Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 74 references

Fock-state preparation based on amplitude amplification in cavity QED

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Amplitude amplification cuts cavity Fock-state preparation from n^(1/2) to n^(1/4) gates.

desk verdict The Fock-state O(n^{1/4}) gate-count result is the cleanest part of this paper; the single-photon protocol is clever but rests on a conservation-law identity that is only approximate in the physical system, and the text should qualify it. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14239 v1 pith:KOKEYGL3 submitted 2026-07-15 quant-ph

Sharoon Austin , Zhi-Yuan Wei , Kartik Srinivasan , Alexey V. Gorshkov This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881V80 PACS 42.50.Pq03.67.-a
keywords amplitudeamplificationcavityQEDFockstatepreparationSNAPgatessingle-photongenerationfixed-pointNOONoblivious
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 develops two cavity-QED state-preparation protocols built on amplitude amplification. For a three-level emitter coupled to a cavity, it introduces 'very oblivious amplitude amplification,' a simplification that uses only signal-qubit reflections plus U and U†, and shows that repeated weak control pulses can generate a traveling single photon with protocol length scaling as 1/√p instead of 1/p, while also reducing loss from intrinsic cavity decay in many regimes. For a superconducting qubit dispersively coupled to a microwave cavity, it applies fixed-point amplitude amplification to a sequence of SNAP gates and displacements, proving that the Fock state |n⟩ can be prepared with O(n^{1/4}) gates, a quadratic improvement over the previous O(n^{1/2}). The same techniques yield a NOON-state preparation protocol with explicit fidelity bounds.

What carries the argument

The key object is the very-oblivious-amplitude-amplification unitary G3 = Ū R̄1 Ū† R̄1, in which R̄1 = I−2|0⟩⟨0| acts only on the signal qubit; it replaces the two-register reflection of standard oblivious amplitude amplification and is exact when [Ū,N]=0. For Fock states, the load-bearing sequence is the fixed-point amplification U_n = ∏_j D(λ)S_0(α_j)D(λ)†S_n(β_j), built from SNAP gates (conditional phases on Fock states) and cavity displacements, whose length is set by analytic phase schedules. The conserved-observable condition is what makes the simplification work; in the cavity implementation it corresponds to never populating the excited state at the end of a step.

What would settle it

For the single-photon protocol, measure 1−η₃ as a function of k at fixed κ_ex, g, T, κ_i, γ and check the predicted minimum at k≈(π/8)√(κ_i C_ex/κ_ex) and the loss scaling of Eq. (31); a disagreement in how loss grows with k would falsify the adiabatic treatment. For the Fock-state protocol, implement U_n on the coherent state D(√n)|0⟩ for n=1,4,16,64 and verify that the SNAP-gate count needed for fidelity 0.99 grows as n^{1/4}, not n^{1/2}.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that amplitude amplification, normally requiring reflections about the good state and about the initial state, can be reorganized into a 'very oblivious' form—G3 = Ū R̄1 Ū† R̄1—where R̄1 is a reflection on the signal qubit alone, valid whenever the unitary Ū conserves the observable N = |s⟩⟨s|⊗I + I⊗(1−|0p⟩⟨0p|). In the Λ-system cavity setting this makes each amplification step a sequence of weak control pulses, yielding single-photon generation whose length scales as 1/√p and whose intrinsic-cavity-loss error can be much smaller than with a single strong pulse. In circuit QED, using fixed-point amplitude amplification with SNAP gates and displacements, the number of

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the conservation condition [Ū,N]=0, which in the physical cavity implementation holds only in the adiabatic limit κ_ex/(g²T)→0; if the excited state is populated at the end of a step, the simplified amplification step G3 is inexact and extra errors appear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Traveling single photons can be produced with much weaker control pulses—Rabi frequencies that fall as 1/k—while preserving a short photon duration, easing experimental constraints such as off-resonant transitions and charge noise.
  • The protocol's intrinsic-cavity-loss error decreases as κ_i/(κ_ex k) over k steps, so there is a regime where amplitude amplification outperforms a single strong control pulse, suggesting its use for error reduction.
  • Fock-state preparation with O(n^{1/4}) SNAP gates makes larger-n Fock states practical with currently available circuit-QED hardware at fixed target fidelity.
  • NOON states can be prepared without resonant transmon-cavity interactions or three-level transmons, simplifying the experimental setup.
  • The general very-oblivious construction applies to any amplitude-amplification problem whose unitary conserves the relevant excitation number, so other quantum algorithms may inherit the simplified gate structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The n^{1/4} scaling is likely close to optimal for fixed-point protocols using only SNAP and displacement gates, because the initial coherent state's overlap with |n⟩ already falls as (2π n)^{-1/4}; any local protocol may need at least that many controlled-phase steps.
  • The same fixed-point construction could be adapted to prepare other target states, such as bosonic code states, by replacing the reflection about |n⟩ with a reflection about the target subspace; the cost would scale roughly with the inverse square-root of the initial-state overlap.
  • The single-photon loss analysis suggests an adaptive version where k is tuned on the fly to the minimum of Eq. (31); a quick calibration of κ_i/C_ex would select the optimal k per device, and repeated amplification rounds could yield multiphoton states with shaped modes.
  • If the time-reversal operations can be implemented without excessive overhead, the protocol becomes deterministic up to losses, since the T-steps preserve the output mode exactly; the bottleneck then shifts entirely to the adiabaticity parameter κ_ex/(g²T).
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 introduces a modification of oblivious amplitude amplification—called very oblivious amplitude amplification—in which the reflection about the initial state is replaced by ŪR̄1Ū† under a conservation condition [Ū,N]=0, and applies it to two cavity-QED settings. In the first setting, a Λ-type emitter coupled to a cavity is used to generate traveling single photons with weak control pulses; the ideal protocol length is claimed to scale as N∼1/√p rather than N∼1/p. Loss formulas and numerical simulations are given, including a comparison with a single-strong-pulse protocol. In the second setting, fixed-point amplitude amplification is implemented using SNAP gates and displacements in dispersive circuit QED, yielding an explicit Fock-state preparation sequence with gate count 2l=(2π)^{1/4}log(2/δ)n^{1/4}−1 (Eq. 42), i.e., O(n^{1/4}) scaling, and an extension to NOON states is described.

Significance. The Fock-state result is the strongest part of the paper: it is an explicit, analytically derived gate sequence with no fitted parameters, based on published fixed-point amplitude amplification, and it gives a clear asymptotic improvement in SNAP-gate count. If correct, this is a practically useful contribution for circuit-QED state preparation and is likely to be of interest to the quantum-optics and quantum-information communities. The proposed very oblivious amplitude amplification is also a conceptually clean tool that may find applications beyond the two protocols studied here. The single-photon protocol, if it can be made rigorous in a finite-parameter regime, would be a valuable alternative to strong-pulse generation. The numerical work in the paper supports the main practical claims, but the formal part has a gap, described below, that should be fixed before the single-photon claims are accepted at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III A, Eqs. (20), (25), (26)] The very-oblivious identity G3 = Ū R̄1 Ū† R̄1 relies on [Ū,N]=0. The physical Hamiltonian in Eq. (20) does not conserve the N defined in Eq. (25): the term Ω(t)|e⟩⟨s| maps |s,0_p⟩ (N=1) to |e,0_p⟩ (N=0), and the term g a|e⟩⟨g| maps |g,1_p⟩ (N=1) to |e,0_p⟩ (N=0). Thus [H,N]≠0 and, for a finite-duration pulse, [Ū,N]=0 is not an exact identity; it is an adiabatic-limit statement that holds only as κ_ex/(g^2T)→0. Consequently, the simplification G3 and the derived N∼1/√p scaling are approximate, not exact. The loose non-adiabatic bound in Eq. (B42) does not close this gap because it bounds the final output error rather than the error in the very-oblivious reflection step itself, and it grows linearly with k. The authors should state this approximation explicitly in the main text and either provide a direct bound on ∥[Ū,N]∥ or a quantitative numerical convergence study of the Grover-step err
  2. [Sec. III B, Fig. 6] The claim of a quadratic improvement over Ref. [35] in SNAP-gate count is supported in Fig. 6 by a numerical fit to the gate count of Ref. [35], not by an exact gate count or a published scaling bound. As written, the figure convincingly demonstrates the O(n^{1/4}) scaling of the new protocol, but it does not quantitatively establish the claimed improvement over Ref. [35] unless the fit is known to reproduce the exact gate count of that protocol. The authors should provide the exact gate-count expression for Ref. [35] or cite a rigorous derivation of its O(n^{1/2}) scaling.
  3. [Appendix B, Eq. (B42)] The non-adiabatic error bound is acknowledged in the text to be 'very loose' and contains the unspecified constant c_h through ∥ḣ∥2 = c_h/T. The bound grows as (10.2 + 5.1k) κ_ex/(g^2T). For the large k values relevant when the single-photon success probability p is small, this bound is not useful unless κ_ex/(g^2T) is made extremely small, which is in tension with the finite-loss regime where the protocol is claimed to be advantageous. A tighter, interpretable bound—or a clear statement of the achievable (k, κ_ex/(g^2T)) trade-off—is needed to support the analytic claims for the single-photon protocol.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (42)] The expression 2l = (2π)^{1/4}log(2/δ)n^{1/4} − 1 contains a −1 that makes 2l non-integer for generic δ. Please state that the physical gate count is ⌈2l⌉ and check the offset convention against Eq. (10), which already contains a −1/2.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The phrase 'as [κ_ex/g, 1/(gT)] decrease' is ambiguous. Please specify that both dimensionless ratios are decreased, and in what order or jointly.
  3. [Sec. III A, after Eq. (30)] The statement that the single-photon output is 'invariant under T to high accuracy' should explicitly identify the order of the approximation as the same non-adiabatic order as Eq. (B42), so that the reader does not mistake it for an exact symmetry.
  4. [Appendix A] The time-reversal operation T is defined for real mode functions f(t)→f(T−t). For complex mode functions, a complex conjugation is generally required in the definition of T; please clarify the intended generalization.
  5. [NOON-state protocol] The two-mode protocol assumes that the SNAP/displacement operations on mode i can be performed without cross-talk with mode j. This is stated implicitly via U_n^{(i)} but would benefit from an explicit sentence about the required addressing or frequency separation between the two cavities.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central claims are applications of published amplitude-amplification theorems and standard cavity-QED pulse shaping, not self-referential fits.

full rationale

The Fock-state result (Eqs. 41-42) is a direct application of fixed-point amplitude amplification [47]: the needed reflections are implemented exactly by SNAP gates and displacements, and the O(n^{1/4}) scaling follows algebraically from Eq. (10) plus the closed-form overlap |<n|D(√n)|0>| ≈ (2πn)^{-1/4}. No parameter is fitted and no known result is renamed. The single-photon protocol's N~1/√p improvement follows from the Grover recursion G3 = Ū R̄1 Ū† R̄1 derived in Sec. II A under the explicit assumption [Ū,N]=0; the physical implementation is supported by a re-derivation of Ū† in Appendix A and by standard input-output theory. Ref. [29] is self-cited for the control-pulse shape, but the same result appears in independent Refs. [46,60], and the loss formulas are re-derived in Appendices B and C, so the self-citation is not load-bearing in a circular sense. The one substantive caveat is that the physical Hamiltonian (20) does not exactly conserve the N defined in Eq. (25); the identification of the physical evolution with a conserved-N Ū is an adiabatic approximation. The paper explicitly acknowledges this and bounds the resulting error in Eq. (B42), and the numerics are compared against the ideal scaling. This is an assumption/approximation issue, not a reduction of the prediction to its own input. Overall: self-contained derivation chain with no circular steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The protocol relies on standard quantum mechanics, published amplitude amplification theorems, and the usual cavity QED models. No new physical entities are introduced. The main assumptions are the adiabatic limit and the validity of the SNAP/displacement gate implementations.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math Standard quantum mechanics and unitary evolution
    Assumed throughout for the state-preparation protocols and amplitude amplification.
  • domain assumption Input-output formalism for cavity QED (Eqs. 20-22)
    Used to model the atom-cavity-waveguide system and single-photon output.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic limit κ_ex/(g^2 T) → 0
    Required for the perturbation expansion in Appendix B and the validity of the very oblivious amplification condition.
  • standard math Fixed-point amplitude amplification theorem (Yoder et al., Eq. 10)
    External result used to derive the Fock-state gate count and the NOON-state fidelity bound.
  • domain assumption Dispersive Hamiltonian and SNAP gate implementation (Eqs. 34-36)
    Underpins the circuit QED Fock-state and NOON-state protocols.
  • standard math Coherent state overlap approximation ⟨n|D(√n)|0⟩ ≈ (2πn)^{-1/4}
    Used in Eq. (42) to derive the n^{1/4} scaling.
  • domain assumption Beam-splitter interaction and cat state preparation for NOON protocol
    Assumed available in multimode circuit QED for the NOON-state initial state preparation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fock-state preparation based on amplitude amplification in cavity QED." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KOKEYGL3

@misc{pith2026260714239,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fock-state preparation based on amplitude amplification in cavity QED},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KOKEYGL3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14239}
}
abstract

In this work, we develop a coherent control technique for cavity QED based on amplitude amplification. We consider two physical platforms. In the first setting, we study a three-level quantum emitter coupled to a single mode of an optical cavity and introduce a protocol for producing traveling single photons based on oblivious amplitude amplification. As the key ingredient of our protocol, we propose an extension of oblivious amplitude amplification which uses reflection unitaries solely on the signal qubit, along with $U$ and $U^\dagger$, where the unitary $U$ prepares the initial state. Our approach improves the scaling of the single-photon-generation protocol length from $N\sim 1/p$ to $N\sim 1/\sqrt{p}$, with $p$ denoting the success probability of obtaining a short single photon from a single application of the weak control pulse. Furthermore, our protocol also reduces the error from intrinsic cavity loss compared to protocols using a single strong control pulse in various experimentally relevant regimes, suggesting the application of our methods for error reduction. In the second setting, we consider a superconducting qubit coupled to a single bosonic mode of a microwave cavity in a circuit QED architecture in the dispersive regime for preparing Fock states. Using fixed-point amplitude amplification, we obtain a protocol for preparing Fock states whose length scales as $O(n^{1/4})$, where $n$ is the number of photons. Additionally, as an application of our methods for state preparation, we describe a protocol for preparing NOON states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14239 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The atom is coupled to the cavity mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. In (a), for our protocol, we show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. The single-photon output [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Schematic diagram of a transmon coupled to a cavity mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. We present a schematic diagram of two transmon–cavity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. We show the number of SNAP gates, given by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. We show the number of SNAP gates, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The inefficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [35]

    Krastanov, V

    S. Krastanov, V . V . Albert, C. Shen, C.-L. Zou, R. W. Heeres, B. Vlastakis, R. J. Schoelkopf, and L. Jiang, Phys. Rev. A92, 040303 (2015)

    2015

  2. [1]

    G. Chen, L. Zhang, W.-H. Zhang, X.-X. Peng, L. Xu, Z.-D. Liu, X.-Y . Xu, J.-S. Tang, Y .-N. Sun, D.-Y . He, J.-S. Xu, Z.-Q. Zhou, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 060506 (2018). 9

    2018

  3. [2]

    Finally, applying the displacementD 2(λ)gives us|ψ 0⟩

    We can then use the fact that UBSD1( √ 2λ)|0,0⟩ 1,2 =D 1(λ)D2(−λ)UBS |0,0⟩ 1,2 ,(43) whereD i denotes the displacement on theith mode, and UBS |0,0⟩ 1,2 =|0,0⟩ 1,2, to obtain the state|0,0⟩ 1,2 + |λ,−λ⟩ 1,2. Finally, applying the displacementD 2(λ)gives us|ψ 0⟩. FIG. 7. We present a schematic diagram of two transmon–cavity systems with modesa 1 anda 2 use...

  4. [3]

    Pirandola, B

    S. Pirandola, B. R. Bardhan, T. Gehring, C. Weedbrook, and S. Lloyd, Nature Photon12, 724–733 (2018)

    2018

  5. [4]

    Azuma, S

    K. Azuma, S. E. Economou, D. Elkouss, P. Hilaire, L. Jiang, H.-K. Lo, and I. Tzitrin, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 045006 (2023)

    2023

  6. [5]

    Gisin, G

    N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 145 (2002)

    2002

  7. [6]

    J. J. . Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and D. J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A54, R4649 (1996)

    1996

  8. [7]

    Pan, Z.-B

    J.-W. Pan, Z.-B. Chen, C.-Y . Lu, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, and M. ˙Zukowski, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 777 (2012)

    2012

Show all 74 references
  1. [8]

    P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 135 (2007)

    2007

  2. [9]

    Duan and H

    L.-M. Duan and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 127902 (2004)

    2004

  3. [10]

    Pittaluga, Y

    M. Pittaluga, Y . S. Lo, A. Brzosko, R. I. Woodward, D. Scalcon, M. S. Winnel, T. Roger, J. F. Dynes, K. A. Owen, S. Juárez, P. Rydlichowski, D. Vicinanza, G. Roberts, and A. J. Shields, Nature640, 911 (2025)

    2025

  4. [11]

    K. R. Motes, J. P. Olson, E. J. Rabeaux, J. P. Dowling, S. J. Olson, and P. P. Rohde, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 170802 (2015)

    2015

  5. [12]

    M. K. Bhaskar, R. Riedinger, B. Machielse, D. S. Levonian, C. T. Nguyen, E. N. Knall, H. Park, D. Englund, M. Lon ˇcar, D. D. Sukachev, and M. D. Lukin, Nature580, 60 (2020)

    2020

  6. [13]

    Bartolucci, P

    S. Bartolucci, P. Birchall, H. Bombín, H. Cable, C. Dawson, M. Gimeno-Segovia, E. Johnston, K. Kieling, N. Nickerson, M. Pant, F. Pastawski, T. Rudolph, and C. Sparrow, Nat Com- mun14, 912 (2023)

    2023

  7. [14]

    PsiQuantum team, Nature641, 876 (2025)

    2025

  8. [15]

    Eickbusch, V

    A. Eickbusch, V . Sivak, A. Z. Ding, S. S. Elder, S. R. Jha, J. Venkatraman, B. Royer, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, Nature Physics18, 1464 (2022)

    2022

  9. [16]

    F. Wolf, C. Shi, J. C. Heip, M. Gessner, L. Pezzè, A. Smerzi, M. Schulte, K. Hammerer, and P. O. Schmidt, Nat Commun10, 2929 (2019)

    2019

  10. [17]

    X. Deng, S. Li, Z. J. Chen,et al., Nat. Phys.20, 1874 (2024)

    2024

  11. [18]

    Hofheinz, E

    M. Hofheinz, E. M. Weig, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, A. D. O’Connell, H. Wang, J. M. Marti- nis, and A. N. Cleland, Nature454, 310 (2008)

    2008

  12. [19]

    A. Kuhn, M. Hennrich, and G. Rempe, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 067901 (2002)

    2002

  13. [20]

    A. V . Gorshkov, A. André, M. D. Lukin, and A. S. Sørensen, Phys. Rev. A76, 033804 (2007)

    2007

  14. [21]

    Breddermann, T

    D. Breddermann, T. Praschan, D. Heinze, R. Binder, and S. Schumacher, Phys. Rev. B97, 125303 (2018)

    2018

  15. [22]

    Giovannetti, S

    V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nature Photon5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  16. [23]

    Mücke, J

    M. Mücke, J. Bochmann, C. Hahn, A. Neuzner, C. Nölleke, A. Reiserer, G. Rempe, and S. Ritter, Phys. Rev. A87, 063805 (2013)

    2013

  17. [24]

    T. Wilk, S. C. Webster, H. P. Specht, G. Rempe, and A. Kuhn, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 063601 (2007)

    2007

  18. [25]

    Keller, B

    M. Keller, B. Lange, K. Hayasaka, W. Lange, and H. Walther, Nature431, 1075 (2004)

    2004

  19. [26]

    T. M. Sweeney, S. G. Carter, A. S. Bracker, M. Kim, C.-H. Kim, G. S. Solomon, and D. Gammon, Nature Photon8, 442 (2014)

    2014

  20. [27]

    K. A. G. Fisher, D. G. England, J.-P. W. MacLean, P. J. Bustard, K. J. Resch, and B. J. Sussman, Nat Commun7, 11200 (2016)

    2016

  21. [28]

    Couture, F

    N. Couture, F. Bouchard, A. Sit, G. Thekkadath, D. England, P. J. Bustard, and B. J. Sussman, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 153602 (2025)

    2025

  22. [29]

    Austin, D

    S. Austin, D. Devulapalli, K. Hoang, F. Zhou, K. Srinivasan, and A. V . Gorshkov, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 023082 (2026)

    2026

  23. [30]

    B. C. Pursley, S. G. Carter, M. K. Yakes, A. S. Bracker, and D. Gammon, Nat Commun9, 115 (2018)

    2018

  24. [31]

    Wallraff, D

    A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R. S. Huang, J. Majer, S. Kumar, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature 431, 162 (2004)

    2004

  25. [32]

    Blais, A

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

    2021

  26. [33]

    Fong and H.-K

    P.-T. Fong and H.-K. Lau, Engineering non-gaussian bosonic gates through quantum signal processing (2025), arXiv:2508.20261 [quant-ph]

    2025

  27. [34]

    Blais, R.-S

    A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A69, 062320 (2004)

    2004

  28. [36]

    R. W. Heeres, P. Reinhold, N. Ofek, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nat Commun8, 94 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Kudra, M

    M. Kudra, M. Kervinen, I. Strandberg, S. Ahmed, M. Scigli- uzzo, A. Osman, D. P. Lozano, M. O. Tholén, R. Borgani, D. B. Haviland, G. Ferrini, J. Bylander, A. F. Kockum, F. Quijan- dría, P. Delsing, and S. Gasparinetti, PRX Quantum3, 030301 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    R. W. Heeres, B. Vlastakis, E. Holland, S. Krastanov, V . V . Al- bert, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 137002 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    Su, C.-P

    Q.-P. Su, C.-P. Yang, and S.-B. Zheng, Sci Rep4, 3898 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    Qi and J

    S.-f. Qi and J. Jing, Phys. Rev. A107, 042412 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    S. T. Merkel and F. K. Wilhelm, New J. Phys.12, 093036 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    Fösel, S

    T. Fösel, S. Krastanov, F. Marquardt, and L. Jiang, Efficient cav- ity control with snap gates (2020), arXiv:2004.14256 [quant- ph]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, inProceedings of the forty-sixth annual ACM sym- posium on Theory of computing, STOC ’14 (ACM, 2014) p. 283–292

    2014

  36. [44]

    and superconducting three-level systems coupled to res- onators [45]. We improve upon the following probabilistic protocol for generating a single photon: apply a weak con- trol pulse, perform an atomic-state measurement that heralds single-photon generation, and repeat the pr...

  37. [45]

    Pechal, L

    M. Pechal, L. Huthmacher, C. Eichler, S. Zeytino˘glu, A. A. Ab- dumalikov, S. Berger, A. Wallraff, and S. Filipp, Phys. Rev. X 4, 041010 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    Nagib, M

    O. Nagib, M. Saffman, and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 050601 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    T. J. Yoder, G. H. Low, and I. L. Chuang, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 210501 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    Najer, I

    D. Najer, I. Söllner, P. Sekatski, V . Dolique, M. C. Löbl, D. Riedel, R. Schott, S. Starosielec, S. R. Valentin, A. D. Wieck, N. Sangouard, A. Ludwig, and R. J. Warburton, Nature575, 622 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Y . Lu, A. Maiti, J. W. O. Garmon, S. Ganjam, Y . Zhang, J. Claes, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nat Commun14, 5767 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    G. S. Vasilev, D. Ljunggren, and A. Kuhn, New J. Phys.12, 063024 (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    B. J. Chapman, S. J. de Graaf, S. H. Xue, Y . Zhang, J. Teoh, J. C. Curtis, T. Tsunoda, A. Eickbusch, A. P. Read, A. Koot- tandavida, S. O. Mundhada, L. Frunzio, M. Devoret, S. Girvin, and R. Schoelkopf, PRX Quantum4, 020355 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Y . Y . Gao, B. J. Lester, Y . Zhang, C. Wang, S. Rosenblum, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. X8, 021073 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    Grimm, N

    A. Grimm, N. E. Frattini, S. Puri, S. O. Mundhada, S. Touzard, M. Mirrahimi, S. M. Girvin, S. Shankar, and M. H. Devoret, Nature584, 205 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    S. J. de Graaf, S. H. Xue, B. J. Chapman, J. D. Teoh, T. Tsun- oda, P. Winkel, J. W. O. Garmon, K. M. Chang, L. Frunzio, S. Puri, and R. J. Schoelkopf, npj Quantum Inf11, 1 (2025)

    2025

  47. [55]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 10th ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010)

    2010

  48. [56]

    Vlastakis, G

    B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchmair, Z. Leghtas, S. E. Nigg, L. Frun- zio, S. M. Girvin, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Science342, 607 (2013). 10

    2013

  49. [57]

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 090502 (2015)

    2015

  50. [58]

    P. Kok, H. Lee, and J. P. Dowling, Phys. Rev. A65, 052104 (2002)

    2002

  51. [59]

    L.-M. Duan, A. Kuzmich, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. A67, 032305 (2003)

    2003

  52. [60]

    L. K. Grover, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 325 (1997)

    1997

  53. [61]

    Lavoie, J

    J. Lavoie, J. M. Donohue, L. G. Wright, A. Fedrizzi, and K. J. Resch, Nature Photon7, 363 (2013)

    2013

  54. [62]

    Vasconcelos and A

    F. Vasconcelos and A. Gilyén, Methods for reducing ancilla- overhead in block encodings (2025), arXiv:2507.07900 [quant- ph]

    2025

  55. [63]

    D. I. Schuster, A. A. Houck, J. A. Schreier, A. Wallraff, J. M. Gambetta, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, J. Majer, B. Johnson, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature445, 515 (2007)

    2007

  56. [64]

    Utsugi, A

    T. Utsugi, A. Goban, Y . Tokunaga, H. Goto, and T. Aoki, Phys. Rev. A106, 023712 (2022)

    2022

  57. [65]

    As shown in Fig

    to prepare the NOON state [54]|ψ NOON⟩ ∝ |0, n⟩1,2 + |n,0⟩ 1,2, where the subscripts label the cavity modes. As shown in Fig. 7, we have two transmon-cavity systems as de- scribed in Eqs. (34)–(36). We use the initial photonic state |ψ0⟩ ∝ |0, λ⟩1,2 +|λ,0⟩ 1,2 withλ= √n. We ca...

  58. [66]

    Sosnicki, M

    F. Sosnicki, M. Mikolajczyk, A. G. Shishvan, A. Widomski, and M. Karpinski, inQuantum Computing, Communication, and Simulation, V ol. 11699 (SPIE, 2021) p. 1169916

    2021

  59. [67]

    Landgraf, C

    J. Landgraf, C. Flühmann, T. Fösel, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Fast quantum control of cavities using an improved protocol without coherent errors (2024), arXiv:2310.10498 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schus- ter, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  61. [69]

    Chakram, A

    S. Chakram, A. E. Oriani, R. K. Naik, A. V . Dixit, K. He, A. Agrawal, H. Kwon, and D. I. Schuster, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 107701 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    D. J. Wineland, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 1103 (2013)

    2013

  63. [72]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. A64, 012310 (2001)

    2001

  64. [73]

    Mirrahimi, Z

    M. Mirrahimi, Z. Leghtas, V . V . Albert, S. Touzard, R. J. Schoelkopf, L. Jiang, and M. H. Devoret, New J. Phys.16, 045014 (2014). Appendix A: Implementing ¯U † in the emitter–cavity system In this section, we derive the implementation of the unitary ¯U †, where ¯Uis given in...

    2014

  65. [74]

    The error with the optimall(n)forn≫1is given by1− FNOON ≲e −n/2n5/8(4√c+n 5/8c)

    We can differentiate the above with respect toland find that the optimal scaling oflthat givesy∼e −n/2 (since we ignored terms that scale ase −n/2) is given byl=cn 5/4/4. The error with the optimall(n)forn≫1is given by1− FNOON ≲e −n/2n5/8(4√c+n 5/8c)

  66. [100]

    We use the value ofkthat minimizes the single-photon loss in Eq. (31). a† (a) are the creation (annihilation) operators for the cavity mode,ˆn=a †ais the photon number operator, andχis the dispersive coupling between the transmon and the cavity. The above Hamiltonian can be de...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.