Robust transfer of a quantum state from an absorbed photon into a diamond spin

Daisuke Ito; Hideo Kosaka; Hiromitsu Kato; Raustin Reyes; Taichi Fujiwara; Toshiharu Makino; Yuhei Sekiguchi

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Robust transfer of a quantum state from an absorbed photon into a diamond spin

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper demonstrates that quantum teleportation can move a photon's polarization state into a diamond nitrogen-vacancy nuclear spin while staying faithful under 100 MHz frequency errors and 100 ns timing errors.

desk verdict A solid experimental demonstration that teleportation-based photon-to-spin transfer is robust to 100 MHz frequency and 100 ns timing errors, but the headline numbers need per-point statistics and a quantified herald background. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09292 v1 pith:MBWM2L25 submitted 2025-05-14 quant-ph

Daisuke Ito , Yuhei Sekiguchi , Raustin Reyes , Taichi Fujiwara , Toshiharu Makino , Hiromitsu Kato , Hideo Kosaka This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Hk42.50.Ex

keywords quantumteleportationnitrogen-vacancycentermemoryphoton-to-spinstatetransferremoteentanglementnetworksfrequencyrobustnesstemporal

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

Quantum networks need to move a quantum state from a flying photon into a stationary spin memory, and the standard photon-interference approach requires the interfering photons to match in frequency, timing, and spatial mode. This paper reports an experiment in which a teleportation-based protocol moves the polarization of a single absorbed photon into the nitrogen nuclear spin of a diamond nitrogen-vacancy center, and shows the transfer stays faithful when the photon is off-resonance or late. The average fidelity is above 0.94 with frequency errors up to 100 MHz and above 0.93 with arrival-time errors up to 100 ns, conditioned on a herald that confirms absorption. If correct, this removes a major stability requirement for connecting remote quantum memories and simplifies quantum repeaters and distributed quantum computing.

What carries the argument

The engine of the protocol is using the absorption of one photon as a Bell-state measurement. The $|A_2\rangle$ excited state of the NV center is itself an entangled state of the electron's orbital and spin degrees of freedom, and the momentum selection rule ties the orbital state to the photon's polarization. Thus a photon resonant with $|A_2\rangle$ is absorbed only through a joint projection that transfers its polarization into the electron–nuclear spin system, and the later emission from $|A_2\rangle$ provides the herald that makes the teleportation conditional. The protocol therefore converts the usual liability of photon-detection inefficiency into an asset: a failed absorption simply produces no herald, while a successful herald guarantees that the teleportation happened. Temporal robustness comes from the pre-existing Bell state, which is why the chief remaining limit is spin coherence rather than photon timing.

What would settle it

Block the incident photon path and run the full sequence. Any herald clicks observed then are false positives; comparing their rate with the 0.1 average absorption probability would show whether the >0.93 conditional fidelities are genuine, and repeating the tomography with real photons under those dark-count-subtracted conditions would settle the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper shows that quantum teleportation-based state transfer (QTST) works as an error-tolerant light-to-memory interface. An electron–nuclear spin Bell state $$|\Phi^+\rangle_{e,N}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|+1,+1\rangle_{e,N}+|-1,-1\rangle_{e,N})$$ is prepared first. The incoming photon is then absorbed into the $|A_2\rangle$ orbital excited state, which is an orbital–polarization Bell state $$|\Psi^+\rangle_{p,e}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|+1,-1\rangle_{p,e}+|-1,+1\rangle_{p,e}),$$ so the absorption itself performs a Bell-state projection. A relaxation photon from $|A_2\rangle$ is the herald: its detection announces that the photon's state has been teleported into the nitrogen nuclear spin. Because the herald certifies success, frequency errors change only the probability of absorption, not the transferred state. The average state-transfer fidelity is 0.94 with no errors, stays at 0.94 for detunings up to 100 MHz, and stays above 0.93 for arrival-time errors up to 100 ns; for large time delays the computational-basis states remain faithful while superposition states degrade as the electron–nuclear Bell state dephases through coupling to $^{13}$C nuclear spins.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume that a click on the heralding detector means a real photon was absorbed by the NV center; if noise or stray light can also produce clicks, the reported fidelities, which are conditioned on such clicks, would be overstated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Remote entanglement between two NV memories can be generated without frequency or phase locking between the nodes, leaving polarization as the main quantity to stabilize in the connecting fiber.
The protocol is tolerant to device inhomogeneity, so nodes can be built from different physical platforms, such as neutral atoms, and still exchange a quantum state through a single photon.
Arrival-time tolerance opens the door to temporal multiplexing: a memory can wait for a photon that arrives late, reducing the timing precision demanded of the photon source.
The remaining time-delay fidelity loss can be reduced with isotopically purified diamond or dynamical decoupling, extending how long the memory can wait.
As with two-photon schemes, entanglement generation scales linearly with channel transmittance, but the QTST approach avoids the spectral filtering that eats into those rates.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: pairing the QTST protocol with a photonic-crystal cavity should shrink the quadratic zero-phonon-line penalty the paper reports, potentially making its rate competitive with one-photon schemes.
Editorial extension: the same herald-certified absorption mechanism could be transferred to other solid-state or atomic systems with spin-dependent excited states, turning QTST into a general light-to-matter interface design.
Editorial extension: compensating the crystal strain with a static electric field and discarding nuclear-spin readouts that land in the 0 state should push the fidelity toward the 0.97 level of the initial electron–nuclear entanglement, since the paper identifies SPAM and strain as the main correctable losses.

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

This is a careful experiment from Kosaka's group showing that QTST—their teleportation-based state transfer scheme—keeps nuclear-spin fidelity around 0.94 even when the photon is detuned by 100 MHz or arrives 100 ns after the entangled electron-nuclear state is prepared. The protocol itself is not new; they demonstrated it earlier. What is new is the systematic robustness characterization, and that is a legitimate, useful contribution for the NV quantum network community.

The paper does several things well. The fidelity numbers are backed by QST and QPT, with error bars from photon shot noise. The distinction between computational-basis inputs and superposition inputs under timing errors is physically sensible, and the measured decay for superpositions matches their dephasing model with a 0.91–0.98 µs time constant, which is a nice consistency check. They are also transparent about rate scaling: QTST scales linearly with channel loss, like two-photon schemes, and they do not oversell the rate advantage.

The soft spots are real but modest. First, the abstract's specific claims—fidelity above 0.94 within 100 MHz and above 0.93 within 100 ns—are supported by global fits, not by per-point confidence intervals at those extrema. The text says the fidelity 'remains at 0.94' over a detuning of 100 MHz, but it does not report the measured values or error bars at the extreme points. The figures may show this, but a reader of the text cannot verify that the extremal bins are statistically above the claimed thresholds. This should be addressed with pointwise data, especially since the constant fit could in principle hide a downward trend that the error bars allow.

Second, the herald channel's false-positive rate is not quantified. All fidelities are conditional on detecting a relaxation photon, so dark counts or 637 nm leakage that trigger the herald would contaminate the conditional state. The strong optical filtering suggests the background is small, but it is not stated. The stress-test point is fair: the effect would be nonuniform across detuning, because at large detuning the true absorption rate drops and background events become a larger fraction of heralds. Without a signal-to-background measurement, the robustness claim at the edges is less crisp than it should be.

Who is this for? People working on NV-based quantum networks, and anyone comparing photonic entanglement schemes. The remote entanglement applications in Fig. 4 are sketches, not demonstrations, but they are clearly labeled as such; I do not treat that as a flaw.

Recommendation: send to peer review. The experiment is solid, the central robustness claim is valuable, and the reporting gaps are fixable. Ask for per-point fidelity values at the extrema and a herald background characterization (dark counts, signal-to-background at the operating point). With those additions, the paper would be strong.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental demonstration of quantum teleportation-based state transfer (QTST) from an incident photon into a nitrogen-vacancy (NV) center's nitrogen nuclear spin in diamond. The protocol first prepares an entangled electron-nuclear spin state, absorbs the photon into the orbital A2 excited state, and uses detection of a relaxation photon as a herald of successful Bell-state measurement. The authors characterize the transferred states by quantum state tomography and the overall process by quantum process tomography, with average fidelity 0.94 for six input polarization states at zero error. They then study robustness: fidelity remains at 0.94 for frequency detunings up to 100 MHz, and for arrival-time errors up to 100 ns the fidelity remains above 0.93 for superposition inputs. The observed arrival-time decay is attributed to electron-nuclear coherence dephasing caused by weakly coupled 13C spins, modeled by Eqs. (3)--(4). The paper also discusses applications to remote entanglement generation and rate scaling relative to one- and two-photon schemes.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this result is significant for quantum networking because it removes the need for spectral and temporal mode matching between independent nodes, a major practical constraint in photon-interference-based remote entanglement. The use of quantum state and process tomography with error bars derived from photon shot noise, and the quantitative dephasing model connecting the arrival-time fidelity decay to electron-nuclear coherence, are strengths of the demonstration. The independent measurement of the electron-nuclear entangled state decay in Fig. 3(d) provides a consistency check on the model. However, as detailed below, the headline robustness numbers are not directly supported by the per-bin statistics presented, and the herald channel background is not quantified; these issues are load-bearing for the abstract's quantitative claims.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and Fig. 3(a)] The claim that 'the achieved fidelity exceeds 0.94 within a frequency error of 100 MHz' is supported only by a constant fit to the full data set; the measured fidelity and its statistical uncertainty in the bins at +100 MHz and -100 MHz are not reported, nor are the heralding event counts in those bins. Because the heralding probability falls with detuning [Fig. 3(b)], the extremal bins have the lowest statistics, so the per-bin requirement is important. The authors should report the detuning-binned fidelities with confidence intervals and show directly whether the bins at the extremal detunings exclude values below 0.94, rather than relying on a global constant fit.
[Abstract and Fig. 3(c)] The claim that fidelity exceeds 0.93 within an arrival-time error of 100 ns is an inference from a fitted decay curve with a reported standard deviation of 0.91 microseconds; the fidelity measured at 100 ns is not stated directly, and the fit function is not specified. The per-bin error bar at the 100 ns point is also not given. Please report the measured fidelity at the largest demonstrated delay with its shot-noise uncertainty, and either confirm that this point excludes 0.93 or qualify the abstract to state that this is the value from the fitted curve.
[Experimental setup, heralding detection] All reported fidelities are conditioned on successful detection of a herald photon, but the false-positive rate of the herald channel is not quantified. The paper does not report the APD dark count rate, the signal-to-background ratio of the herald, or the rejection ratio of the 637 nm excitation laser after the dichroic mirror and filters. If background or leakage photons can trigger the herald independently of true absorption, the conditionally reconstructed density matrices are contaminated; this contamination would be strongest at large detunings, where true absorption is weakest, and could nonuniformly bias the extremal robustness points in Fig. 3. The authors should report the measured background rate and provide a bound on its effect on the conditional fidelities.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (6)] For a general photonic state with complex coefficients alpha and beta, Eq. (6) should read alpha-squared and beta-squared as |alpha|^2 and |beta|^2, respectively, since the diagonal density-matrix elements are probabilities.
[Fig. 3(c) caption and text] The text states 'The standard deviation is 0.91 microsecond' but does not specify the fitting function used in Fig. 3(c). Please state the functional form (e.g., Gaussian or exponential) used for both the solid and dashed fits.
[Conclusion] The sentence 'QTST-based entanglement generation schemes provide significantly more robust than interference-based schemes' is ungrammatical; it should say 'provide significantly greater robustness than interference-based schemes.'
[Experimental setup] The phrase 'contains 1.1% 13C at natural abundance' is redundant; consider rewriting as 'contains 13C at natural abundance (1.1%).'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the robustness claims are experimental measurements supported by an independent dephasing model, not derivations from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an experimental demonstration: photon-to-spin state transfer fidelities are measured via quantum state and process tomography on six input polarization states, conditioned on herald detection. The fidelity values in the abstract and Fig. 3 are summaries of measured data, not quantities defined in terms of the conclusions they support. The QTST protocol is adopted from prior work (Refs. [18,19], which include the present corresponding author), and the |A2> Bell-state identification relies on Refs. [20,21] (one of which is by a present author); however, these are externally published theoretical and experimental results, not uniqueness claims invoked to forbid alternatives, and the present paper's evidence is the measured density matrices, QPT chi matrix, and fidelity curves. The dephasing model in Eqs. (3)-(4) is independent: it predicts a decay of the electron-nuclear entanglement fidelity toward 0.5, and the reported standard deviations (0.91 us for transfer fidelity and 0.98 us for the entangled-state decay) are fitted to the data as characterization of the observations, not inserted as inputs that generate the headline fidelities. The frequency-robustness explanation that the herald guarantees successful Bell-state measurement is a physical mechanism, while the fidelity values themselves are directly measured with error bars derived from photon shot noise. Concerns about unquantified herald dark counts and the absence of per-bin confidence intervals at the +/-100 MHz and 100 ns extrema are statistical or background-control issues, not circularity. The paper is self-contained against experimental benchmarks, and the self-citations present are not load-bearing in a circular sense. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the QTST protocol's Bell-state mapping, the fidelity of the herald channel, and a dephasing model. The fitted dephasing times quantify the timing robustness but do not constitute the claim itself. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

electron-nuclear coherence decay time (standard deviation) = 0.98 µs
Fitted to the fidelity decay of the electron-nuclear Bell state in Fig. 3(d); used to model the arrival-time robustness in Fig. 3(c).
fidelity decay standard deviation for superposition inputs = 0.91 µs
Fitted to the fidelity versus delay data for the superposition states in Fig. 3(c); characterizes the timing robustness claim.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Absorption into the |A2> orbital state implements a Bell-state projection between photon polarization and electron spin as given in Eq. (2).
The QTST protocol relies on this mapping via the momentum selection rule from prior work [21]. If the mapping is not faithful, the teleportation claim fails.
domain assumption The relaxation photon from |A2> is a reliable herald of successful absorption.
All fidelity estimates are conditioned on herald detection; false positives are not quantified in the paper.
domain assumption The electron-nuclear entangled state decoheres into a mixture of |Φ+> and |Φ-> under the influence of weakly coupled 13C spins, as described by Eqs. (3) and (4).
This model explains the arrival-time dependence of the fidelity for superposition states.
domain assumption The incident photon pulse is weak enough that multi-photon events are negligible.
The average absorption probability is 0.1, but the pulse statistics are not analyzed; multi-photon events could create additional errors.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust transfer of a quantum state from an absorbed photon into a diamond spin." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MBWM2L25

@misc{pith2026250509292,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust transfer of a quantum state from an absorbed photon into a diamond spin},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MBWM2L25}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09292}
}

read the original abstract

Conversion of a quantum state from a flying qubit to a memory qubit is crucial for distributed quantum computing. However, this requires precise spatiotemporal or frequency/phase alignment. Here, we experimentally demonstrate quantum teleportation-based state transfer from a photon into a spin in a nitrogen-vacancy center in diamond robust against both spectral and temporal errors. The achieved fidelity exceeds 0.94 within a frequency error of 100 MHz and 0.93 within an arrival-time error of 100 ns. This achievement enables extraordinarily robust entanglement generation between remote quantum memories compared with the conventional photon-interference-based approaches and paves the way for stable quantum networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09292 by the authors.

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Robustness and applications of the QTST scheme. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

Briegel, W

H.-J. Briegel, W. Dür, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Physical Review Letters 81, 5932–5935 (1998)

work page 1998
[2]

Jozsa, D

R. Jozsa, D. S. Abrams, J. P. Dowling, and C. P. Williams, Physical Review Letters85, 2010 (2000)

work page 2000
[3]

J. I. Cirac, A. K. Ekert, S. F. Huelga, and C. Macchi- avello, Physical Review A59, 4249 (1999)

work page 1999
[4]

van Leent, M

T. van Leent, M. Bock, F. Fertig, R. Garthoff, S. Eppelt, Y. Zhou, P. Malik, M. Seubert, T. Bauer, W. Rosenfeld, W. Zhang, C. Becher, and H. Weinfurter, Nature607, 69–73 (2022)

work page 2022
[5]

Y. Zhou, P. Malik, F. Fertig, M. Bock, T. Bauer, T. van Leent, W. Zhang, C. Becher, and H. Weinfurter, PRX Quantum 5 (2024)

work page 2024
[6]

Krutyanskiy, M

V. Krutyanskiy, M. Galli, V. Krcmarsky, S. Baier, D. A. Fioretto, Y. Pu, A. Mazloom, P. Sekatski, M. Canteri, M. Teller, J. Schupp, J. Bate, M. Meraner, N. Sangouard, B. P. Lanyon, and T. E. Northup, Physical Review Let- ters 130 (2023)

work page 2023
[7]

Stockill, M

R. Stockill, M. Stanley, L. Huthmacher, E. Clarke, M. Hugues, A. Miller, C. Matthiesen, C. Le Gall, and M. Atatüre, Physical Review Letters119 (2017)

work page 2017
[8]

C. M. Knaut, A. Suleymanzade, Y.-C. Wei, D. R. As- sumpcao, P.-J. Stas, Y. Q. Huan, B. Machielse, E. N. Knall, M. Sutula, G. Baranes, N. Sinclair, C. De- Eknamkul, D. S. Levonian, M. K. Bhaskar, H. Park, M. Lončar, and M. D. Lukin, Nature 629, 573–578 (2024)

2024

Show all 31 references

[9]

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, Physical Review X 9 (2019)

2019
[10]

Nagata, K

K. Nagata, K. Kuramitani, Y. Sekiguchi, and H. Kosaka, Nature Communications 9 (2018)

2018
[11]

Borregaard, and R

S.L.N.Hermans, M.Pompili, H.K.C.Beukers, S.Baier, J. Borregaard, and R. Hanson, Nature605, 663 (2022)

2022
[12]

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, Nature497, 86 (2013)

2013
[13]

S. D. Barrett and P. Kok, Physical Review A71 (2005)

2005
[14]

B.Hensen, H.Bernien, A.E.Dréau, A.Reiserer, N.Kalb, M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. L. Vermeulen, R. N. Schouten, C. Abellán, W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, M. W. Mitchell, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, D. Elkouss, S. Wehner, T. H. Taminiau, and R. Hanson, Nature526, 682–686 (2015)

2015
[15]

Cabrillo, J

C. Cabrillo, J. I. Cirac, P. García-Fernández, and P. Zoller, Physical Review A59, 1025–1033 (1999)

1999
[16]

L.-M. Duan, M. D. Lukin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Na- ture 414, 413 (2001)

2001
[17]

A. J. Stolk, K. L. van der Enden, M.-C. Slater, I. te Raa- Derckx, P. Botma, J. van Rantwijk, J. J. B. Biemond, R. A. J. Hagen, R. W. Herfst, W. D. Koek, A. J. H. Meskers, R. Vollmer, E. J. van Zwet, M. Markham, A. M. Edmonds, J.F.Geus, F.Elsen, B.Jungbluth, C.Haefner, C. Tres...

2024
[18]

S. Yang, Y. Wang, D. D. B. Rao, T. Hien Tran, A. S. Momenzadeh, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, P. Wang, W. Yang, R. Stöhr, P. Neumann, H. Kosaka, and J. Wrachtrup, Nature Photonics10, 507–511 (2016)

2016
[19]

Tsurumoto, R

K. Tsurumoto, R. Kuroiwa, H. Kano, Y. Sekiguchi, and H. Kosaka, Communications Physics2 (2019)

2019
[20]

J. R. Maze, A. Gali, E. Togan, Y. Chu, A. Trifonov, E. Kaxiras, and M. D. Lukin, New Journal of Physics 13, 025025 (2011)

2011
[21]

Kosaka and N

H. Kosaka and N. Niikura, Physical Review Letters114, 10.1103/physrevlett.114.053603 (2015)

2015 doi
[22]

Robledo, L

L. Robledo, L. Childress, H. Bernien, B. Hensen, P. F. A. Alkemade, and R. Hanson, Nature477, 574 (2011)

2011
[23]

Khaneja, T

N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbrüggen, and S. J. Glaser, Journal of Magnetic Resonance 172, 296–305 (2005)

2005
[24]

Kamimaki, K

A. Kamimaki, K. Wakamatsu, K. Mikata, Y. Sekiguchi, and H. Kosaka, npj Quantum Information9 (2023)

2023
[25]

Batalov, V

A. Batalov, V. Jacques, F. Kaiser, P. Siyushev, P. Neu- mann, L. J. Rogers, R. L. McMurtrie, N. B. Manson, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, Physical Review Letters 102 (2009)

2009
[26]

Bersin, M

E. Bersin, M. Grein, M. Sutula, R. Murphy, Y. Q. Huan, M. Stevens, A. Suleymanzade, C. Lee, R. Riedinger, D. J. Starling, P.-J. Stas, C. M. Knaut, N. Sinclair, D. R. As- sumpcao, Y.-C. Wei, E. N. Knall, B. Machielse, D. D. Sukachev, D. S. Levonian, M. K. Bhaskar, M. Lonč ar, S...

2024
[27]

McCullian, H

B. McCullian, H. Cheung, H. Chen, and G. Fuchs, Phys- ical Review Applied18 (2022)

2022
[28]

Sekiguchi, Y

Y. Sekiguchi, Y. Yasui, K. Tsurumoto, Y. Koga, R. Reyes, and H. Kosaka, Communications Physics 4 (2021)

2021
[29]

L. C. Bassett, F. J. Heremans, C. G. Yale, B. B. Buck- ley, and D. D. Awschalom, Physical Review Letters107 (2011)

2011
[30]

N.Sangouard, C.Simon, H.deRiedmatten,andN.Gisin, Reviews of Modern Physics83, 33 (2011)

2011
[31]

T. Jung, J. Görlitz, B. Kambs, C. Pauly, N. Raatz, R. Nelz, E. Neu, A. M. Edmonds, M. Markham, F. Mück- lich, J. Meijer, and C. Becher, APL Photonics4 (2019)

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Briegel, W

H.-J. Briegel, W. Dür, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Physical Review Letters 81, 5932–5935 (1998)

work page 1998

[2] [2]

Jozsa, D

R. Jozsa, D. S. Abrams, J. P. Dowling, and C. P. Williams, Physical Review Letters85, 2010 (2000)

work page 2000

[3] [3]

J. I. Cirac, A. K. Ekert, S. F. Huelga, and C. Macchi- avello, Physical Review A59, 4249 (1999)

work page 1999

[4] [4]

van Leent, M

T. van Leent, M. Bock, F. Fertig, R. Garthoff, S. Eppelt, Y. Zhou, P. Malik, M. Seubert, T. Bauer, W. Rosenfeld, W. Zhang, C. Becher, and H. Weinfurter, Nature607, 69–73 (2022)

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Y. Zhou, P. Malik, F. Fertig, M. Bock, T. Bauer, T. van Leent, W. Zhang, C. Becher, and H. Weinfurter, PRX Quantum 5 (2024)

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Krutyanskiy, M

V. Krutyanskiy, M. Galli, V. Krcmarsky, S. Baier, D. A. Fioretto, Y. Pu, A. Mazloom, P. Sekatski, M. Canteri, M. Teller, J. Schupp, J. Bate, M. Meraner, N. Sangouard, B. P. Lanyon, and T. E. Northup, Physical Review Let- ters 130 (2023)

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Stockill, M

R. Stockill, M. Stanley, L. Huthmacher, E. Clarke, M. Hugues, A. Miller, C. Matthiesen, C. Le Gall, and M. Atatüre, Physical Review Letters119 (2017)

work page 2017

[8] [8]

C. M. Knaut, A. Suleymanzade, Y.-C. Wei, D. R. As- sumpcao, P.-J. Stas, Y. Q. Huan, B. Machielse, E. N. Knall, M. Sutula, G. Baranes, N. Sinclair, C. De- Eknamkul, D. S. Levonian, M. K. Bhaskar, H. Park, M. Lončar, and M. D. Lukin, Nature 629, 573–578 (2024)

2024