Performance analysis of different photon-mediated entanglement generation schemes under optical dephasing and spectral diffusion

Kinfung Ngan; Shuo Sun

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Performance analysis of different photon-mediated entanglement generation schemes under optical dephasing and spectral diffusion

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Raman emission yields the lowest infidelity for remote solid-state spin entanglement under emitter noise; resonant scattering trails by an order of magnitude.

desk verdict Solid, useful comparison of three entanglement schemes under linewidth noise; ranking is conditional on the stated slow-spectral-diffusion assumption and on optimization details not fully specified. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09976 v1 pith:LYNGWMCF submitted 2024-12-13 quant-ph

Kinfung Ngan , Shuo Sun This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords photon-mediatedentanglementsolid-statequantumemittersopticaldephasingspectraldiffusionfidelitytemporalfilteringRamanemission

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

To connect solid-state quantum processors into networks, two remote spin qubits must be entangled via the photons they emit, but real emitters' optical lines are broadened by fast dephasing and slow spectral diffusion, and both effects degrade the fidelity of the heralded Bell state. The paper analyzes the three standard photon-mediated schemes—spontaneous emission, Raman emission, and resonant scattering—under these two noises, computing the click-conditioned fidelity and efficiency for each. Its central finding is that Raman emission is generally the most resilient, with an infidelity (one minus the fidelity) that barely rises with spectral diffusion, while resonant scattering has an infidelity roughly an order of magnitude larger than the other two. The paper also shows that temporal filtering—heralding on a short time window—can restore near-unity fidelity for all three schemes, whereas spectral filtering saturates below unity because a random relative phase $\phi = \delta\omega\, t$ between the two photon paths survives even at perfect indistinguishability. The practical payoff is a concrete rule: choose the Raman scheme when the driving lasers at the two nodes can be phase-locked, and use a short time window rather than a narrow spectral filter to clean up the heralded state.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the click-conditioned density matrix $\rho_c(T) = \rho_r(T) - \rho_{\mathrm{null}}(T)$, where $\rho_r$ follows the full master equation for the two atoms and $\rho_{\mathrm{null}}$ follows the same evolution with the no-click branch removed; the heralded fidelity is $F = \langle\Psi^-|\rho_c(T)|\Psi^-\rangle/\mathrm{tr}[\rho_c(T)]$ and the efficiency is $\eta = \mathrm{tr}[\rho_c(T)]$. Each scheme is defined by the Hamiltonian that generates its spin-tagged photon: a pure detuning term for spontaneous emission, a Raman drive with detuning $\Delta$ and Rabi frequency $\Omega$ for Raman emission, and a coherent probe drive for resonant scattering, with the waveguide jump operator shifted by the probe amplitude $\beta(t)$. Spectral diffusion enters by averaging $F$ and $\eta$ over an uncorrelated bivariate Gaussian of detunings with widths $\xi_k = 2.35\,\gamma_{\mathrm{sd}}$, i.e., the FWHM-to-$\sigma$ conversion. The mechanism that limits spectral filtering is the random accumulated phase $\phi = \delta\omega\, t$ between the two paths, which the paper shows survives in the infinitely narrow filter limit and caps the fidelity below one.

What would settle it

Run all three entanglement schemes on the same solid-state platform (for example a silicon-vacancy center or quantum dot coupled to a nanophotonic waveguide), independently measure the dephasing rate $\gamma_{\mathrm{dp}}$ and spectral-diffusion width $\gamma_{\mathrm{sd}}$, and compare the heralded fidelities at a fixed $1\%$ success probability: if the resonant-scattering infidelity is not roughly an order of magnitude above the spontaneous-emission one, or if the Raman infidelity grows noticeably with $\gamma_{\mathrm{sd}}$, the ranking is wrong. A second check targets the spectral-filtering claim: if narrowing the filter bandwidth drives the fidelity to unity instead of a plateau below it, the random-relative-phase mechanism $\phi = \delta\omega\, t$ is not the limiting effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that under optical dephasing and spectral diffusion the three schemes separate cleanly. In the Raman emission scheme the spin-tagged photon's frequency is fixed by the driving laser rather than by the atomic resonance, so a wandering atomic frequency $\delta_k$ barely changes the emitted photon and the infidelity stays nearly constant in the spectral-diffusion width, suppressed by $\gamma_{\mathrm{sd}}/\Delta$. In the spontaneous emission and resonant scattering schemes, a detuning $\delta\omega = \delta_1 - \delta_2$ imprints a random phase $\phi = \delta\omega\, t$ on the heralded state, turning the target $|\Psi^- angle = (|g_1 m_2\rangle - |m_1 g_2\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ into $|\Psi_\phi\rangle = (|g_1 m_2\rangle - e^{i\phi}|m_1 g_2\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$; averaging over the Gaussian distribution of $\delta\omega$ raises the infidelity by an amount of order $\gamma_{\mathrm{sd}} T$. Resonant scattering is additionally limited by multi-photon scattering of the weak coherent probe, so its infidelity sits about an order of magnitude above spontaneous emission even with no noise. With the success probability fixed at $1\%$, temporal filtering gives each scheme an optimal integration window, and the Raman scheme achieves the lowest optimal infidelity across essentially the whole $(\gamma_{\mathrm{dp}}, \gamma_{\mathrm{sd}})$ map shown by the paper. Spectral filtering behaves differently: as the filter narrows, the two photons become perfectly indistinguishable but retain a random overall phase, so the fidelity plateaus below unity rather than reaching it.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes each atom's optical frequency wanders slowly, independently, and with a bell-shaped distribution centered at the same value for both atoms, so a faster, correlated, or differently shaped wandering could change the fidelities and even which scheme wins.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For emitters with significant spectral diffusion, the Raman scheme is the recommended choice for maximum fidelity at a given success rate, as long as the two driving lasers can be phase-locked.
Temporal filtering—heralding on photons detected within a short time window—can push the fidelity of all three schemes close to unity; the paper gives the optimal window at $1\%$ efficiency and shows how it shifts with noise.
Spectral filtering by itself is not sufficient: a narrow filter leaves the heralded state with a random relative phase, so high-fidelity entanglement requires an additional phase-stabilizing or phase-measuring step.
Resonant scattering should be avoided for high-fidelity heralded entanglement when driven by a weak coherent field, because multi-photon scattering costs about an order of magnitude in infidelity; using a true single-photon probe is predicted to reverse the ordering.
The paper's maps of optimal infidelity versus $\gamma_{\mathrm{dp}}$, $\gamma_{\mathrm{sd}}$, and cooperativity provide a direct recipe for picking a scheme once a platform's two noise parameters are known.

Reading between the lines

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

Extension the paper does not make: if spectral diffusion is correlated between the two nodes (common magnetic-field or strain noise), the ensemble averaging that makes the Raman scheme win would not help the other two as much, so the Raman advantage would likely grow—a testable prediction.
Extension: the paper's expression $\phi = \delta\omega\, t$ suggests a concrete fix for the spectral-filtering plateau: resolve the photon's frequency or arrival time to estimate $\phi$ and apply a conditional rotation on the spin to correct the heralded state; the paper stops short of proposing this.
Extension: the comparison fixes the target efficiency at $1\%$; at much lower efficiencies a very short time window would erase dephasing almost completely, possibly flattening the differences between schemes, while at much higher efficiencies the ordering could change.
Extension: the static-ensemble model of spectral diffusion would fail for emitters whose transition frequency drifts during a single attempt (e.g., some 2D materials or charged defects at higher temperature); a time-dependent-detuning simulation would be the next test.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline: this is a useful, workmanlike theory paper that gives the first quantitative comparison of the three photon-mediated entanglement schemes under optical dephasing and spectral diffusion. The headline finding—Raman emission is largely immune to spectral diffusion, and resonant scattering is about an order of magnitude worse—is new and practically relevant. The temporal- versus spectral-filtering result is also a genuine contribution: temporal filtering restores near-unity fidelity, spectral filtering plateaus below unity because of the random relative phase between the two emission paths.

What the paper does well: the framework is standard master-equation plus SLH, the derivations are clear, and the authors are honest about what they include and exclude. They explicitly note that other experimental imperfections (laser phase noise, timing jitter) can change the optimal scheme, which is the right caveat. The paper does not overclaim.

Soft spots, in order. First, the optimization that sets scheme parameters at fixed 1% efficiency is underspecified. No code, no parameter tables, no statement of the optimizer or tolerances. That makes the central numbers in Fig. 4 hard to verify. A referee should ask for the details. Second, the static spectral diffusion model (Eqs. 12–14) is load-bearing. The authors assume spectral diffusion is slower than one attempt, which is true for many QD and color-center systems, but they sweep γ_sd up to 5γ, and for emitters with faster diffusion the temporal-filtering argument changes: the phase error becomes an integral of δω(t), and early-time detection no longer bounds it the same way. The paper acknowledges the timescale separation, so this is a limitation, not an oversight, but the reader should know the ranking is conditional on it. Third, the model assumes uncorrelated, identical-center detunings; correlated diffusion between the two nodes would change the fidelity. That point is minor given the target emitters.

Who this is for: experimental groups choosing between spontaneous emission, Raman, and resonant scattering for solid-state quantum emitters. They will get a clear decision rule and a warning about spectral filtering. I would send this to peer review—a serious referee can verify the optimization and push for a discussion of the fast-diffusion limit. I would not desk-reject it.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper compares three photon-mediated entanglement generation schemes (spontaneous emission, Raman emission, and resonant scattering) for two remote solid-state emitters in the presence of optical dephasing and spectral diffusion. Using a master-equation/SLH framework, the authors compute the conditional two-atom density matrix and evaluate entanglement fidelity and efficiency as functions of integration time window, spectral filter bandwidth, noise rates, and cooperativity. They report three main results: temporal filtering can restore near-unity fidelity for all schemes, spectral filtering saturates at a fidelity below unity because of a random relative phase between the two emission paths, and at a fixed 1% entanglement efficiency the Raman emission scheme is generally the most robust, while the resonant scattering scheme has infidelity roughly an order of magnitude higher than the other two. The paper also discusses the cooperativity dependence and practical limitations such as laser phase stability and timing requirements.

Significance. If the numerical results are trustworthy, the paper would provide a useful practical guide for choosing among common entanglement-generation schemes in solid-state quantum emitters. The modeling framework is standard and the inclusion of both temporal and spectral filtering through SLH theory is a strength. The authors also give explicit credit to the known result that a single-photon input improves the resonant scattering scheme, and they state several simplifying assumptions clearly. However, the main claims are numerical and depend on an optimization procedure that is described only at the level of 'optimizing the infidelity under the efficiency constraint,' and the spectral-diffusion model relies on a static-detuning approximation whose regime of validity is not quantified. These are the load-bearing points that need to be strengthened before the conclusions can be fully relied upon.

major comments (2)

[Sec. V (paragraph after Fig. 3)] The central numerical results in Figs. 3–5 are obtained by optimizing scheme-dependent parameters under a fixed 1% efficiency constraint, but the optimization procedure is not specified. The sentence 'the scheme-dependent parameters are uniquely determined by optimizing the infidelity under the constraint on the entanglement efficiency' does not state the objective function, the allowed search ranges for α, Ω_k, ∆, and β, the initial guesses, the algorithm, the convergence tolerances, or how the 1% constraint is enforced. Since the headline conclusions (Raman generally best, resonant scattering about an order of magnitude worse) are statements about these optimized curves, the missing protocol is load-bearing for reproducibility. Please provide the full optimization details and, if possible, release the simulation code or the data underlying the figures.
[Sec. III, Eqs. (12)–(14); Secs. IV–V] The model treats spectral diffusion as a static, uncorrelated Gaussian detuning during each entanglement attempt. This assumption is used directly in the temporal-filtering argument: the error phase is written as δω·t and is suppressed by detecting at small t, and the Raman scheme's insensitivity to γ_sd is argued from a static detuning that only shifts the two-photon resonance. For emitters whose spectral diffusion correlation time τ_c is comparable to or shorter than the photon emission time or the integration window T, the phase error would instead be an integral of a time-dependent δω(t), and early-time filtering would not bound the error in the same way; the scheme ranking in Fig. 4 could then change. The paper states that spectral diffusion is 'typically much slower' than an attempt, but it does not quantify this separation relative to the γ_sd range shown (up to 5γ) or identify which of the emitter classes mentioned in the Introduction satisfy it. Please state the required timescale condition explicitly and either analyze the fast-diffusion regime or restrict the conclusions to the slow-diffusion regime.

minor comments (6)

[Sec. VI] The concluding statement that resonant scattering yields an order-of-magnitude higher infidelity should be qualified as applying to the weak-coherent-field implementation analyzed in this paper, since Sec. V already notes that replacing the weak coherent field with a single photon can remove this disadvantage.
[Sec. III, Eq. (14)] Please clarify whether γ_sd denotes the FWHM linewidth or the standard deviation; the conversion ξ_k = 2.35 γ_sd suggests γ_sd is intended as the FWHM, but the text does not state this explicitly.
[Sec. II] The phrase 'single-photon heralding version' is slightly misleading for the resonant scattering scheme, which uses a weak coherent input rather than a single photon; consider using 'single-click heralding' or an equivalent wording.
[Fig. 3 and general figures] The figures would be more informative if the optimal operating point (the value of T minimizing infidelity for each scheme) were marked and the corresponding optimized parameters (α, Ω, ∆, β) were reported, so that the reader can see which parameter regime produces the minimum.
[Sec. II title and text] There is a typographical artifact in the section title: 'PHOTON-MEDIA TED ENT ANGLEMENT' should read 'PHOTON-MEDIATED ENTANGLEMENT'.
[Sec. III (definition of temporal filtering)] The assertion that a time window starting at t = 0 gives the largest entanglement efficiency at fixed fidelity is not proven; please add a brief justification or a reference for this claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a forward master-equation simulation with standard noise models; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The paper derives entanglement fidelity and efficiency from a Lindblad master equation and SLH cascade formalism (Eqs. 2-11) with no fitted experimental data. The figures of merit F and η are defined independently and computed for each scheme; the comparison in Sec. V is an output of optimizing scheme parameters under a fixed efficiency constraint, not an input chosen to force the ranking. The spectral-diffusion model (Eqs. 12-14) is an explicit modeling assumption of static, uncorrelated Gaussian detunings; this is a stated scope condition rather than a circular import of the conclusion. The temporal-filtering result follows from solving the dynamics for different integration windows, not from the definition of fidelity alone. The only self-citations ([24,25,33]) support background statements about quantum-dot spin-photon interfaces and the existence of spectral diffusion; they are not load-bearing for the central comparison. The assumption that spectral diffusion is slow compared to one entanglement attempt could be violated in some emitters, but that is a correctness/validity concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison is a numerical simulation; it introduces no new free parameters beyond those already present in the three schemes, but it does choose representative operating points (noise rates, cooperativity, target efficiency) by hand. The main axioms are the standard quantum-optics master-equation framework and several domain-specific modeling simplifications, most notably the static Gaussian ensemble model of spectral diffusion and the restriction to single-photon heralding. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)

Initial superposition amplitude alpha for spontaneous emission scheme = 0.1 in Fig. 2; optimized at fixed efficiency in Fig. 3
Controls two-photon emission probability and therefore fidelity; chosen by hand or optimized.
Raman drive detuning Delta and Rabi frequency Omega = Delta=600 gamma, Omega=60 gamma in Fig. 2; optimized in Fig. 3
Sets Raman photon generation probability p and phase noise suppression factor Omega/Delta; chosen by hand or optimized.
Coherent drive amplitude beta for resonant scattering = sqrt(0.01 gamma) in Fig. 2; optimized in Fig. 3
Determines multi-photon scattering probability; chosen by hand or optimized.
Noise rates gamma_dp and gamma_sd = 5 gamma in most calculations
The simulated optical dephasing rate and spectral diffusion linewidth; results are shown as functions of these, but a single representative value is used in fixed-parameter figures.
Target entanglement efficiency = 0.01 (1%)
The constraint under which optimal fidelity is compared; the ranking can depend on this value.
Waveguide coupling Gamma relative to loss gamma = 10 gamma in most figures
Sets cooperativity C = Gamma/gamma; Fig. 5 scans cooperativity.

assumptions (7)

standard math Lindblad master equation and SLH cascaded systems formalism
Used as the backbone for computing conditional density matrices (Sec. III, Eqs. 4-11).
domain assumption Lambda-level structure with negligible decay from |e> to |m>
Stated in Sec. II; matches many real solid-state emitters but not all.
domain assumption Weak excitation: p much less than 1 (Raman), |alpha| much less than 1 (spontaneous), weak coherent state (resonant), allowing two-photon terms to be dropped
Used in the unnormalized state expansions in Sec. II; the optimization at fixed efficiency may push against this approximation.
domain assumption Spectral diffusion is slow compared to each attempt and modeled as a static Gaussian ensemble average with uncorrelated identical detunings
Eqs. 12-14; if spectral diffusion is fast or non-Gaussian, the fidelity results change.
domain assumption Single-photon heralding versions only; two-photon heralding ignored
Stated in Sec. II to isolate the physical generation process; conclusions may not transfer to two-photon schemes.
domain assumption Photon collection and detection efficiency set to 1
Stated in Sec. III; affects absolute efficiency but not relative ranking.
domain assumption Resonant scattering uses a weak coherent state input and the pi phase-shift approximation at large cooperativity
Secs. II and V; if a true single-photon input is used, the resonant scattering infidelity improves, as noted from Ref. [15].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Performance analysis of different photon-mediated entanglement generation schemes under optical dephasing and spectral diffusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LYNGWMCF

@misc{pith2026241209976,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Performance analysis of different photon-mediated entanglement generation schemes under optical dephasing and spectral diffusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LYNGWMCF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09976}
}

read the original abstract

Solid-state quantum emitters, such as quantum dots, color centers, rare-earth dopants, and organic molecules, offer qubit systems that integrate well with chip-scale photonic and electronic devices. To fully harness their potential for quantum applications requires the generation of entanglement between two remote qubits with high fidelity and efficiency. In this article, we compare the performance of three common photon-mediated entanglement schemes under realistic noise for solid-state quantum emitters, including optical dephasing and spectral diffusion. We identify the optimal scheme across different noise regimes and calculate the measurement parameters needed to achieve the highest entanglement fidelity at a given rate. Additionally, we explore the effects of temporal and spectral filtering in enhancing entanglement fidelity. Our findings provide practical guidelines for selecting optimal entanglement schemes and outline the measurement strategies for achieving better entanglement fidelity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09976 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a) - (c) Entanglement fidelity as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Optimal entanglement infidelity as a function of op [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Optimal entanglement infidelity as a function of co [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Exploring the feasibility of probabilistic and deterministic quantum gates between T centers in silicon
quant-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A photon interference-based gate with feedback between silicon T centers can exceed 50 percent success probability and is analytically shown to offer competitive fidelity and efficiency.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Lodahl, S

P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, and S. Stobbe, Reviews of Modern Physics 87, 347 (2015)

2015
[2]

The input photon is resonant with the optical transition |gk⟩ ↔ |ek⟩ of each atom

|vac⟩ as well. The input photon is resonant with the optical transition |gk⟩ ↔ |ek⟩ of each atom. The quantum state of the joint system before photon scattering becomes |ψ⟩ = 1 2 (|g1g2⟩ + |m1m2⟩ + |g1m2⟩ + |m1g2⟩) 1√ 2 (a† 1 + a†

work page
[3]

|vac⟩. At the large cooperativity regime where Γ (k) ≫ γ(k), each atom applies a π-phase shift on the photon if it is in the state |gk⟩ [30, 31], but no phase shift if it is in the state |mk⟩. The joint state of the system be- comes |ψ⟩ = −1 2 √ 2 (|g1g2⟩ (a† 1 + a†

work page
[4]

|vac⟩ + |g1m2⟩ (a† 1 − a†

work page
[5]

|vac⟩−| m1g2⟩ (a† 1 −a†

work page
[6]

|vac⟩−| m1m2⟩ (a† 1 +a†

work page
[7]

|vac⟩). Expressing this state in terms of the output modes of the beamsplitter, the joint state of the system becomes |ψ⟩ = −1√ 2 (|Ψ−⟩ c† 1 |vac⟩ + |Φ−⟩ c† 2 |vac⟩), where |Φ−⟩ = 1√ 2 (|g1g2⟩ − |m1m2⟩). Conditioned on a click on either detector, the state of the two atoms will collapse to the corresponding Bell state. III. THEOR Y FRAMEWORK In this secti...

work page
[8]

Atat¨ ure, D

M. Atat¨ ure, D. Englund, N. Vamivakas, S.-Y. Lee, and J. Wrachtrup, Nature Reviews Materials 3, 38 (2018)

work page 2018

Show all 39 references

[9]

Janitz, M

E. Janitz, M. K. Bhaskar, and L. Childress, Optica 7, 1232 (2020)

2020
[10]

Bradac, W

C. Bradac, W. Gao, J. Forneris, M. E. Trusheim, and I. Aharonovich, Nature communications 10, 5625 (2019)

2019
[11]

Zhong and P

T. Zhong and P. Goldner, Nanophotonics 8, 2003 (2019)

2019
[12]

Z.-Q. Zhou, C. Liu, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, D. Oblak, M. Lei, A. Faraon, M. Mazzera, and H. de Riedmatten, Laser & Photonics Reviews 17, 2300257 (2023)

2023
[13]

Toninelli, I

C. Toninelli, I. Gerhardt, A. Clark, A. Reserbat-Plantey, S. G¨ otzinger, Z. Ristanovi´ c, M. Colautti, P. Lom- bardi, K. Major, W. Deperasi´ nska, Pernice, F. Kop- pens, B. Kozankiewicz, A. Gourdon, V. Sandoghdar, and M. Orrit, Nature Materials 20, 1615 (2021)

2021
[14]

Pelucchi, G

E. Pelucchi, G. Fagas, I. Aharonovich, D. Englund, E. Figueroa, Q. Gong, H. Hannes, J. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, N. Matsuda, J.-W. Pan, F. Schreck, F. Sciarrino, C. Sil- berhorn, J. Wang, and K. D. J¨ ons, Nature Reviews Physics 4, 194 (2022)

2022
[15]

Nemoto, M

K. Nemoto, M. Trupke, S. J. Devitt, A. M. Stephens, B. Scharfenberger, K. Buczak, T. N¨ obauer, M. S. Everitt, J. Schmiedmayer, and W. J. Munro, Physical Review X 4, 031022 (2014)

2014
[16]

Simmons, PRX Quantum 5, 010102 (2024)

S. Simmons, PRX Quantum 5, 010102 (2024)

2024
[17]

C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Reviews of modern physics 89, 035002 (2017)

2017
[18]

Zhang and Q

Z. Zhang and Q. Zhuang, Quantum Science and Technol- ogy 6, 043001 (2021)

2021
[19]

Wehner, D

S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, Science 362, eaam9288 (2018)

2018
[20]

Azuma, S

K. Azuma, S. E. Economou, D. Elkouss, P. Hilaire, L. Jiang, H.-K. Lo, and I. Tzitrin, Reviews of Modern Physics 95, 045006 (2023)

2023
[21]

H. K. Beukers, M. Pasini, H. Choi, D. Englund, R. Han- son, and J. Borregaard, PRX Quantum 5, 010202 (2024)

2024
[22]

S. C. Wein, J.-W. Ji, Y.-F. Wu, F. Kimiaee Asadi, R. Ghobadi, and C. Simon, Physical Review A 102, 033701 (2020)

2020
[23]

Bernien, B

H. Bernien, B. Hensen, W. Pfaff, G. Koolstra, M. S. Blok, L. Robledo, T. H. Taminiau, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, L. Childress, and R. Hanson, Nature 497, 86 (2013)

2013
[24]

P. C. Humphreys, N. Kalb, J. P. Morits, R. N. Schouten, R. F. Vermeulen, D. J. Twitchen, M. Markham, and R. Hanson, Nature 558, 268 (2018)

2018
[25]

Ruskuc, C.-J

A. Ruskuc, C.-J. Wu, E. Green, S. L. Hermans, J. Choi, and A. Faraon, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16224 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[26]

Delteil, Z

A. Delteil, Z. Sun, W.-b. Gao, E. Togan, S. Faelt, and A. Imamo˘ glu, Nature Physics12, 218 (2016)

2016
[27]

Stockill, M

R. Stockill, M. Stanley, L. Huthmacher, E. Clarke, M. Hugues, A. Miller, C. Matthiesen, C. Le Gall, and M. Atat¨ ure, Physical review letters119, 010503 (2017)

2017
[28]

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, C. Meuwly, R. Camacho, F. Jelezko, E. Bielejec, H. Park, M. Lonˇ car, and M. D. Lukin, Science 354, 847 (2016)

2016
[29]

C. M. Knaut, A. Suleymanzade, Y.-C. Wei, D. R. Assumpcao, P.-J. Stas, Y. Q. Huan, B. Machielse, E. N. Knall, M. Sutula, G. Baranes, N. Sinclair, C. De-Eknamkul, D. Levonian, M. Bhaskar, H. Park, M. Lonˇ car, and M. D. Lukin, Nature629, 573 (2024)

2024
[30]

S. Sun, H. Kim, G. S. Solomon, and E. Waks, Nature nanotechnology 11, 539 (2016)

2016
[31]

S. Sun, H. Kim, Z. Luo, G. S. Solomon, and E. Waks, Science 361, 57 (2018)

2018
[32]

Nguyen, D

C. Nguyen, D. Sukachev, M. Bhaskar, B. Machielse, D. Levonian, E. Knall, P. Stroganov, R. Riedinger, H. Park, M. Lonˇ car, and M. D. Lukin, Physical review letters 123, 183602 (2019)

2019
[33]

J. M. Kindem, A. Ruskuc, J. G. Bartholomew, J. Rochman, Y. Q. Huan, and A. Faraon, Nature 580, 201 (2020)

2020
[34]

Zhong, J

T. Zhong, J. M. Kindem, J. G. Bartholomew, J. Rochman, I. Craiciu, V. Verma, S. W. Nam, F. Mar- sili, M. D. Shaw, A. D. Beyer, and A. Faraon, Physical review letters 121, 183603 (2018)

2018
[35]

S. Chen, M. Raha, C. M. Phenicie, S. Ourari, and J. D. Thompson, Science 370, 592 (2020)

2020
[36]

Waks and J

E. Waks and J. Vuckovic, Physical review letters 96, 153601 (2006)

2006
[37]

Shen and S

J.-T. Shen and S. Fan, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 79, 023837 (2009)

2009
[38]

Combes, J

J. Combes, J. Kerckhoff, and M. Sarovar, Advances in Physics: X 2, 784 (2017)

2017
[39]

K. Ngan, Y. Zhan, C. Dory, J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, and S. Sun, Nano Letters 23, 9360 (2023)

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Lodahl, S

P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, and S. Stobbe, Reviews of Modern Physics 87, 347 (2015)

2015

[2] [2]

The input photon is resonant with the optical transition |gk⟩ ↔ |ek⟩ of each atom

|vac⟩ as well. The input photon is resonant with the optical transition |gk⟩ ↔ |ek⟩ of each atom. The quantum state of the joint system before photon scattering becomes |ψ⟩ = 1 2 (|g1g2⟩ + |m1m2⟩ + |g1m2⟩ + |m1g2⟩) 1√ 2 (a† 1 + a†

work page

[3] [3]

|vac⟩. At the large cooperativity regime where Γ (k) ≫ γ(k), each atom applies a π-phase shift on the photon if it is in the state |gk⟩ [30, 31], but no phase shift if it is in the state |mk⟩. The joint state of the system be- comes |ψ⟩ = −1 2 √ 2 (|g1g2⟩ (a† 1 + a†

work page

[4] [4]

|vac⟩ + |g1m2⟩ (a† 1 − a†

work page

[5] [5]

|vac⟩−| m1g2⟩ (a† 1 −a†

work page

[6] [6]

|vac⟩−| m1m2⟩ (a† 1 +a†

work page

[7] [7]

|vac⟩). Expressing this state in terms of the output modes of the beamsplitter, the joint state of the system becomes |ψ⟩ = −1√ 2 (|Ψ−⟩ c† 1 |vac⟩ + |Φ−⟩ c† 2 |vac⟩), where |Φ−⟩ = 1√ 2 (|g1g2⟩ − |m1m2⟩). Conditioned on a click on either detector, the state of the two atoms will collapse to the corresponding Bell state. III. THEOR Y FRAMEWORK In this secti...

work page

[8] [8]

Atat¨ ure, D

M. Atat¨ ure, D. Englund, N. Vamivakas, S.-Y. Lee, and J. Wrachtrup, Nature Reviews Materials 3, 38 (2018)

work page 2018