this as a crucial condition but does not model pulse shapes or distinguishability.
domain assumption Ideal linear optical elements and unit-efficiency herald detectors
The state transformations assume lossless beam splitters, perfect polarization rotations, and photon detectors that click with unit efficiency whenever an error path is populated; detector dark counts and losses are not included.
domain assumption The same single photon can scatter sequentially from N emitters without frequency change or wave-packet distortion
The protocol routes one photon through multiple emitters. The scattering is treated as a linear amplitude multiplier, ignoring photon spectral reshaping, re-emission, and the possibility that the photon is lost after the first scattering.
domain assumption Inhomogeneous broadening follows a Gaussian distribution
Adopted for Fig. 8 without empirical justification for the specific emitter platform.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Heralded deterministic Knill-Laflamme-Milburn entanglement generation for solid-state emitters via waveguide-assisted photon scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CKKE7AVO

@misc{pith2026250600387,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Heralded deterministic Knill-Laflamme-Milburn entanglement generation for solid-state emitters via waveguide-assisted photon scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CKKE7AVO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00387}
}

abstract

The realization of quantum networks that exploit multiqubit entanglement opens avenues for transformative applications in the realm of quantum communication. In the paper, we present a set of heralded deterministic protocols designed for the generation of two-qubit, three-qubit, and $N$-qubit Knill-Laflamme-Milburn (KLM) states by the photon scattering property in one-dimensional waveguide-emitter system. In each protocol, the auxiliary single photon functions as a universal interface to bridge all stationary qubits. Our proposed protocols allow for the conversion of irregular scattering incidents occasioned by nonideal coupling and frequency detuning into detectable events by triggering the detectors, which mean that our protocols for the generation of arbitrary KLM states with the predictive operational character and high fidelities. Owing to the significant breakthroughs in the integration of quantum emitters with nanophotonic waveguides, our protocolfs possess ideal features that position them as the promising candidate for deployment in long-range multiqubit quantum networks systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00387 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Schematic representation for generating the two-qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Schematic representation for generating the three-qubit KLM state. VBS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Schematic of the setup for generating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) The success probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) The success probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a) The fidelity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

[1]

Y. L. Lim, A. Beige, and L. C. Kwek, Repeat-until- success linear optics distributed quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 030505 (2005)

2005
[2]

Another BS performs the transformation |mu⟩ →(|mu⟩ + |ml⟩)/ √ 2 and |ml⟩ →(|mu⟩−| ml⟩)/ √

work page
[3]

T j(j = 1, 2) is a wave plate with a specific transmission coefficient rj

HWP 22.5◦ i (i = 1, 2) refers to a half- wave plate rotated to θ = 22.5◦. T j(j = 1, 2) is a wave plate with a specific transmission coefficient rj. D q(q = 1, 2, 3, 4) is a single-photon detector. e1, e2). Thus, the overall system state is expressed as |Λ⟩0 = ( 1√ 3 |H⟩ + √ 2√ 3 |V ⟩)|+⟩e1 |+⟩e2 . Firstly, after the single photon enters the first PBS 1, ...

work page
[4]

As a result, the following 5 3 4 6 5 8 9 10 1 7 2 2D 3D 1D 1D 1PBS 3PBS 2PBS 4PBS 5PBS 6PBS 8PBS 7PBS 1D 2D 3D 4D 3e 2e 1e 1T 2T 3T 1VBS 2VBS BS 22.5 1HWP 22.5 2HWP 45HWP FIG

Sub- sequently, the photon in spatial modes 7 (8) undergoes the HWP 22.5◦ 1 (HWP22.5◦ 2 ). As a result, the following 5 3 4 6 5 8 9 10 1 7 2 2D 3D 1D 1D 1PBS 3PBS 2PBS 4PBS 5PBS 6PBS 8PBS 7PBS 1D 2D 3D 4D 3e 2e 1e 1T 2T 3T 1VBS 2VBS BS 22.5 1HWP 22.5 2HWP 45HWP FIG. 3. Schematic representation for generating the three-qubit KLM state. VBS k(k = 1 , 2)...

work page
[5]

Jiang, J

L. Jiang, J. M. Taylor, A. S. Sørensen, and M. D. Lukin, Distributed quantum computation based on small quan- tum registers, Phys. Rev. A 76, 062323 (2007)

2007
[6]

W. H. Su, W. Qin, A. Miranowicz, T. Li, and F. Nori, Heralded nonlocal quantum gates for distributed quan- tum computation in a decoherence-free subspace, Phys. Rev. A 110, 052612 (2024)

work page 2024
[7]

P. Zhao, W. Zhong, M. M. Du, X. Y. Li, L. Zhou, and Y. B. Sheng, Quantum secure direct communication with hybrid entanglement, Front. Phys. 19, 51201 (2024)

work page 2024
[8]

J. W. Ying, J. Y. Wang, Y. X. Xiao, S. P. Gu, X. F. Wang, W. Zhong, M. M. Du, X. Y. Li, S. T. Shen, and A. L. Zhang, Passive-state preparation for quantum se- cure direct communication, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. As- tron. 68, 240312 (2025)

work page 2025

Show all 78 references

[9]

J. W. Ying, P. Zhao, W. Zhong, M. M. Du, X. Y. Li, S. T. Shen, A. L. Zhang, L. Zhou, and Y. B. Sheng, Passive decoy-state quantum secure direct communication with a heralded single-photon source, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 024040 (2024)

2024
[10]

D. Pan, G. L. Long, L. G. Yin, Y. B. Sheng, D. Ruan, S. X. Ng, J. H. Lu, and L. Hanzo, The evolution of quan- tum secure direct communication: On the road to the qinternet, IEEE Commun. Surv. Tut. 26, 1898 (2024)

2024
[11]

R. Y. Qi, Z. Sun, Z. S. Lin, P. H. Niu, W. T. Hao, L. Y. Song, Q. Huang, J. C. Gao, L. G. Yin, and G. L. Long, Implementation and security analysis of practical quan- tum secure direct communication, Light Sci. Appl. 8, 22 (2019)

2019
[12]

Zhang, D

W. Zhang, D. S. Ding, Y. B. Sheng, L. Zhou, B. S. Shi, and G. C. Guo, Quantum secure direct communication with quantum memory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 220501 (2017)

2017
[13]

J. Y. Hu, B. Yu, M. Y. Jing, L. T. Xiao, S. T. Jia, G. Q. Qin, and G. L. Long, Experimental quantum secure di- rect communication with single photons, Light Sci. Appl. 5, e16144 (2016)

2016
[14]

L. Zhou, Y. B. Sheng, and G. L. Long, Device- independent quantum secure direct communication against collective attacks, Sci. Bull. 65, 12 (2020)

2020
[15]

Zhang, J

Q. Zhang, J. W. Ying, Z. J. Wang, W. Zhong, M. M. Du, S. T. Shen, X. Y. Li, A. L. Zhang, S. P. Gu, and X. F. Wang, Device-independent quantum secret sharing with advanced random key generation basis, Phys. Rev. A 111, 012603 (2025)

2025
[16]

Zhang, Q

C. Zhang, Q. Zhang, W. Zhong, M. M. Du, S. T. Shen, X. Y. Li, A. L. Zhang, L. Zhou, and Y. B. Sheng, Memory-assisted measurement-device- independent quantum secret sharing, Phys. Rev. A 111, 012602 (2025). 9

2025
[17]

W. X. Duan and T. J. Wang, Control power of high- dimensional controlled dense coding, Phys. Rev. A 105, 052417 (2022)

2022
[18]

W. Q. Liu and H. R. Wei, Quantum gate teleportation with the superposition of causal order, Phys. Rev. Appl. 23, 014064 (2025)

2025
[19]

N. F. Gong, D. B. Cai, Z. G. Huang, L. Qian, R. Q. Zhang, X. M. Hu, B. H. Liu, and T. J. Wang, Opti- mal quantum teleportation fidelity in arbitrary dimen- sion, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 054045 (2024)

2024
[20]

M. Y. Lv, X. M. Hu, N. F. Gong, T. J. Wang, Y. Guo, B. H. Liu, Y. F. Huang, C. F. Li, and G. C. Guo, Demonstration of controlled high-dimensional quantum teleportation, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. 67, 230311 (2024)

2024
[21]

Z. Q. Wang and T. J. Wang, Verification of quantum- gate teleportation based on bell nonlocality in a black- box scenario, Phys. Rev. A 108, 012434 (2023)

2023
[22]

P. S. Yan, L. Zhou, W. Zhong, and Y. B. Sheng, Feasible measurement-based entanglement purification in linear optics, Opt. Express 29, 9363 (2021)

2021
[23]

W. Qin, A. Miranowicz, P. B. Li, X. Y. L¨ u, J. Q. You, and F. Nori, Exponentially enhanced light-matter inter- action, cooperativities, and steady-state entanglement using parametric amplification, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 093601 (2018)

2018
[24]

G. L. Jiang, W. Q. Liu, and H. R. Wei, Prac- tically enhanced hyperentanglement concentration for polarization-spatial hyperentangled bell states with lin- ear optics and common single-photon detectors, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 034044 (2023)

2023
[25]

L. Zhou, W. Zhong, and Y. B. Sheng, Purification of the residual entanglement, Opt. Express 28, 2291 (2020)

2020
[26]

P. L. Guo, C. Y. Gao, and B. C. Ren, Polarization- transverse-spatial logical qubit entanglement purification using linear optics, Opt. Laser Technol. 185, 112566 (2025)

2025
[27]

Friis, G

N. Friis, G. Vitagliano, M. Malik, and M. Huber, En- tanglement certification from theory to experiment, Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 72 (2019)

2019
[28]

W. H. Zhang, C. Zhang, Z. Chen, X. X. Peng, X. Y. Xu, P. Yin, S. Yu, X. J. Ye, Y. J. Han, and J. S. Xu, Experi- mental optimal verification of entangled states using local measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 030506 (2020)

2020
[29]

Sciara, P

S. Sciara, P. Roztocki, B. Fischer, C. Reimer, L. Romero Cort´ es, W. J. Munro, D. J. Moss, A. C. Cino, L. Caspani, and M. Kues, Scalable and effective multi- level entangled photon states: a promising tool to boost quantum technologies, Nanophotonics 10, 4447 (2021)

2021
[30]

S. Hong, C. H. Park, Y. H. Choi, Y. S. Kim, Y. W. Cho, K. Oh, and H. T. Lim, Experimental implementation of arbitrary entangled operations, New J. Phys. 22, 093070 (2020)

2020
[31]

K. Lemr, A. ˇCernoch, J. Soubusta, and J. Fiur´ aˇ sek, Experimental preparation of two-photon knill-laflamme- milburn states, Phys. Rev. A 81, 012321 (2010)

2010
[32]

Okamoto, J

R. Okamoto, J. L. O’Brien, H. F. Hofmann, and S. Takeuchi, Realization of a knill-laflamme-milburn controlled-not photonic quantum circuit combining effec- tive optical nonlinearities, PNAS. 108, 10067 (2011)

2011
[33]

J. J. Guanzon, M. S. Winnel, D. Singh, A. P. Lund, and T. C. Ralph, Saturating the maximum success probabil- ity bound for noiseless linear amplification using linear optics, PRX Quantum 5, 020359 (2024)

2024
[34]

Erhard, M

M. Erhard, M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger, Advances in high-dimensional quantum entanglement, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 365 (2020)

2020
[35]

Z. H. Xie, G. Y. Wang, Z. H. Guo, Z. H. Li, and T. Li, Heralded quantum multiplexing entanglement between stationary qubits via distribution of high-dimensional op- tical entanglement, Opt. Express 31, 37802 (2023)

2023
[36]

Huber and M

M. Huber and M. Paw lowski, Weak randomness in device-independent quantum key distribution and the ad- vantage of using high-dimensional entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 88, 032309 (2013)

2013
[37]

Zhang, F

Y. Zhang, F. S. Roux, T. Konrad, M. Agnew, J. Leach, and A. Forbes, Engineering two-photon high-dimensional states through quantum interference, Sci. Adv. 2, e1501165 (2016)

2016
[38]

X. Y. Zhang, C. Cao, Y. P. Gao, L. Fan, R. Zhang, and C. Wang, Generation and manipulation of phonon laser- ing in a two-drive cavity magnomechanical system, New J. Phys. 25, 053039 (2023)

2023
[39]

R. Ukai, N. Iwata, Y. Shimokawa, S. C. Armstrong, A. Politi, J. Yoshikawa, P. Van Loock, and A. Furusawa, Demonstration of unconditional one-way quantum com- putations for continuous variables, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 240504 (2011)

2011
[40]

Li and G

T. Li and G. L. Long, Hyperparallel optical quantum computation assisted by atomic ensembles embedded in double-sided optical cavities, Phys. Rev. A 94, 022343 (2016)

2016
[41]

Yoshikawa, T

J. Yoshikawa, T. Hayashi, T. Akiyama, N. Takei, A. Huck, U. L. Andersen, and A. Furusawa, Demonstra- tion of deterministic and high fidelity squeezing of quan- tum information, Phys. Rev. A 76, 060301 (2007)

2007
[42]

Rietsche, C

R. Rietsche, C. Dremel, S. Bosch, L. Steinacker, M. Meckel, and J. M. Leimeister, Quantum computing, Electron Markets 32, 2525 (2022)

2022
[43]

Popescu, Knill-laflamme-milburn quantum computa- tion with bosonic atoms, Phys

S. Popescu, Knill-laflamme-milburn quantum computa- tion with bosonic atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 130503 (2007)

2007
[44]

D. X. Li, X. Q. Shao, J. H. Wu, X. X. Yi, and T. Y. Zheng, Engineering steady knill-laflamme-milburn state of rydberg atoms by dissipation, Opt. Express 26, 2292 (2018)

2018
[45]

R. H. Zheng, Y. Xiao, S. L. Su, Y. H. Chen, Z. C. Shi, J. Song, Y. Xia, and S. B. Zheng, Fast and dephasing- tolerant preparation of steady knill-laflamme-milburn states via dissipative rydberg pumping, Phys. Rev. A 103, 052402 (2021)

2021
[46]

Y. Liu, Z. C. Shi, J. Song, Y. H. Chen, and Y. Xia, Gen- eration of multiparticle knill-laflamme-milburn states in circuit qed via counter-rotating interactions, Adv. Quan- tum Technol. 7, 2400009 (2024)

2024
[47]

S. P. Yu, J. A. Muniz, C. L. Hung, and H. J. Kimble, Two-dimensional photonic crystals for engineering atom– light interactions, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 12743 (2019)

2019
[48]

J. S. Douglas, H. Habibian, C. L. Hung, A. V. Gorshkov, H. J. Kimble, and D. E. Chang, Quantum many-body models with cold atoms coupled to photonic crystals, Nat. Photonics 9, 326 (2015)

2015
[49]

G. Z. Song, E. Munro, W. Nie, L. C. Kwek, F. G. Deng, and G. L. Long, Photon transport mediated by an atomic chain trapped along a photonic crystal waveguide, Phys. Rev. A 98, 023814 (2018). 10

2018
[50]

Gonz´ alez-Tudela, C

A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, C. L. Hung, D. E. Chang, J. I. Cirac, and H. J. Kimble, Subwavelength vacuum lattices and atom–atom interactions in two-dimensional photonic crystals, Nat. Photonics 9, 320 (2015)

2015
[51]

G. Z. Song, L. X. Wang, J. X. Zhang, and H. R. Wei, Tunable photon scattering by an atom dimer coupled to a band edge of a photonic crystal waveguide, Phys. Rev. A 111, 023707 (2025)

2025
[52]

Liedl, S

C. Liedl, S. Pucher, F. Tebbenjohanns, P. Schneeweiss, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Collective radiation of a cas- caded quantum system: From timed dicke states to in- verted ensembles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 163602 (2023)

2023
[53]

H. L. Sørensen, J. B. B´ eguin, K. W. Kluge, I. Iakoupov, A. Sørensen, J. H. M¨ uller, E. S. Polzik, and J. Appel, Co- herent backscattering of light off one-dimensional atomic strings, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 133604 (2016)

2016
[54]

G. Z. Song, J. L. Guo, W. Nie, L. C. Kwek, and G. L. Long, Optical properties of a waveguide-mediated chain of randomly positioned atoms, Opt. Express 29, 1903 (2021)

2021
[55]

Z. H. Wang, L. Du, Y. Li, and Y. X. Liu, Phase- controlled single-photon nonreciprocal transmission in a one-dimensional waveguide, Phys. Rev. A 100, 053809 (2019)

2019
[56]

M. T. Cheng, J. P. Xu, and G. S. Agarwal, Waveguide transport mediated by strong coupling with atoms, Phys. Rev. A 95, 053807 (2017)

2017
[57]

Sipahigil, R

A. Sipahigil, R. E. Evans, D. D. Sukachev, M. J. Bu- rek, J. Borregaard, M. K. Bhaskar, C. T. Nguyen, J. L. Pacheco, H. A. Atikian, and C. Meuwly, An integrated di- amond nanophotonics platform for quantum-optical net- works, Science 354, 847 (2016)

2016
[58]

Clevenson, M

H. Clevenson, M. E. Trusheim, C. Teale, T. Schr¨ oder, D. Braje, and D. Englund, Broadband magnetometry and temperature sensing with a light-trapping diamond waveguide, Nat. Phys. 11, 393 (2015)

2015
[59]

G. Z. Song, L. C. Kwek, F. G. Deng, and G. L. Long, Mi- crowave transmission through an artificial atomic chain coupled to a superconducting photonic crystal, Phys. Rev. A 99, 043830 (2019)

2019
[60]

X. L. Yin, W. B. Luo, and J. Q. Liao, Non-markovian dis- entanglement dynamics in double-giant-atom waveguide- qed systems, Phys. Rev. A 106, 063703 (2022)

2022
[61]

N. M. Sundaresan, R. Lundgren, G. Zhu, A. V. Gorshkov, and A. A. Houck, Interacting qubit-photon bound states with superconducting circuits, Phys. Rev. X 9, 011021 (2019)

2019
[62]

Kannan, A

B. Kannan, A. Almanakly, Y. Sung, A. Di Paolo, D. A. Rower, J. Braum¨ uller, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, A. Karamlou, and K. Serniak, On-demand directional mi- crowave photon emission using waveguide quantum elec- trodynamics, Nat. Phys. 19, 394 (2023)

2023
[63]

C. J. Yang, X. Y. Liu, S. Q. Xia, S. Y. Bai, and J. H. An, Non-markovian quantum interconnect formed by a surface plasmon polariton waveguide, Phys. Rev. A 109, 033518 (2024)

2024
[64]

G. M. Akselrod, C. Argyropoulos, T. B. Hoang, C. Cirac ` ı, C. Fang, J. N. Huang, D. R. Smith, and M. H. Mikkelsen, Probing the mechanisms of large purcell enhancement in plasmonic nanoantennas, Nat. Photonics 8, 835 (2014)

2014
[65]

Kannan, D

B. Kannan, D. L. Campbell, F. Vasconcelos, R. Winik, D. K. Kim, M. Kjaergaard, P. Krantz, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, and J. L. Yoder, Generating spatially entan- gled itinerant photons with waveguide quantum electro- dynamics, Sci. Adv. 6, eabb8780 (2020)

2020
[66]

Z. H. Chen, Y. Zhou, and J. T. Shen, Entanglement- preserving approach for reservoir-induced photonic dis- sipation in waveguide qed systems, Phys. Rev. A 98, 053830 (2018)

2018
[67]

Gajewski, T

M. Gajewski, T. Haase, and G. Alber, Dissipation- enabled resonant adiabatic quantum state transfer: En- tanglement generation and quantum cloning, Phys. Rev. A 104, 052608 (2021)

2021
[68]

X. H. Zhang and H. U. Baranger, Heralded bell state of dissipative qubits using classical light in a waveguide, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 140502 (2019)

2019
[69]

Z. H. Chen, Y. Zhou, and J. T. Shen, Dissipation- induced photonic-correlation transition in waveguide-qed systems, Phys. Rev. A 96, 053805 (2017)

2017
[70]

W. K. Mok, D. Aghamalyan, J. B. You, T. Haug, W. Z. Zhang, C. E. Png, and L. C. Kwek, Long-distance dissipation-assisted transport of entangled states via a chiral waveguide, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013369 (2020)

2020
[71]

Holzinger, R

R. Holzinger, R. Gutierrez Jauregui, T. H¨ onigl Decrinis, G. Kirchmair, A. Asenjo Garcia, and H. Ritsch, Control of localized single-and many-body dark states in waveg- uide qed, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 253601 (2022)

2022
[72]

A. S. Sheremet, M. I. Petrov, I. V. Iorsh, A. V. Poshakin- skiy, and A. N. Poddubny, Waveguide quantum electro- dynamics: Collective radiance and photon-photon corre- lations, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 015002 (2023)

2023
[73]

Y. X. Zhang, C. Yu, and K. Mølmer, Subradiant bound dimer excited states of emitter chains coupled to a one di- mensional waveguide, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013173 (2020)

2020
[74]

Henriet, J

L. Henriet, J. S. Douglas, D. E. Chang, and A. Albrecht, Critical open-system dynamics in a one-dimensional optical-lattice clock, Phys. Rev. A 99, 023802 (2019)

2019
[75]

W. Nie, T. Shi, Y. X. Liu, and F. Nori, Non-hermitian waveguide cavity qed with tunable atomic mirrors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 103602 (2023)

2023
[76]

J. T. Shen and S. H. Fan, Coherent photon transport from spontaneous emission in one-dimensional waveg- uides, Opt. Lett. 30, 2001 (2005)

2005
[77]

Mittelst¨ adt, L

A. Mittelst¨ adt, L. A. T. Greif, S. T. Jagsch, and A. Schliwa, Terahertz lasing at room temperature: A numerical study of a vertical-emitting quantum cascade laser based on a quantum dot superlattice, Phys. Rev. B 103, 115301 (2021)

2021
[78]

Basso Basset, S

F. Basso Basset, S. Bietti, A. Tuktamyshev, S. Vichi, E. Bonera, and S. Sanguinetti, Spectral broadening in self-assembled gaas quantum dots with narrow size dis- tribution, J. Appl. Phys. 126 (2019)

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Y. L. Lim, A. Beige, and L. C. Kwek, Repeat-until- success linear optics distributed quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 030505 (2005)

2005

[2] [2]

Another BS performs the transformation |mu⟩ →(|mu⟩ + |ml⟩)/ √ 2 and |ml⟩ →(|mu⟩−| ml⟩)/ √

work page

[3] [3]

T j(j = 1, 2) is a wave plate with a specific transmission coefficient rj

HWP 22.5◦ i (i = 1, 2) refers to a half- wave plate rotated to θ = 22.5◦. T j(j = 1, 2) is a wave plate with a specific transmission coefficient rj. D q(q = 1, 2, 3, 4) is a single-photon detector. e1, e2). Thus, the overall system state is expressed as |Λ⟩0 = ( 1√ 3 |H⟩ + √ 2√ 3 |V ⟩)|+⟩e1 |+⟩e2 . Firstly, after the single photon enters the first PBS 1, ...

work page

[4] [4]

As a result, the following 5 3 4 6 5 8 9 10 1 7 2 2D 3D 1D 1D 1PBS 3PBS 2PBS 4PBS 5PBS 6PBS 8PBS 7PBS 1D 2D 3D 4D 3e 2e 1e 1T 2T 3T 1VBS 2VBS BS 22.5 1HWP 22.5 2HWP 45HWP FIG

Sub- sequently, the photon in spatial modes 7 (8) undergoes the HWP 22.5◦ 1 (HWP22.5◦ 2 ). As a result, the following 5 3 4 6 5 8 9 10 1 7 2 2D 3D 1D 1D 1PBS 3PBS 2PBS 4PBS 5PBS 6PBS 8PBS 7PBS 1D 2D 3D 4D 3e 2e 1e 1T 2T 3T 1VBS 2VBS BS 22.5 1HWP 22.5 2HWP 45HWP FIG. 3. Schematic representation for generating the three-qubit KLM state. VBS k(k = 1 , 2)...

work page

[5] [5]

Jiang, J

L. Jiang, J. M. Taylor, A. S. Sørensen, and M. D. Lukin, Distributed quantum computation based on small quan- tum registers, Phys. Rev. A 76, 062323 (2007)

2007

[6] [6]

W. H. Su, W. Qin, A. Miranowicz, T. Li, and F. Nori, Heralded nonlocal quantum gates for distributed quan- tum computation in a decoherence-free subspace, Phys. Rev. A 110, 052612 (2024)

work page 2024

[7] [7]

P. Zhao, W. Zhong, M. M. Du, X. Y. Li, L. Zhou, and Y. B. Sheng, Quantum secure direct communication with hybrid entanglement, Front. Phys. 19, 51201 (2024)

work page 2024

[8] [8]

J. W. Ying, J. Y. Wang, Y. X. Xiao, S. P. Gu, X. F. Wang, W. Zhong, M. M. Du, X. Y. Li, S. T. Shen, and A. L. Zhang, Passive-state preparation for quantum se- cure direct communication, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. As- tron. 68, 240312 (2025)

work page 2025