Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 89 references

A regime map shows when magnetic spin-precession beats optical spin control for making photonic cluster states from quantum dots.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 03:29 UTC pith:QILYHQK5

load-bearing objection Solid regime map for four known QD cluster protocols; phonon-immunity of polarization LR is the cleanest new result. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09373 v1 pith:QILYHQK5 submitted 2026-07-10 quant-ph

Deterministic Generation of Linear Photonic Cluster States with Semiconductor Quantum Dots: A Detailed Comparison of Different Schemes

Nikolas K\"ocher , Stefan Schumacher This is my paper
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Bg42.50.Ex78.67.Hc
keywords linear cluster statesquantum dotsphotonic graph statesspin precessionoptical spin controlPurcell enhancementphonon decoherencetime-bin encoding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper theoretically compares four protocols that turn a single charged semiconductor quantum dot into a deterministic source of linear photonic cluster states, the multipartite entangled strings needed for measurement-based quantum computing and communication. Two protocols rely on continuous precession of a hole spin in a weak magnetic field (one with polarization encoding, one with time-bin encoding); the other two use optical pulses to control the spin under a strong field and emit only time-bin qubits. By solving a microscopic model that includes cavity coupling, laser-driven excitation, and the phonon bath, the authors show how each protocol’s fidelity depends on hole-spin coherence time, Purcell enhancement, and how well unwanted decay channels can be suppressed. The result is a practical regime map: spin-precession schemes improve steadily with stronger cavities and longer coherence and are almost immune to phonon noise when both trions are driven equally, while optical-control schemes win at short coherence times provided the cavity creates a highly cyclic transition. A reader who must choose an experimental architecture can therefore match the available spin lifetime and cavity parameters to the scheme that will actually deliver usable entanglement length.

Core claim

Spin-precession-based schemes scale well with strong cavity enhancement and remain naturally robust against phonon-induced decoherence, whereas optical-spin-control schemes perform best at lower spin coherence times and are limited mainly by the cooperativity of the cavity-induced cycling transition. The comparison therefore supplies a concrete regime map that tells an experimenter which protocol to choose given measured T2*, Purcell factor, and residual non-cavity decay.

What carries the argument

Stabilizer-generator expectation values extracted from second- and third-order photonic correlation functions; these three-photon correlators are converted into an entanglement-length witness that ranks the four schemes without full state tomography.

Load-bearing premise

Hole-spin decoherence is treated as a constant pure-dephasing rate that does not change with magnetic-field strength, pulse timing, or the spin-echo protection that time-bin protocols automatically supply.

What would settle it

Measure three-photon stabilizer expectations (or the resulting entanglement length) for the same quantum-dot–cavity device under both weak-field precession and strong-field optical control while independently varying T2* and the cavity’s unwanted-decay rate; if the predicted crossing points between schemes do not appear, the ranking fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • For hole spins with T2* ≳ 100 ns and strong Purcell factors, the original polarization-encoded Lindner–Rudolph protocol is the highest-fidelity choice.
  • When T2* is only a few tens of nanoseconds, ultrafast optical π-pulse control yields longer usable cluster states than continuous precession.
  • Suppressing residual non-cavity decay (e.g., with a photonic-crystal waveguide) can raise optical-control fidelities enough to compete even at intermediate T2*.
  • Polarization-encoded precession is essentially immune to phonon dephasing during trion excitation, removing one common experimental error channel.
  • The same ranking framework can be reused to select protocols for electron spins or dark-exciton qubits once their g-factors and coherence times are inserted.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If real T2* rises with magnetic field (as hyperfine models often predict), the optical-control window expands and the precession schemes lose their long-T2* advantage sooner than the present fixed-T2* map suggests.
  • Time-bin protocols automatically insert spin-echo π flips; restoring that dynamical decoupling into the decoherence model would further favor the time-bin optical schemes at intermediate coherence.
  • The phonon-immunity argument for simultaneous driving of both trions immediately suggests testing whether a dark-exciton cascade or a biexciton cascade under the same equal-coupling condition inherits the same robustness.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript theoretically compares four protocols for deterministic generation of linear photonic cluster states from a positively charged semiconductor quantum dot in a microcavity: the original Lindner-Rudolph (LR) scheme with polarization encoding under weak-field spin precession, its time-bin variant, and two time-bin schemes that replace precession by optical spin control (ultrafast 2π sech pulses or Raman pulses) under a strong Voigt field with a cavity-induced cycling transition. Using the full system Hamiltonian (Appendix A), Lindblad dynamics with the quantum regression theorem for multi-time photonic correlators, and a process-tensor matrix-product-operator treatment of longitudinal-acoustic phonons (Appendix B), the authors evaluate stabilizer expectation values ⟨X(1)Z(2)⟩ and ⟨Z(1)X(2)Z(3)⟩ (Sec. III, Eqs. 4–9) together with an entanglement-length witness (Eq. 10). Parameters (B, pulse widths, bin lengths) are optimized for each scheme (Table I) over ranges of hole-spin coherence T2*, cavity coupling g, emission rate κ and non-cavity decay γ_rad. The central claim is a regime map: spin-precession schemes scale favorably with Purcell enhancement and are intrinsically robust to phonon-induced decoherence, while optical-control schemes perform better at short T2* and are limited by the cooperativity of the artificial cycling transition.

Significance. If the regime map holds, the work supplies a concrete, experimentally actionable guide for choosing among established QD cluster-state protocols according to available T2*, cavity cooperativity and phonon environment. Strengths include the explicit microscopic Hamiltonians, the efficient stabilizer-based fidelity metric that avoids full N-photon tomography, systematic parameter optimization for fair comparison, and the non-perturbative phonon treatment that reveals the unexpected robustness of the polarization-encoded LR scheme (Appendix E). These elements go beyond qualitative proposals and provide quantitative trade-offs that can directly inform cavity design and magnetic-field choices in ongoing experiments.

major comments (1)
  1. Section IV A (final paragraphs) and Appendix A: hole-spin decoherence is introduced solely as a phenomenological pure-dephasing rate γ_deph that is independent of magnetic-field strength, protocol timing and the spin-echo effect of the Rx(π) flips that appear in the time-bin schemes. While the authors correctly flag that real T2* depends on B, hyperfine environment and dynamical decoupling, the ranking of schemes versus a single T2* axis is therefore only provisional. A short quantitative estimate (even a simple B-dependent T2*(B) model or a note on how echo protection would shift the crossing points in Figs. 5 and 7) would make the regime map more robust without requiring a full microscopic nuclear-spin simulation.
minor comments (5)
  1. Table I and Sec. IV: the optimization procedure for B, σ and T is described only as “optimized for each set of system parameters.” A brief statement of the search method (grid, gradient-free, etc.) and the objective function would improve reproducibility.
  2. Fig. 3 caption and main text: the four schemes are labeled (1)–(4) inconsistently with the later abbreviations B-pol, B-time, UF-time, Raman-time; a single consistent nomenclature throughout would aid readability.
  3. Eqs. (4)–(9) and Appendix C: the integration windows for the time-bin correlators are given only for one representative third-order function; a short general formula for arbitrary stabilizer generators would clarify the procedure for longer chains.
  4. Appendix E: the qualitative argument for phonon immunity of the polarization-encoded LR scheme is clear, but a quantitative plot of the phonon-overlap factor ⟨χ'|χ0⟩ versus α_p would strengthen the claim.
  5. References: a few recent experimental demonstrations of time-bin cluster states and of spin-echo-protected hole spins (post-2024) are missing and could be added for completeness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: forward theoretical comparison of four protocols via independent microscopic simulations under a stated model.

full rationale

The paper's central regime map (spin-precession schemes scale with cavity enhancement and are phonon-robust; optical-control schemes favor low T2* and high cooperativity) is obtained by solving the Lindblad/process-tensor dynamics of an explicit Hamiltonian (App. A–B), evaluating stabilizer correlators via multi-time photonic correlation functions (Sec. III, Eqs. 4–9), and optimizing free protocol parameters (Table I) solely for fair inter-scheme comparison. No parameter is fitted to external data and then re-presented as a prediction; g-factors, spectral densities and baseline rates are literature values or free knobs. Phonon immunity of the polarization LR scheme follows by direct symmetry of the joint excitation (App. E). Self-citations (e.g. prior process-tensor or swing-up papers) supply independent numerical tools, not load-bearing uniqueness claims. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against its own model assumptions and contains none of the six circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work is a microscopic open-system simulation of known QD level structures and known protocols. Load-bearing inputs are literature g-factors and phonon spectral-density parameters, a phenomenological T2*, and standard open-system axioms (Lindblad, Jaynes–Cummings, quantum regression, process-tensor accuracy). No new particles or forces are introduced; the ‘regime map’ is an output of those assumptions, not an extra postulate.

free parameters (5)
  • hole and trion Landé factors gh, gt
    Fixed to gh = −0.2, gt = 0.4 as ‘close to experimentally measured values’ for InGaAs/GaAs or InAs/GaAs; unequal g-factors drive the main precession error that cavities mitigate.
  • phenomenological hole spin coherence time T2*
    Scanned from 1 ns to 1 μs as the main horizontal axis; treated as independent of B and protocol despite the paper noting real field and echo dependence.
  • phonon coupling strength α_p and cutoff ℏω_b
    α_p scanned; ℏω_b = 1 meV and T = 4 K taken as realistic InGaAs/GaAs values; control the phonon-decoherence comparison.
  • cavity V-mode detuning Δ_cav and Raman detuning Δ_gate
    Fixed at −1 meV and −2 meV for optical-control schemes; set cooperativity and gate selectivity by hand.
  • optimized B fields, pulse widths σ, and time-bin lengths T
    Optimized per scheme and (T2*, g, κ, γ_rad) set to maximize ⟨X(1)Z(2)⟩ before evaluating three-photon stabilizers; fair-comparison knobs, not data fits.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Lindblad master equation with cavity emission, radiative decay, and pure dephasing adequately describes the QD–cavity dynamics without phonons.
    Appendix A; standard in the field but omits non-Markovian nuclear-spin and charge-noise structure.
  • domain assumption Quantum regression theorem yields the multi-time photonic correlators needed for stabilizer expectation values.
    Section III and Appendix A; used for all non-phonon results.
  • domain assumption Process-tensor matrix-product operator (ACE) treatment of LA deformation-potential phonons is numerically exact for the driven system.
    Appendix B; justified by failure of weak-coupling/polaron master equations under strong drive.
  • domain assumption Equal phonon coupling of the two trion states implies no phonon-induced decoherence under simultaneous symmetric excitation (polarization LR).
    Appendix E qualitative argument; underpins the phonon-robustness claim for B-pol.
  • ad hoc to paper Resonant sech-pulse excitation is an adequate proxy for experimental phonon-assisted or higher-trion excitation when the excited lifetime is short.
    Stated in §II; allows a single model but is not identical to the experimental drive used in the cited demos.
  • standard math Stabilizer-generator moduli after local Rz freedom, plus the Tóth–Gühne-style witness bound, are sufficient figures of merit for scheme ranking.
    Section III and Appendix D; standard graph-state tools.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 27586 in / 3191 out tokens · 38543 ms · 2026-07-13T03:29:04.317360+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deterministic Generation of Linear Photonic Cluster States with Semiconductor Quantum Dots: A Detailed Comparison of Different Schemes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QILYHQK5

@misc{pith2026260709373,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deterministic Generation of Linear Photonic Cluster States with Semiconductor Quantum Dots: A Detailed Comparison of Different Schemes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QILYHQK5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.09373}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Photonic graph states are key resource states for measurement based quantum information processing. As semiconductor quantum dots are excellent deterministic photon emitters, several protocols using them for the generation of linear cluster states have been proposed, either based on constant precession of a hole or electron spin in a weak magnetic field, or based on optical spin control, in a stronger magnetic field. We theoretically compare four such schemes, using polarization or time-bin encoding, respectively, for a range of cavity environments and spin coherence times. In particular we study how different error mechanisms affect the different schemes, using a microscopic model of the spin control, the excitation and emission dynamics, and of the phonon bath. We find the spin-precession based schemes to scale well with strong cavity enhancement and to be naturally robust against phonon-induced decoherence, while the schemes using optical spin control can perform well for lower spin coherence times and are strongly dependent on the cooperativity of the cavity induced cycling transition. Our results provide a regime map for choosing between magnetic-field-driven and optically controlled protocols depending on spin coherence time, Purcell enhancement, and suppression of unwanted decay channels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09373 by Nikolas K\"ocher, Stefan Schumacher.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of the cluster state generation process. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Level scheme and selection rules for a singly positively charged QD without an external magnetic field. (b) Selection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Overview of the four linear cluster state generation schemes we investigate: The original LR scheme using spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Influence of phonons on the cluster state generation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    As a further example, figure 8 (b) shows the entanglement length in dependence ofT ∗ 2 forg/ℏ= 20 ns −1,ℏκ= 4gandγ rad = 1 ns−1. A comparison with figure 5 (b) shows, that the schemes us- ing optical spin control are more strongly affected by the increase inκ, asℏκ= 4gis a stronger deviation from the ideal ratio. Nonetheless, the scaling withT ∗ 2 remains...

    2022

  2. [2]

    H. J. Briegel and R. Raussendorf, Persistent entangle- ment in arrays of interacting particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 910 (2001)

    2001

  3. [3]

    Raussendorf and H

    R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A one-way quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5188 (2001)

    2001

  4. [4]

    Raussendorf, D

    R. Raussendorf, D. E. Browne, and H. J. Briegel, Measurement-based quantum computation on cluster states, Phys. Rev. A68, 022312 (2003)

    2003

  5. [5]

    Raussendorf, J

    R. Raussendorf, J. Harrington, and K. Goyal, Topologi- cal fault-tolerance in cluster state quantum computation, New Journal of Physics9, 199 (2007)

    2007

  6. [6]

    H. J. Briegel, D. E. Browne, W. D¨ ur, R. Raussendorf, and M. Van den Nest, Measurement-based quantum compu- tation, Nature Physics5, 19 (2009)

    2009

  7. [7]

    Paesani and B

    S. Paesani and B. J. Brown, High-threshold quan- tum computing by fusing one-dimensional cluster states, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 120603 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Zwerger, W

    M. Zwerger, W. D¨ ur, and H. Briegel, Measurement-based quantum repeaters, Phys. Rev. A85, 062326 (2012)

    2012

  9. [9]

    Azuma, K

    K. Azuma, K. Tamaki, and H.-K. Lo, All-photonic quan- tum repeaters, Nature Communications6, 6787 (2015)

    2015

  10. [10]

    J.-P. Li, J. Qin, A. Chen, Z.-C. Duan, Y. Yu, Y. Huo, S. H¨ ofling, C.-Y. Lu, K. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Multipho- ton graph states from a solid-state single-photon source, ACS Photonics7, 1603 (2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    Istrati, Y

    D. Istrati, Y. Pilnyak, J. Loredo, C. Ant´ on, N. Somaschi, P. Hilaire, H. Ollivier, M. Esmann, L. Cohen, L. Vidro, et al., Sequential generation of linear cluster states from a single photon emitter, Nature Communications11, 5501 (2020)

    2020

  12. [12]

    M. Pont, G. Corrielli, A. Fyrillas, I. Agresti, G. Carvacho, N. Maring, P.-E. Emeriau, F. Ceccarelli, R. Albiero, P. H. Dias Ferreira,et al., High-fidelity four-photon GHZ states on chip, npj Quantum Information10, 50 (2024). 13

    2024

  13. [13]

    Chen, L.-C

    S. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y.-P. Guo, X.-M. Gu, X. Ding, R.-Z. Liu, J.-Y. Zhao, X. You, J. Qin, Y.-F. Wang,et al., Her- alded three-photon entanglement from a single-photon source on a photonic chip, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 130603 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    Walther, K

    P. Walther, K. J. Resch, T. Rudolph, E. Schenck, H. We- infurter, V. Vedral, M. Aspelmeyer, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental one-way quantum computing, Nature434, 169 (2005)

    2005

  15. [15]

    Zhang, C.-Y

    A.-N. Zhang, C.-Y. Lu, X.-Q. Zhou, Y.-A. Chen, Z. Zhao, T. Yang, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental construction of optical multiqubit cluster states from Bell states, Phys. Rev. A73, 022330 (2006)

    2006

  16. [16]

    Lu, X.-Q

    C.-Y. Lu, X.-Q. Zhou, O. G¨ uhne, W.-B. Gao, J. Zhang, Z.-S. Yuan, A. Goebel, T. Yang, and J.-W. Pan, Ex- perimental entanglement of six photons in graph states, Nature Physics3, 91 (2007)

    2007

  17. [17]

    Manohar, A

    N. Manohar, A. Danageozian, E. Takou, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Protocol for efficient genera- tion of fusion-based quantum computing resource states from quantum emitters, arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.09325 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    M. L. Chan, A. A. Capatos, P. Lodahl, A. S. Sørensen, and S. Paesani, Practical blueprint for low-depth pho- tonic quantum computing with quantum dots, npj Quan- tum Information (2026)

    2026

  19. [19]

    Michler, A

    P. Michler, A. Kiraz, C. Becher, W. Schoenfeld, P. Petroff, L. Zhang, E. Hu, and A. Imamoglu, A quan- tum dot single-photon turnstile device, Science290, 2282 (2000)

    2000

  20. [20]

    Wei, Y.-M

    Y.-J. Wei, Y.-M. He, M.-C. Chen, Y.-N. Hu, Y. He, D. Wu, C. Schneider, M. Kamp, S. H¨ ofling, C.-Y. Lu, et al., Deterministic and robust generation of single pho- tons from a single quantum dot with 99.5% indistin- guishability using adiabatic rapid passage, Nano Letters 14, 6515 (2014)

    2014

  21. [21]

    A. V. Kuhlmann, J. H. Prechtel, J. Houel, A. Lud- wig, D. Reuter, A. D. Wieck, and R. J. Warburton, Transform-limited single photons from a single quantum dot, Nature Communications6, 8204 (2015)

    2015

  22. [22]

    X. Ding, Y. He, Z.-C. Duan, N. Gregersen, M.-C. Chen, S. Unsleber, S. Maier, C. Schneider, M. Kamp, S. H¨ ofling, et al., On-demand single photons with high extraction efficiency and near-unity indistinguishability from a res- onantly driven quantum dot in a micropillar, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 020401 (2016)

    2016

  23. [23]

    Somaschi, V

    N. Somaschi, V. Giesz, L. De Santis, J. Loredo, M. P. Almeida, G. Hornecker, S. L. Portalupi, T. Grange, C. Anton, J. Demory,et al., Near-optimal single-photon sources in the solid state, Nature Photonics10, 340 (2016)

    2016

  24. [24]

    Wang, Z.-C

    H. Wang, Z.-C. Duan, Y.-H. Li, S. Chen, J.-P. Li, Y.-M. He, M.-C. Chen, Y. He, X. Ding, C.-Z. Peng,et al., Near- transform-limited single photons from an efficient solid- state quantum emitter, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 213601 (2016)

    2016

  25. [25]

    Heindel, A

    T. Heindel, A. Thoma, M. von Helversen, M. Schmidt, A. Schlehahn, M. Gschrey, P. Schnauber, J.-H. Schulze, A. Strittmatter, J. Beyer,et al., A bright triggered twin- photon source in the solid state, Nature Communications 8, 14870 (2017)

    2017

  26. [26]

    Schweickert, K

    L. Schweickert, K. D. J¨ ons, K. D. Zeuner, S. F. Covre da Silva, H. Huang, T. Lettner, M. Reindl, J. Zichi, R. Trotta, A. Rastelli,et al., On-demand generation of background-free single photons from a solid-state source, Applied Physics Letters112(2018)

    2018

  27. [27]

    Huber, M

    D. Huber, M. Reindl, S. F. Covre da Silva, C. Schimpf, J. Mart´ ın-S´ anchez, H. Huang, G. Piredda, J. Edlinger, A. Rastelli, and R. Trotta, Strain-tunable GaAs quantum dot: A nearly dephasing-free source of entangled photon pairs on demand, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 033902 (2018)

    2018

  28. [28]

    F. Liu, A. J. Brash, J. O’Hara, L. M. Martins, C. L. Phillips, R. J. Coles, B. Royall, E. Clarke, C. Bentham, N. Prtljaga,et al., High Purcell factor generation of in- distinguishable on-chip single photons, Nature Nanotech- nology13, 835 (2018)

    2018

  29. [29]

    Reindl, J

    M. Reindl, J. H. Weber, D. Huber, C. Schimpf, S. F. Covre da Silva, S. L. Portalupi, R. Trotta, P. Michler, and A. Rastelli, Highly indistinguishable single photons from incoherently excited quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B 100, 155420 (2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    R. Uppu, F. T. Pedersen, Y. Wang, C. T. Olesen, C. Pa- pon, X. Zhou, L. Midolo, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Lud- wig,et al., Scalable integrated single-photon source, Sci- ence Advances6, eabc8268 (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    N. Tomm, A. Javadi, N. O. Antoniadis, D. Najer, M. C. L¨ obl, A. R. Korsch, R. Schott, S. R. Valentin, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig,et al., A bright and fast source of coherent single photons, Nature Nanotechnology16, 399 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    Thomas, M

    S. Thomas, M. Billard, N. Coste, S. Wein, Priya, H. Ol- livier, O. Krebs, L. Taza¨ ırt, A. Harouri, A. Lemaitre, et al., Bright polarized single-photon source based on a linear dipole, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 233601 (2021)

    2021

  33. [33]

    Jonas, D

    B. Jonas, D. Heinze, E. Sch¨ oll, P. Kallert, T. Langer, S. Krehs, A. Widhalm, K. J¨ ons, D. Reuter, S. Schu- macher,et al., Nonlinear down-conversion in a single quantum dot, Nature Communications13, 1387 (2022)

    2022

  34. [34]

    Pelucchi, G

    E. Pelucchi, G. Fagas, I. Aharonovich, D. Englund, E. Figueroa, Q. Gong, H. Hannes, J. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, N. Matsuda,et al., The potential and global outlook of integrated photonics for quantum technologies, Nature Reviews Physics4, 194 (2022)

    2022

  35. [35]

    Ding, Y.-P

    X. Ding, Y.-P. Guo, M.-C. Xu, R.-Z. Liu, G.-Y. Zou, J.- Y. Zhao, Z.-X. Ge, Q.-H. Zhang, H.-L. Liu, L.-J. Wang, et al., High-efficiency single-photon source above the loss- tolerant threshold for efficient linear optical quantum computing, Nature Photonics19, 387 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    T. L. Baltisberger, F. Salusti, M. R. Hogg, M. A. Mar- czak, N. Heinisch, S. R. Valentin, S. Schumacher, A. Lud- wig, K. D. J¨ ons, and R. J. Warburton, Indistinguishable photons from a two-photon cascade, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2026)

    2026

  37. [37]

    Heinisch, F

    N. Heinisch, F. Salusti, M. R. Hogg, T. L. Baltisberger, M. A. Marczak, S. R. Valentin, A. Ludwig, K. D. J¨ ons, R. J. Warburton, and S. Schumacher, High-quality single photons from cavity-enhanced biexciton-to-exciton tran- sition, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.18153 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    N. H. Lindner and T. Rudolph, Proposal for pulsed on- demand sources of photonic cluster state strings, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 113602 (2009)

    2009

  39. [39]

    Coste, D

    N. Coste, D. Fioretto, N. Belabas, S. Wein, P. Hilaire, R. Frantzeskakis, M. Gundin, B. Goes, N. Somaschi, M. Morassi,et al., High-rate entanglement between a semiconductor spin and indistinguishable photons, Na- ture Photonics17, 582 (2023)

    2023

  40. [40]

    H. Huet, P. Ramesh, S. Wein, N. Coste, P. Hilaire, N. So- maschi, M. Morassi, A. Lemaˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, M. Doty, 14 et al., Deterministic and reconfigurable graph state gen- eration with a single solid-state quantum emitter, Nature Communications16, 4337 (2025)

    2025

  41. [41]

    Cogan, Z.-E

    D. Cogan, Z.-E. Su, O. Kenneth, and D. Gershoni, De- terministic generation of indistinguishable photons in a cluster state, Nature Photonics17, 324 (2023)

    2023

  42. [42]

    Z.-E. Su, B. Taitler, I. Schwartz, D. Cogan, I. Nassar, O. Kenneth, N. H. Lindner, and D. Gershoni, Continu- ous and deterministic all-photonic cluster state of indis- tinguishable photons, Reports on Progress in Physics87, 077601 (2024)

    2024

  43. [43]

    Laccotripes, J

    P. Laccotripes, J. Huang, G. Shooter, A. Barbiero, M. S. Winnel, D. A. Ritchie, A. J. Shields, T. Muller, and R. M. Stevenson, An entangled photon source for the telecom C-band based on a semiconductor-confined spin, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01648 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Schwartz, D

    I. Schwartz, D. Cogan, E. R. Schmidgall, Y. Don, L. Gantz, O. Kenneth, N. H. Lindner, and D. Gershoni, Deterministic generation of a cluster state of entangled photons, Science354, 434 (2016)

    2016

  45. [45]

    J. Lee, B. Villa, A. Bennett, R. Stevenson, D. Ellis, I. Far- rer, D. Ritchie, and A. Shields, A quantum dot as a source of time-bin entangled multi-photon states, Quantum Sci- ence and Technology4, 025011 (2019)

    2019

  46. [46]

    Tiurev, M

    K. Tiurev, M. H. Appel, P. L. Mirambell, M. B. Lau- ritzen, A. Tiranov, P. Lodahl, and A. S. Sørensen, High-fidelity multiphoton-entangled cluster state with solid-state quantum emitters in photonic nanostructures, Phys. Rev. A105, L030601 (2022)

    2022

  47. [47]

    M. H. Appel, A. Tiranov, S. Pabst, M. L. Chan, C. Starup, Y. Wang, L. Midolo, K. Tiurev, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck,et al., Entangling a hole spin with a time- bin photon: a waveguide approach for quantum dot sources of multiphoton entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 233602 (2022)

    2022

  48. [48]

    Y. Meng, M. L. Chan, R. B. Nielsen, M. H. Appel, Z. Liu, Y. Wang, N. Bart, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, L. Midolo, et al., Deterministic photon source of genuine three-qubit entanglement, Nature Communications15, 7774 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    Vezvaee, P

    A. Vezvaee, P. Hilaire, M. F. Doty, and S. E. Economou, Deterministic generation of entangled photonic cluster states from quantum dot molecules, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, L061003 (2022)

    2022

  50. [50]

    J. H. Prechtel, F. Maier, J. Houel, A. V. Kuhlmann, A. Ludwig, A. D. Wieck, D. Loss, and R. J. Warburton, Electrically tunable hole g factor of an optically active quantum dot for fast spin rotations, Phys. Rev. B91, 165304 (2015)

    2015

  51. [51]

    Cogan, Z.-E

    D. Cogan, Z.-E. Su, O. Kenneth, and D. Gershoni, Spin purity of the quantum dot confined electron and hole in an external magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B105, L041407 (2022)

    2022

  52. [52]

    J. Wang, J. Hanel, Z. Jiang, R. Joos, M. Jetter, E. P. Rugeramigabo, S. L. Portalupi, P. Michler, X.-Y. Cao, H.-L. Yin,et al., Time-bin encoded quantum key distri- bution over 120 km with a telecom quantum dot source, Light: Science & Applications15, 126 (2026)

    2026

  53. [53]

    S. E. Economou, L. Sham, Y. Wu, and D. Steel, Proposal for optical U(1) rotations of electron spin trapped in a quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B74, 205415 (2006)

    2006

  54. [54]

    P. Chen, C. Piermarocchi, L. Sham, D. Gammon, and D. Steel, Theory of quantum optical control of a single spin in a quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B69, 075320 (2004)

    2004

  55. [55]

    Press, T

    D. Press, T. D. Ladd, B. Zhang, and Y. Yamamoto, Com- plete quantum control of a single quantum dot spin using ultrafast optical pulses, Nature456, 218 (2008)

    2008

  56. [56]

    Wang, Y.-M

    H. Wang, Y.-M. He, T.-H. Chung, H. Hu, Y. Yu, S. Chen, X. Ding, M.-C. Chen, J. Qin, X. Yang,et al., Towards optimal single-photon sources from polarized microcavi- ties, Nature Photonics13, 770 (2019)

    2019

  57. [57]

    Barbiero, G

    A. Barbiero, G. Shooter, T. Muller, J. Skiba-Szymanska, R. M. Stevenson, L. E. Goff, D. A. Ritchie, and A. J. Shields, Polarization-selective enhancement of telecom wavelength quantum dot transitions in an elliptical bulls- eye resonator, Nano Letters24, 2839 (2024)

    2024

  58. [58]

    Bauch, N

    D. Bauch, N. K¨ ocher, N. Heinisch, and S. Schumacher, Time-bin entanglement in the deterministic generation of linear photonic cluster states, APL Quantum1(2024)

    2024

  59. [59]

    T. K. Bracht, F. Kappe, M. Cygorek, T. Seidelmann, Y. Karli, V. Remesh, G. Weihs, V. M. Axt, and D. E. Reiter, Theory of time-bin-entangled photons from quan- tum emitters, Phys. Rev. A110, 063709 (2024)

    2024

  60. [60]

    T´ oth and O

    G. T´ oth and O. G¨ uhne, Entanglement detection in the stabilizer formalism, Phys. Rev. A72, 022340 (2005)

    2005

  61. [61]

    T. Nutz, A. Milne, P. Shadbolt, and T. Rudolph, Pro- posal for demonstration of long-range cluster state entan- glement in the presence of photon loss, APL Photonics 2, 066103 (2017)

    2017

  62. [62]

    Cramer, M

    M. Cramer, M. B. Plenio, S. T. Flammia, R. Somma, D. Gross, S. D. Bartlett, O. Landon-Cardinal, D. Poulin, and Y.-K. Liu, Efficient quantum state tomography, Na- ture Communications1, 149 (2010)

    2010

  63. [63]

    T. K. Bracht, M. Cosacchi, T. Seidelmann, M. Cygorek, A. Vagov, V. M. Axt, T. Heindel, and D. E. Reiter, Swing-up of quantum emitter population using detuned pulses, PRX Quantum2, 040354 (2021)

    2021

  64. [64]

    Heinisch, N

    N. Heinisch, N. K¨ ocher, D. Bauch, and S. Schumacher, Swing-up dynamics in quantum emitter cavity systems: Near ideal single photons and entangled photon pairs, Phys. Rev. Res.6, L012017 (2024)

    2024

  65. [65]

    J. H. Prechtel, A. V. Kuhlmann, J. Houel, A. Ludwig, S. R. Valentin, A. D. Wieck, and R. J. Warburton, De- coupling a hole spin qubit from the nuclear spins, Nature Materials15, 981 (2016)

    2016

  66. [66]

    Huthmacher, R

    L. Huthmacher, R. Stockill, E. Clarke, M. Hugues, C. Le Gall, and M. Atat¨ ure, Coherence of a dynami- cally decoupled quantum-dot hole spin, Phys. Rev. B97, 241413 (2018)

    2018

  67. [67]

    M. R. Hogg, N. O. Antoniadis, M. A. Marczak, G. N. Nguyen, T. L. Baltisberger, A. Javadi, R. Schott, S. R. Valentin, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig,et al., Fast optical control of a coherent hole spin in a microcavity, Nature Physics21, 1475 (2025)

    2025

  68. [68]

    G. N. Nguyen, C. Spinnler, M. R. Hogg, L. Zhai, A. Javadi, C. A. Schrader, M. Erbe, M. Wyss, J. Ritz- mann, H.-G. Babin,et al., Enhanced electron-spin coher- ence in a GaAs quantum emitter, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 210805 (2023)

    2023

  69. [69]

    J. H. Quilter, A. Brash, F. Liu, M. Gl¨ assl, A. M. Barth, V. M. Axt, A. Ramsay, M. S. Skolnick, and A. Fox, Phonon-assisted population inversion of a single InGaAs/GaAs quantum dot by pulsed laser excitation, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 137401 (2015)

    2015

  70. [70]

    D. E. Reiter, T. Kuhn, and V. M. Axt, Distinctive charac- teristics of carrier-phonon interactions in optically driven semiconductor quantum dots, Advances in Physics: X4, 1655478 (2019). 15

    2019

  71. [71]

    D. P. McCutcheon and A. Nazir, Quantum dot Rabi rota- tions beyond the weak exciton–phonon coupling regime, New Journal of Physics12, 113042 (2010)

    2010

  72. [72]

    Gustin and S

    C. Gustin and S. Hughes, Pulsed excitation dynamics in quantum-dot–cavity systems: Limits to optimizing the fidelity of on-demand single-photon sources, Phys. Rev. B98, 045309 (2018)

    2018

  73. [73]

    Hanschke, T

    L. Hanschke, T. K. Bracht, E. Sch¨ oll, D. Bauch, E. Berger, P. Kallert, M. Peter, A. J. Garcia, S. F. Covre da Silva, S. Manna, A. Rastelli, S. Schumacher, D. E. Reiter, and K. D. J¨ ons, Experimental measurement of the reappearance of Rabi rotations in semiconductor quantum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 263602 (2025)

    2025

  74. [74]

    Cygorek, M

    M. Cygorek, M. Cosacchi, A. Vagov, V. M. Axt, B. W. Lovett, J. Keeling, and E. M. Gauger, Simulation of open quantum systems by automated compression of arbitrary environments, Nature Physics18, 662 (2022)

    2022

  75. [75]

    Z. X. Koong, U. Haeusler, J. M. Kaspari, C. Schimpf, B. Dejen, A. M. Hassanen, D. Graham, Y. Karli, A. J. Garcia Jr, M. Peter,et al., Coherent control of quantum- dot spins with cyclic optical transitions, Nature Commu- nications (2026)

    2026

  76. [76]

    F. Bopp, J. Schall, N. Bart, F. Voegl, C. Cullip, F. Sbresny, K. Boos, C. Thalacker, M. Lienhart, S. Rodt, et al., Coherent driving of direct and indirect excitons in a quantum dot molecule, Phys. Rev. B107, 165426 (2023)

    2023

  77. [77]

    Thomas, L

    P. Thomas, L. Ruscio, O. Morin, and G. Rempe, Efficient generation of entangled multiphoton graph states from a single atom, Nature608, 677 (2022)

    2022

  78. [78]

    C.-W. Yang, Y. Yu, J. Li, B. Jing, X.-H. Bao, and J.-W. Pan, Sequential generation of multiphoton entanglement with a Rydberg superatom, Nature Photonics16, 658 (2022)

    2022

  79. [79]

    Tchebotareva, S

    A. Tchebotareva, S. L. Hermans, P. C. Humphreys, D. Voigt, P. J. Harmsma, L. K. Cheng, A. L. Verlaan, N. Dijkhuizen, W. de Jong, A. Dr´ eau,et al., Entangle- ment between a diamond spin qubit and a photonic time- bin qubit at telecom wavelength, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 063601 (2019)

    2019

  80. [80]

    Buterakos, E

    D. Buterakos, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Determin- istic generation of all-photonic quantum repeaters from solid-state emitters, Phys. Rev. X7, 041023 (2017)

    2017

Showing first 80 references.