Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Satellite-assisted Entanglement Distribution with High-Dimensional Photonic Encoding

T0 review · 3 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 A standard satellite SPDC source, operated as a source of time-bin photonic qudits, can distribute several event-ready entangled pairs between ground stations at rates orders of magnitude higher than qubit operation, for distances of…

desk verdict A solid, well-modeled satellite-qudit entanglement paper whose headline rate claim rests on an explicitly optimistic error budget; worth referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16751 v1 pith:FHJDN4VX submitted 2025-05-22 quant-ph

V. Domínguez Tubío , M.C. Dijksman , J. Borregaard This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords satellite-assistedentanglementdistributionphotonicquditstime-binencodingquantummemoriesSPDCsourceevent-readymultiplexingBellpairfidelity
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 argues that the bottleneck in satellite-assisted entanglement distribution is not the source but the waiting time: once one entangled pair has been stored in a ground quantum memory, it decoheres while the protocol waits for the next pair. The authors show that operating a standard SPDC source as a source of time-bin encoded photonic qudits lets a single successful photon-pair arrival create several Bell pairs at once, so the memories only need to hold the state for the classical communication time between ground stations. For two event-ready pairs with Bell pair fidelity at least 0.90 or 0.95, they compute distribution rates several orders of magnitude higher than the qubit mode over 200 to 1200 km, using satellite link parameters similar to demonstrated missions and memory coherence times of several seconds. The satellite hardware need not change; only the ground memories must be compatible with qudit storage.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the time-bin photonic qudit: $2m$ consecutive SPDC pulses form one $2m$-dimensional entangled photon pair, and the ground stations map each time-bin label to the binary encoding of an $m$-qubit memory register using spin-photon controlled-NOT gates and optical switching. A Fourier-basis measurement on the photon erases which time bin arrived and heralds that the register now holds $m$ Bell pairs, with only local phase corrections. Because all $m$ pairs materialize in one successful event, the required storage time in the qudit mode is just the heralding time $\tau_h$, the classical communication delay between stations, instead of the full waiting time to collect $m$ separate successes. The rate and fidelity are computed from a Markov-chain count of attempts, with the fidelity accounting for decoherence, dark counts, and multi-pair SPDC terms.

What would settle it

Run the proposed qudit protocol on a satellite-to-ground link with current cavity-coupled diamond memories and measure, for $m=2$, the coincident rate of two event-ready pairs and the per-pair Bell fidelity. If the measured infidelity from spin-photon gates and switching alone exceeds the 5 to 10 percent allowed by the 0.90/0.95 targets before accounting for decoherence, the predicted several-orders-of-magnitude advantage over qubit operation will not materialize at those fidelities.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a satellite-based SPDC source, normally thought of as emitting approximate photonic qubit pairs, can instead be viewed as emitting an approximate $2m$-dimensional entangled time-bin qudit, where $m$ is the number of event-ready Bell pairs ultimately desired between two ground stations. When the qudit is successfully mapped into the ground memories, it generates all $m$ Bell pairs simultaneously, rather than one at a time. The authors compare this qudit mode with standard qubit operation, including multiplexed memories and, for the qubit case, storage cutoff times, and find that for $m=2$ with average Bell pair fidelity at least $0.90$ and $0.95$, the qudit mode achieves distribution rates several orders of magnitude larger across distances of roughly 200 to 1200 km. The advantage persists when both modes use the same source brightness, memory efficiency, coherence time, and link model, and it relies only on the ground stations being able to store high-dimensional time-bin states.

Load-bearing premise

The central comparison assumes that every memory imperfection except coherence decay, notably the errors from spin-photon gates and optical switching, is small enough to ignore; if those errors cannot be pushed below about one percent, the stated 90 and 95 percent fidelity targets are not met by current hardware.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $m=2$ and target fidelities $0.90$ and $0.95$, the qudit mode outperforms the qubit mode by orders of magnitude at every distance from roughly 200 to 1200 km, given second-scale memory coherence.
  • The qudit mode needs no satellite-side upgrade: an existing SPDC payload is already emitting time-bin qudits; only the ground memories must handle qudit storage.
  • Multiplexing more memory modes raises the qudit rate but, for source repetition rates near 10 MHz, does not help the qubit mode because the longer attempt time cancels the higher success probability.
  • At target fidelity $0.95$, the maximum reachable distance is around 1250 km; beyond that, dark counts make it impossible to find a squeezing parameter that meets the fidelity target, so better ground detectors or higher transmission would be needed.
  • In the qudit mode, the memory only needs to hold the state for the classical communication time, so coherence times of seconds are sufficient even for long distances.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same time-bin qudit trick would apply to ground-based or atmospheric links where memory coherence is the limiting resource; nothing in the argument requires the source to be in orbit.
  • Because the qudit mode produces its $m$ Bell pairs with correlated errors, the comparison with qubit mode depends on the application: entanglement purification can target correlated errors, but quantum error correction codes handle them less well, so a protocol using QEC might prefer sequential qubit distribution despite the lower rate.
  • The single-click-per-attempt assumption means the protocol discards multi-click events; as the source repetition rate or brightness increases, harvesting those events could further improve the qudit rate or change the multiplexing optimum.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes operating a satellite-based SPDC source as a source of time-bin encoded photonic qudits to distribute multiple event-ready entangled pairs between two ground stations, and compares this qudit mode with the standard qubit mode. The authors model photon loss, dark counts, memory decoherence, multiplexing, and storage cutoff times, and optimize the squeezing parameter and cutoff time to maximize the rate for a target average Bell-pair fidelity. They report that for m=2 with fidelity targets 0.90 and 0.95, the qudit mode gives order-of-magnitude higher rates over 200–1200 km for Micius-like satellite parameters and coherence times of seconds. The paper provides openly available code and data for the simulations.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper identifies a concrete way to improve satellite-assisted entanglement distribution without upgrading the satellite payload, by leveraging qudit-compatible ground memories; this is a practically relevant and timely contribution. The modeling is transparent, the rate and fidelity expressions are plausible, and the comparison is not circular because the optimized parameters are chosen within stated ranges rather than fitted to produce the advertised advantage. The inclusion of open code and data is a clear strength that makes the results reproducible and testable. However, the significance is tempered by the explicit neglect of non-coherence memory errors and the conclusion's admission that current hardware does not meet the assumed fidelity targets, which limits the near-term applicability of the headline rates.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II C and Conclusion] The assumption that spin-photon gate errors and optical switching errors are negligible is load-bearing for the claimed high-fidelity rates. The conclusion concedes that current hardware infidelities of roughly 1–2% do not satisfy the 90% and 95% fidelity targets. Since the fidelity target determines the optimal squeezing parameter and cutoff time (Fig. 3 and Eq. 10), including these errors can shift the operating point and potentially reduce or eliminate the qudit advantage. Because the provided code makes this testable, the authors should add a quantitative sensitivity analysis or state explicit thresholds on the gate and switching infidelities for which the qudit advantage persists.
  2. [Sec. II C, Fig. 2] The qudit mode requires fast programmable photonic switches and optical QFTs at both ground stations (Fig. 2), whose insertion loss, crosstalk, and switching errors are not modeled. These components are additional overhead in the qudit mode relative to the qubit mode, so their imperfections could preferentially degrade the qudit rates and fidelity. The manuscript should either model these imperfections or provide bounds on the required switch/QFT performance; without this, the comparison of the two modes is incomplete.
  3. [Eqs. (8) and (9)] The expression for the average number of attempts ⟨A⟩ in Eq. (8) is difficult to verify because the factor papprox is introduced in the closed-form result but does not appear in the preceding double-sum formula, and the definition of papprox in Eq. (9) is not clearly derived. Since the rate estimate R = 1/(⟨A⟩τ) is central to the entire comparison, the authors should clarify the derivation of Eqs. (8)–(9) or restructure the notation so that the role of papprox is explicit.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1)] In Eq. (1), the summation over photon pairs is typeset as '2m1X' and should be an explicit sum over l=0 to 2m−1; this formatting error obscures the definition of the qudit state.
  2. [Appendix A] Appendix A uses ⟨Ψ+|ρpair|Ψ+⟩ in Eq. (A2) while the fidelity is defined with respect to |Φ+⟩ in Eq. (A4); this notation should be made consistent. Additionally, several exponents and prefactors (e.g., '2 mp2' and '2m−1(2m+1)') are rendered ambiguously and should be written with clear superscripts.
  3. [Conclusion] The conclusion contains typographical errors: 'mutliple' should be 'multiple' and 'satellit-assisted' should be 'satellite-assisted'.
  4. [Sec. III] The text states 'τc = 2 mn/rrep (τc = 2 mn/rrep)' with the same expression for both qubit and qudit modes; this appears to be a typo, and the intended definitions for the two modes should be stated separately.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract says 'coherence times of several seconds' while Fig. 3 uses Td = 10 s; please align the wording with the parameters used or clarify the range considered.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the qudit advantage is derived from an explicit source, transmission, and memory model; the overlapping-author citations are not used as unverified load-bearing premises.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: the SPDC state in Eq. (1), the beam-splitter transmission model, the memory mapping described by Eqs. (2)-(6), and the rate and fidelity formulas in Eqs. (7)-(10) together generate the claimed comparison. The squeezing parameter lambda and the qubit cutoff time are optimization variables chosen to maximize rate under a stated fidelity constraint; they are not fitted to reproduce the qudit advantage, so the comparison is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The qudit-versus-qubit difference follows from the different D and N substitutions in Eq. (8), which reflect the physical protocol rather than a definitional shortcut. The self-citations to Refs. [22] and [36] overlap with the authors, but the memory protocol is also described in the paper (Fig. 2 and Eqs. (4)-(6)), and the cited results are prior published work with stated assumptions rather than an unverified uniqueness claim. The explicit assumption that spin-photon gate and switching errors are negligible, together with the concluding admission that current 1-2% hardware infidelities do not meet the 90/95% targets, is a limitation on near-term validity, not a circularity. No load-bearing reduction to inputs or to self-citation was found, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The model introduces no new physical entities. It combines an established qudit memory protocol with standard SPDC and satellite-link models. The central claim depends on three tunable protocol parameters (lambda, tcut, multiplexing factor) and on several hardware assumptions, especially the neglect of non-coherence memory errors.

free parameters (3)
  • Squeezing parameter lambda = Optimized between 0 and 0.1 per distance and fidelity target
    Controls the trade-off between SPDC pair emission rate and multi-pair error rate; optimized to maximize distribution rate under the fidelity cap (Fig. 3 caption).
  • Qubit storage cutoff time t_cut = 1 s for 0.90 fidelity target, 0.1 s for 0.95 target
    Qubit-mode pairs are discarded after this storage time; the value is optimized per distance and fidelity target in the Figure 3 simulations.
  • Multiplexing factor n = Used in simulations but optimal values not reported in the text
    Sets the number of extra memory modes per desired pair; affects attempt time and availability probability in the Markov-chain calculation. The paper states multiplexing helps qudit but not qubit mode at the assumed source rate.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption SPDC source in the weak-pump regime emits the approximate time-bin qudit state of Eq. (1), with multi-pair terms treated as errors.
    Introduced in Sec II A; this state is the foundation for the rate and fidelity expressions.
  • ad hoc to paper Only a single heralding click is allowed per attempt; multi-click events are discarded and kept below 1 percent.
    Sec III states this is a slightly sub-optimal protocol; Eq. (9) bounds the discarded fraction so the rate loss is small.
  • domain assumption Memory decoherence follows a depolarizing channel with error probability 1 - exp(-t/tau_coh).
    Sec II C and Appendix A use this model for the fidelity calculations.
  • domain assumption Imperfect spin-photon gates and optical switching errors are negligible compared with decoherence.
    Stated in Sec II C; the Conclusion concedes current hardware does not fully satisfy this for 90/95 percent fidelity targets.
  • domain assumption The qudit-to-multi-qubit memory protocol of Ref. [22], including binary routing, QFT measurement, and local phase corrections, works as described.
    Sec II C relies on this published protocol to convert one successful qudit transmission into m Bell pairs.
  • domain assumption Free-space transmission follows the model of Ref. [34] with Micius-like parameters.
    Sec II B uses this model to obtain pT values around 1e-3 for the distance range in Fig. 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Satellite-assisted Entanglement Distribution with High-Dimensional Photonic Encoding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FHJDN4VX

@misc{pith2026250516751,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Satellite-assisted Entanglement Distribution with High-Dimensional Photonic Encoding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FHJDN4VX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16751}
}
abstract

Satellite-assisted entanglement distribution is a promising approach for realizing long-range quantum networking. However, the limited coherence time of existing quantum memories makes it challenging to obtain multiple event-ready entangled pairs between ground stations since one pair decoheres before the successful distribution of another. We demonstrate how this can be circumvented by pairing existing satellite-compatible spontaneous parametric down conversion (SPDC) sources with qudit-compatible quantum memories on ground. By operating the SPDC source as a source of time-bin encoded photonic qudits, simultaneous distribution of multiple entangled pairs between the ground stations can be achieved at a significantly higher rate than if the SPDC sources was operated as a source of photonic qubits. We find that for achievable coherence times of several seconds and demonstrated satellite performances from the Micius satellite, the qudit operation leads to several orders of magnitude faster distribution rates than the qubit-based operation when more than one event-ready high-quality (Bell pair fidelity $\geq0.95$) entangled pair is desired. To ensure high-quality entanglement distribution, we consider multiplexed quantum memory operation storage and, in the qubit case, we also consider storage cutoff times.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16751 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a), approximate entangled photonic qubit pairs are generated from an SPDC source and transmitted to the ground stations. The photonic qubits are assumed to be encoded in the time-bin basis consisting of an early or late time bin. Upon successful arrival at their respec￾tive nodes, the photons are stored in time-bin compati￾ble quantum memories in a heralded manner. This can e.g. be achieved through spin-dependent r… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Qudit state mapping to multi-qubit states. Quan￾tum circuit illustrating the qudit memory protocol at the ground stations. The control nodes represent optical switches that route the incoming time-bin pulses to the corresponding quantum memories based on the binary encoding of the time￾bin. At the memories, a qubit-photon controlled note gate is performed which entangles the qubit state of the memories with the phot… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance comparison of the qudit (crosses) and qubit (circles) modes of operations. We optimize the squeezing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Zheng, H

    Y. Zheng, H. Sharma, and J. Borregaard, Entangle- ment Distribution with Minimal Memory Requirements Using Time-Bin Photonic Qudits, PRX Quantum 3, 10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.040319 (2022)

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3.040319 2022

  2. [1]

    Wehner, D

    S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

    Pironio, A

    S. Pironio, A. Acin, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, S. Massar, and V . Scarani, Device-independent quantum key distribution secure against collective attacks, New Journal of Physics 11, 10.1088/1367-2630/11/4/045021 (2009)

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/11/4/045021 2009

  4. [3]

    Scarani, H

    V . Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. J. Cerf, M. Du ˇsek, N. L ¨utkenhaus, and M. Peev, The security of practical quantum key distribution, Reviews of Modern Physics 81, 1301 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [4]

    J. F. Fitzsimons, Private quantum computation: an intro- duction to blind quantum computing and related proto- cols, npj Quantum Information 3, 1 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [5]

    Van Meter and S

    R. Van Meter and S. J. Devitt, The Path to Scalable Dis- tributed Quantum Computing, Computer 49, 31 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [6]

    de Forges de Parny, O

    L. de Forges de Parny, O. Alibart, J. Debaud, S. Gres- sani, A. Lagarrigue, A. Martin, A. Metrat, M. Schiavon, T. Troisi, E. Diamanti, P . G ´elard, E. Kerstel, S. Tanzilli, and M. Van Den Bossche, Satellite-based quantum infor- mation networks: use cases, architecture, and roadmap, Communications Physics 6, 12 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    Liorni, H

    C. Liorni, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, Quantum re- peaters in space, New Journal of Physics 23, 053021 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    G ¨undo˘gan, J

    M. G ¨undo˘gan, J. S. Sidhu, V . Henderson, L. Mazzarella, J. Wolters, D. K. L. Oi, and M. Krutzik, Proposal for space- borne quantum memories for global quantum network- ing, npj Quantum Information 7, 128 (2021)

    2021

  2. [9]

    Walln ¨ofer, F

    J. Walln ¨ofer, F. Hahn, M. G ¨undo˘gan, J. S. Sidhu, F. Wies- ner, N. Walk, J. Eisert, and J. Wolters, Simulating quan- tum repeater strategies for multiple satellites, Communi- cations Physics 5, 10.1038/s42005-022-00945-9 (2022)

    2022 doi

  3. [10]

    Khatri, A

    S. Khatri, A. J. Brady, R. A. Desporte, M. P . Bart, and J. P . Dowling, Spooky action at a global distance: analysis of space-based entanglement distribution for the quantum internet, npj Quantum Information 7, 10.1038/s41534- 9 020-00327-5 (2021)

    2021 doi

  4. [11]

    Boone, J.-P

    K. Boone, J.-P . Bourgoin, E. Meyer-Scott, K. Heshami, T. Jennewein, and C. Simon, Entanglement over global distances via quantum repeaters with satellite links, Phys. Rev. A 91, 052325 (2015)

    2015

  5. [12]

    J. Yin, Y. Cao, Y.-H. Li, J.-G. Ren, S.-K. Liao, L. Zhang, W.-Q. Cai, W.-Y. Liu, B. Li, H. Dai, M. Li, Y.-M. Huang, L. Deng, L. Li, Q. Zhang, N.-L. Liu, Y.-A. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, R. Shu, C.-Z. Peng, J.-Y. Wang, and J.-W. Pan, Satellite-to- ground entanglement-based quantum key dis...

    2017

  6. [13]

    Liao, W.-Q

    S.-K. Liao, W.-Q. Cai, J. Handsteiner, B. Liu, J. Yin, L. Zhang, D. Rauch, M. Fink, J.-G. Ren, W.-Y. Liu, Y. Li, Q. Shen, Y. Cao, F.-Z. Li, J.-F. Wang, Y.-M. Huang, L. Deng, T. Xi, L. Ma, T. Hu, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, F. Koidl, P . Wang, Y.- A. Chen, X.-B. Wang, M. Steindorfer, G. ...

    2018

  7. [14]

    Yin, Y.-H

    J. Yin, Y.-H. Li, S.-K. Liao, M. Yang, Y. Cao, L. Zhang, J.-G. Ren, W.-Q. Cai, W.-Y. Liu, S.-L. Li, R. Shu, Y.-M. Huang, L. Deng, L. Li, Q. Zhang, N.-L. Liu, Y.-A. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, X.-B. Wang, F. Xu, J.-Y. Wang, C.-Z. Peng, A. K. Ekert, and J.-W. Pan, Entanglement-based secure ...

    2020

  8. [15]

    Krastanov, V

    S. Krastanov, V . V . Albert, and L. Jiang, Optimized Entan- glement Purification, Quantum 3, 123 (2019)

    2019

  9. [16]

    C. A. Pattison, G. Baranes, J. P . B. Ataides, M. D. Lukin, and H. Zhou, Fast quantum interconnects via constant- rate entanglement distillation (2024), arXiv:2408.15936 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Ramette, J

    J. Ramette, J. Sinclair, N. P . Breuckmann, and V . Vuleti ´c, Fault-tolerant connection of error-corrected qubits with noisy links, npj Quantum Information 10, 58 (2024)

    2024

  11. [18]

    Wei, P .-J

    Y.-C. Wei, P .-J. Stas, A. Suleymanzade, G. Baranes, F. Machado, Y. Q. Huan, C. M. Knaut, S. W. Ding, M. Merz, E. N. Knall, U. Yazlar, M. Sirotin, I. W. Wang, B. Machielse, S. F. Yelin, J. Borregaard, H. Park, M. Lonˇcar, and M. D. Lukin, Universal distributed blind quantum co...

    2025 doi

  12. [19]

    N. Kalb, A. A. Reiserer, P . C. Humphreys, J. J. Bakermans, S. J. Kamerling, N. H. Nickerson, S. C. Benjamin, D. J. Twitchen, M. Markham, and R. Hanson, Entanglement distillation between solid-state quantum network nodes, Science 356, 928 (2017)

    2017

  13. [20]

    Jiang, J

    L. Jiang, J. M. Taylor, K. Nemoto, W. J. Munro, R. Van Me- ter, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum repeater with encod- ing, Physical Review A 79, 10.1103/physreva.79.032325 (2009)

    2009 doi

  14. [21]

    W. J. Munro, K. Azuma, K. Tamaki, and K. Nemoto, Inside Quantum Repeaters (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Z. Xie, Y. Liu, X. Mo, T. Li, and Z. Li, Quantum entangle- ment creation for distant quantum memories via time-bin multiplexing, Physical Review A 104, 062409 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    O. A. Collins, S. D. Jenkins, A. Kuzmich, and T. A. B. Kennedy, Multiplexed memory-insensitive quantum re- peaters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 060502 (2007)

    2007

  17. [25]

    Simon, H

    C. Simon, H. de Riedmatten, and M. Afzelius, Temporally multiplexed quantum repeaters with atomic gases, Phys. Rev. A 82, 010304 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    Lago-Rivera, J

    D. Lago-Rivera, J. V . Rakonjac, S. Grandi, and H. d. Ried- matten, Long distance multiplexed quantum teleporta- tion from a telecom photon to a solid-state qubit, Nature Communications 14, 1889 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    B. Li, T. Coopmans, and D. Elkouss, Efficient optimization of cutoffs in quantum repeater chains, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 2, 1 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    ´A. G. I ˜nesta, G. Vardoyan, L. Scavuzzo, and S. Wehner, Optimal entanglement distribution policies in homoge- neous repeater chains with cutoffs, npj Quantum Infor- mation 9, 46 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    M. K. Bhaskar, R. Riedinger, B. Machielse, D. S. Levo- nian, C. T. Nguyen, E. N. Knall, H. Park, D. Englund, M. Lonˇcar, D. D. Sukachev, and M. D. Lukin, Experimen- tal demonstration of memory-enhanced quantum com- munication, Nature 580, 60 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    C. M. Knaut, A. Suleymanzade, Y. C. Wei, D. R. Assump- cao, P . J. Stas, Y. Q. Huan, B. Machielse, E. N. Knall, M. Su- tula, G. Baranes, N. Sinclair, C. De-Eknamkul, D. S. Levo- nian, M. K. Bhaskar, H. Park, M. Lonˇcar, and M. D. Lukin, Entanglement of nanophotonic quantum mem...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Reiserer, Colloquium: Cavity-enhanced quantum net- work nodes, Rev

    A. Reiserer, Colloquium: Cavity-enhanced quantum net- work nodes, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 041003 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    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

  25. [33]

    Fedrizzi, R

    A. Fedrizzi, R. Ursin, T. Herbst, M. Nespoli, R. Prevedel, T. Scheidl, F. Tiefenbacher, T. Jennewein, and A. Zeilinger, High-fidelity transmission of entanglement over a high- loss free-space channel, Nature Physics 5, 389 (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    V . D. Tub´ıo, M. B. Aldecocea, J. van Dam, A. S. Sørensen, and J. Borregaard, Satellite-assisted quantum communi- cation with single photon sources and atomic memories (2024), arXiv:2411.09533 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Ritter, C

    S. Ritter, C. N ¨olleke, C. Hahn, A. Reiserer, A. Neuzner, M. Uphoff, M. M ¨ucke, E. Figueroa, J. Bochmann, and G. Rempe, An elementary quantum network of single atoms in optical cavities, Nature 484, 195 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    X. Liu, N. Bharos, L. Markovich, and J. Borregaard, Error correlations in photonic qudit-mediated entanglement generation, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023075 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Jones, K

    C. Jones, K. D. Greve, and Y. Yamamoto, A high- speed optical link to entangle quantum dots (2013), arXiv:1310.4609 [quant-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  30. [38]

    C. T. Nguyen, D. D. Sukachev, M. K. Bhaskar, B. Machielse, D. S. Levonian, E. N. Knall, P . Stroganov, R. Riedinger, H. Park, M. Lonˇcar, and M. D. Lukin, Quan- tum network nodes based on diamond qubits with an effi- cient nanophotonic interface, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 183602 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    P .-J. Stas, Y. Q. Huan, B. Machielse, E. N. Knall, A. Suley- manzade, B. Pingault, M. Sutula, S. W. Ding, C. M. Knaut, D. R. Assumpcao, Y.-C. Wei, M. K. Bhaskar, R. Riedinger, D. D. Sukachev, H. Park, M. Lon ˇcar, D. S. Levonian, and 10 M. D. Lukin, Robust multi-qubit quantum...

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    C. E. Bradley, J. Randall, M. H. Abobeih, R. C. Berrevoets, M. J. Degen, M. A. Bakker, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, and T. H. Taminiau, A ten-qubit solid-state spin register with quantum memory up to one minute, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031045 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Dominguez Tubio, M

    V . Dominguez Tubio, M. Dijksman, and J. Borregaard, Data underlying the publication ”satellite-assisted en- tanglement distribution with high-dimensional photonic encoding”, https://doi.org/10.4121/61ca8a5b-3af2-4947- 904c-36c21b4ed090 (2025)

    2025 doi

Pith tools

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