Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 68 references

The paper shows that a polarization-entangled state whose Bell correlations oscillate every ~360 picoseconds can be faithfully distributed over a 270 m urban free-space link, provided the two ends share a clock with sub-50 ps jitter.

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 ↗

A laser-synchronization system with sub-50 ps timing was used to distribute a quantum-dot entangled photon pair over a 270 m urban free-space link, preserving an 89% fully entangled fraction.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection A credible and internally consistent demonstration that sub-50 ps laser-based synchronization can resolve Bell-state oscillations over a 270 m urban free-space link; the main soft spot is the uncharacterized long-term timing drift during tomography. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21093 v1 pith:QYFX3LTK submitted 2026-07-23 quant-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.optics

Picosecond-resolved entanglement distribution over an urban free-space channel

Alessandro Laneve , Fabrizio Cienzo , Santiago Gomez , Paolo Barigelli , Philip Menz , Mattia Beccaceci , Giuseppe Ronco , Giorgia Grossi
show 13 more authors
Ievgen Brytavskyi Thomas Oberleitner Markus Wiener Christian Weidinger Tobias M. Krieger Ailton Garcia Jr. Saimon Filipe Covre da Silva Michele B. Rota Nicol\`o Spagnolo Henning Weier Fabio Sciarrino Armando Rastelli Rinaldo Trotta
This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.optics PACS 03.67.Hk
keywords time-resolved entanglement distributionfree-space quantum communicationquantum dot entangled photon sourcefine structure splittingBell state oscillationsclock synchronizationquantum key distributionfully entangled fraction
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.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that time-evolving entangled states—states whose quantum correlations oscillate on a picosecond scale—can be sent through a real urban free-space link without losing the entanglement. The authors use a quantum dot photon source whose polarization entanglement oscillates with a ~360 ps period, and they synchronize the two ends of a 270 m channel with a laser-based clock that adds only 39 ps of jitter. With that timing, they resolve the oscillations and reconstruct time-resolved density matrices, achieving a fully entangled fraction up to 88.7% and a fidelity to the target Bell state of 85.7±0.1%. They also estimate that time-resolved post-selection could support secure key fractions around 0.14–0.16, suggesting that such oscillating states are usable for quantum communication outside a laboratory.

Core claim

The central claim is that a fine-structure-split quantum dot emitting the two-photon state |φ⟩ = (|HH⟩ + e^{iSΔt/ħ}|VV⟩)/√2 can be used for entanglement distribution over a noisy free-space channel, as long as the measurement timing at the two remote stations is accurate enough to resolve the Bell-state oscillation. The authors implement a one-way optical clock distribution that synchronizes the remote time-tagging systems to better than 50 ps (39 ps added jitter), compared with roughly 400 ps for GPS-disciplined oscillators. With this synchronization, the time-resolved degree of entanglement after transmission through the 270 m channel is close to the laboratory value: fully entangled fract

What carries the argument

The central object is the fine-structure-split two-photon state from a biexciton–exciton cascade in a GaAs quantum dot: the polarization state carries a phase e^{iSΔt/ħ} that depends on the emission delay between the two photons, with S = 11.5 μeV giving an oscillation period of about 360 ps. The argument hinges on a laser-based one-way time–frequency transfer system that synchronizes the two remote time-stamping electronics, adding only 39 ps FWHM jitter. This timing precision allows the experimenters to bin coincidence events into 20 ps windows and reconstruct a time-resolved density matrix, converting what would otherwise be a time-averaged mixed state into a usable evolving entangled sta

Load-bearing premise

The synchronization's timing stability is assumed to hold over each 30-minute tomography integration; the 39 ps jitter figure comes from a short pulse comparison, while the tomography runs are split into 1-minute segments to cope with drift.

What would settle it

Measure the Allan deviation of the optical synchronization over a continuous 30-minute window on the same channel: if the timing error exceeds roughly 50 ps on timescales longer than a minute, the reconstructed time-resolved density matrix would be visibly degraded and the reported 88.7% fully entangled fraction would not be reproducible in a single long integration.

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

If this is right

  • Time-evolving entangled states can be exploited for quantum key distribution through time-wise post-selection, even when the emitter has a large fine-structure splitting that would normally destroy time-averaged entanglement.
  • A low-jitter laser synchronization system can replace GPS-disciplined oscillators in free-space quantum links, resolving emission-delay-dependent correlations that are otherwise smeared out.
  • High-rate deterministic quantum-dot sources with large FSS become usable for free-space quantum communication, reducing the trade-off between source brightness and FSS tuning.
  • The same timing capability enables other time-sensitive protocols, including spoofing-safe entanglement-based clock synchronization and position determination, and is a step toward satellite-based free-space quantum networks.
  • Distinguishing coincidence events belonging to different excitation pulses reduces noise and improves the quantum bit error rate, which is beneficial for any high-rate entangled photon source.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the synchronization jitter can be pushed below the ~20 ps level already achieved in the lab, the distributed fully entangled fraction should approach the laboratory value of ~92%, suggesting that the remaining gap is primarily a timing-resolution effect rather than a channel loss effect.
  • The 39 ps jitter figure is measured on a short pulse comparison, while the tomography data are integrated over 30 minutes in 1-minute segments; a full long-term drift characterization would show whether the reported FEF and fidelity are stable over extended satellite-scale links.
  • The same oscillating-state technique could be applied to other emitters or to states engineered with fast modulation, turning emission-delay-dependent phases into a resource rather than an imperfection.
  • A direct extension would be to run the protocol of Ref. [22] (six-state-based QKD with oscillating Bell states) on this link; the reported time-resolved density matrices suggest it would succeed, but the experiment has not yet implemented the full protocol.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the distribution of polarization-entangled photon pairs from a GaAs quantum-dot biexciton-exciton cascade over a 270 m urban free-space link between two buildings in Rome, using a prototype laser-based synchronization system (qssys) that provides a 200 MHz clock and a 2.5 s start signal to the two remote time correlators. The main result is that the fine-structure-splitting-driven oscillation of the two-photon Bell state, with period ≈360 ps, can be resolved at the remote end: the authors reconstruct time-resolved density matrices in 20 ps bins and report a maximum fully entangled fraction of 88.7±0.1% (vs 91.6±0.1% in the lab), a maximum fidelity to |φ+⟩ of 85.7±0.1%, and time-resolved secure-key-fraction estimates of 0.14–0.16. They argue this is the first distribution of a fast time-evolving entangled state over a free-space channel and that it enables time-resolved QKD with high-FSS emitters.

Significance. If correct, the experiment is a significant advance in practical quantum networking: it combines a deterministic entangled-photon source, active free-space beam stabilization, and sub-50 ps remote synchronization, and demonstrates that short-timescale entanglement dynamics survive an urban channel. The comparison between GPS and laser synchronization in Fig. 3 is a direct and convincing visual demonstration of the timing advantage. The paper also carefully avoids overclaiming by treating the QKD numbers as a benchmark rather than a full protocol. Strengths include the use of an independently measured FSS (11.5 μeV) to predict the oscillation period, the use of standard MLE tomography with Monte Carlo error bars, and the explicit discussion of FEF rather than a single basis fidelity. However, the quantitative claims hinge on two points that are not adequately supported in the manuscript: the long-term stability of the synchronization over the 30-minute tomography runs, and the correctness of the SKF formula. These issues are fixable but currently prevent full endorsement.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2, Fig. 2b and tomography paragraph] The headline FEF/fidelity values (88.7%, 85.7%) are obtained from 30-minute tomography runs that are broken into 1-minute segments, with the main text noting this is 'necessary to ensure the stability of the synchronization system during each data take.' Yet the only quantitative timing evidence in the paper is the 39 ps added-jitter measurement from a short laser-pulse comparison. There is no Allan deviation, no long-term drift measurement, and no description of how the 1-minute segments are realigned or whether the 20 ps time bins are referenced to a common clock across segments. If the relative clock offset drifts by more than ~20 ps between or within segments, the reconstructed time-resolved density matrices are mixtures over different emission delays, which would directly suppress the reported FEF and fidelity and hence the SKF. Because the paper also states that the GPS system is '
  2. [§2, Eq. (3)] The Devetak-Winter rate is written r_DW = 1 - h(Q) - h(Q + P/(2√2)), where P is the CHSH value. As P/(2√2) ≤ 1 and Q can be as large as ~0.3, the argument of the second binary entropy can exceed 1, making h undefined. The standard CHSH-based phase-error bound used in the cited literature (Pironio et al., New J. Phys. 2009) is e_ph = (1 + sqrt((S/2)^2 - 1))/2, with S the CHSH value, so the reported SKF values (0.14–0.16) are not supported by the formula as written. Please correct the formula or define P explicitly and recompute the SKF values accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2, Eq. (1) caption/text] 'Precedes with time' should be 'precesses with time' or 'evolves with time'; as written it is confusing.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] 'The X-0 photons are sent' should presumably be 'the X photons are sent' or 'the XX-X cascade photons'; the stray '0' appears to be a typo.
  3. [§2, tomography paragraph] 'Over-complete 36 bases measurement' is imprecise: 9 combinations of three mutually unbiased bases, each with two outcomes, gives 36 projection measurements, not 36 bases.
  4. [§2, synchronization system description] 'The start signal can be set as PPS but also to have a longer period. The period corresponding to our clock configuration was 2.5 s' is confusing: a pulse-per-second by definition has a 1 s period. Clarify the terminology.
  5. [§2, Eq. (3) context] The text calls this the 'non-device-independent case' but cites Pironio et al., which is a device-independent result; please reconcile this wording.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found; the central claims rest on independent measurements and externally grounded theory.

full rationale

The paper does not derive its headline results from their own definitions. The time-evolving state is described by Eq. (1), which is standard FSS theory cited to established external work, and the oscillation period T_S ≈ 360 ps is computed from the independently measured FSS S = 11.5 ± 0.5 µeV, not fitted from the free-space data. The synchronization performance is characterized directly in Fig. 2b by Gaussian fits to laser-pulse coincidence distributions, giving 39 ps added jitter; this is a measurement, not an assumed input. The entanglement benchmarks (FEF 88.7%, fidelity 85.7%) are obtained from an overcomplete 36-basis, 20 ps time-binned maximum-likelihood tomography of raw coincidence data with Monte Carlo errors, and are compared to a controlled laboratory measurement. The secure-key fractions are explicitly derived from the reconstructed density matrices and from the measured FEF via the standard relation QBER = (1−FEF)/2; they are benchmark consequences of the measured entanglement, not predictions that reduce to fit parameters. The only noticeable self-citations (e.g., [54] for blinking suppression) support peripheral device-characterization claims and are not load-bearing for the timing or entanglement results. The main-text admission that 1-minute integration segments are 'necessary to ensure the stability of the synchronization system during each data take' is an honest robustness limitation about long-term drift; it raises an experimental risk, not a definitional circularity, since the short-time jitter measurement and the multi-minute tomography are distinct data sets rather than the same fitted quantity being renamed. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations or cited chains.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entity or force. The free parameters are mostly measured/characterized device parameters (FSS, clock settings) and not fitted to the target result. The main load-bearing assumptions are standard FSS/tomography models plus a stability assumption for the sync system that is acknowledged as requiring 1-minute segmentation.

free parameters (3)
  • FSS value of the emitter = 11.5 ± 0.5 ueV
    Measured from the emitter spectrum; not fitted to the entanglement data. Used to predict the 360 ps oscillation period via Eq. (1).
  • Qubit basis orientations / polarization compensation = not specified numerically
    QWP-HWP-QWP sets are used for polarization compensation; their angles are adjusted to align the measured state but the two-photon state itself is not fit afterward.
  • Sync clock period / PPS setting = 200 MHz clock, 2.5 s PPS period
    Chosen for best jitter and stability per SM; affects the jitter characterization but not the main claim's correctness.
axioms (5)
  • standard math The QD two-photon state can be described by Eq. (1): |HH> + exp(iS/hbar * Delta_tau)|VV> over sqrt(2), with entanglement independent of emission delay.
    Standard FSS model for the XX-X cascade, cited to refs 39-41; not introduced by this paper.
  • standard math Maximum-likelihood reconstruction of the two-photon density matrix from over-complete polarization measurements yields the reported FEF/fidelity values.
    Standard quantum state tomography, cited to refs 60-61.
  • domain assumption The synchronization device's 39 ps added jitter is stable over the 30-minute acquisition windows (data taken in 1-minute segments).
    The raw jitter is characterized on short laser-pulse comparisons; long-term Allan deviation is deferred to the SM.
  • domain assumption The polarization rotations induced by the free-space link are static/compensable by waveplates.
    Polarization compensation is performed with QWP-HWP-QWP sets; no time-resolved polarization drift analysis is shown in the main text.
  • standard math The Ekert91/Devetak-Winter secure-key fraction formula (Eq. 3) is applicable to the post-selected, time-resolved density matrices.
    Standard QKD security analysis for asymptotic key rates; the authors explicitly frame the SKF as a benchmark, not a full protocol demonstration.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Picosecond-resolved entanglement distribution over an urban free-space channel." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QYFX3LTK

@misc{pith2026260721093,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Picosecond-resolved entanglement distribution over an urban free-space channel},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QYFX3LTK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21093}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Time-evolving entangled states describe quantum particles whose correlations evolve in time according to a well-defined dynamics. Such states can be generated in a variety of physical systems and are promising resources for several quantum technologies, ranging from quantum clock synchronization to quantum communication. However, their full potential is currently limited by the fact that the entanglement dynamics often occur on timescales comparable to the achievable synchronization precision, especially in experiments aimed at distributing entanglement through noisy urban channels. In this context, accurate timing is not merely a technical detail, but a fundamental requirement for faithfully observing and exploiting the underlying quantum correlations. Here, we demonstrate the faithful distribution of a fast-evolving entangled state over a 270 m free-space channel connecting two buildings in the center of Rome. The developed system incorporates a synchronization device capable of achieving sub-50 ps timing accuracy between the two ends of the link while simultaneously supporting channel stabilization. Our results demonstrate that time-evolving entanglement can be reliably transmitted through a noisy urban free-space channel, representing an important benchmark toward long-distance free-space quantum communication and the future implementation of time-correlated entangled states in demanding scenarios such as satellite-based quantum networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21093 by Ailton Garcia Jr., Alessandro Laneve, Armando Rastelli, Christian Weidinger, Fabio Sciarrino, Fabrizio Cienzo, Giorgia Grossi, Giuseppe Ronco, Henning Weier, Ievgen Brytavskyi, Markus Wiener, Mattia Beccaceci, Michele B. Rota, Nicol\`o Spagnolo, Paolo Barigelli, Philip Menz, Rinaldo Trotta, Saimon Filipe Covre da Silva, Santiago Gomez, Thomas Oberleitner, Tobias M. Krieger.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Scheme of the entanglement distribution setup: the two photons emitted by the XX-X-0 cascade in a QD are spectrally separated by optical notch filters: the XX-X photons are collected by a single-mode fiber and undergo a polarization measurement, implemented by a half-waveplate (HWP), a quarter-waveplate (QWP) and a PBS. The two outputs of the PBS are collected again by single mode fibers connected to SNSPD… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Synchronization device: a scheme of the synchronization device. A multiplexer sends the Clock and PPS signals to either an 852 nm VCSEL (free-space transmission) or a 1550 nm SFP module (fiber transmission), which we do not use in our demonstration, but would in principle allow three-node synchronization. The receiver unit is equipped with a SFP slot for optical input, converting the signal for a Clock and… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Bell state oscillations over the free-space channel: a population oscillations measured for the projector |LR⟩ ⟨LR|, employing the laser-based synchronization system or the GPS-disciplined oscillators, for a 30 minutes total inte￾gration time. b fidelity to the |ϕ +⟩ state of the distributed two-photon state, employing the laser-based synchronization system or the GPS-disciplined oscillators. The laser syn… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time-resolved entanglement distribution: fully entangled fraction (FEF) and fidelity to the |ϕ +⟩state com￾puted for XX-X coincidence events as a function of the detection delay as measured a in the laboratory and b across the free-space channel. Each considered time bin is 20ps wide for both experiments. The degree of entanglement remains high within the lifetime of the X transition, as expected, then it … 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

68 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    J. I. Cirac, A. Ekert, S. F. Huelga, C. Macchiavello, Physical Review A1999, 59, 6 4249

  2. [2]

    Mattle, H

    K. Mattle, H. Weinfurter, P. G. Kwiat, A. Zeilinger, Physical review letters1996, 76, 25 4656

  3. [3]

    A. K. Ekert, Physical review letters1991, 67, 6 661

  4. [4]

    A. Acin, N. Gisin, L. Masanes, Physical review letters2006, 97, 12 120405

  5. [5]

    Azuma, S

    K. Azuma, S. E. Economou, D. Elkouss, P. Hilaire, L. Jiang, H.-K. Lo, I. Tzitrin, Reviews of Modern Physics2023, 95, 4 045006

  6. [6]

    Yin, J.-G

    J. Yin, J.-G. Ren, H. Lu, Y. Cao, H.-L. Yong, Y.-P. Wu, C. Liu, S.-K. Liao, F. Zhou, Y. Jiang, et al., Nature2012, 488, 7410 185

  7. [7]

    K. J. Resch, M. Lindenthal, B. Blauensteiner, H. B¨ ohm, A. Fedrizzi, C. Kurtsiefer, A. Poppe, T. Schmitt-Manderbach, M. Taraba, R. Ursin, et al., Optics Express2005, 13, 1 202

  8. [8]

    Fedrizzi, R

    A. Fedrizzi, R. Ursin, T. Herbst, M. Nespoli, R. Prevedel, T. Scheidl, F. Tiefenbacher, T. Jennewein, A. Zeilinger, Nature Physics2009, 5, 6 389

  9. [9]

    Steinlechner, S

    F. Steinlechner, S. Ecker, M. Fink, B. Liu, J. Bavaresco, M. Huber, T. Scheidl, R. Ursin, Nature communications2017, 8, 1 15971. 8 REFERENCES REFERENCES

  10. [10]

    C.-Z. Peng, T. Yang, X.-H. Bao, J. Zhang, X.-M. Jin, F.-Y. Feng, B. Yang, J. Yang, J. Yin, Q. Zhang, et al., Physical review letters2005, 94, 15 150501

  11. [11]

    H. Kim, S. M. Lee, O. Kwon, H. S. Moon, Scientific reports2017, 7, 1 5772

  12. [12]

    Ecker, P

    S. Ecker, P. Sohr, L. Bulla, R. Ursin, M. Bohmann, Physical Review Applied2022, 17, 3 034009

  13. [13]

    G. B. Xavier, J.- ˚A. Larsson, P. Villoresi, G. Vallone, A. Cabello, npj Quantum Information2025, 11, 1 129

  14. [14]

    Aspect, J

    A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, P. Grangier, G. Roger, Optics communications1984, 49, 6 429

  15. [15]

    G. K. Gulati, B. Srivathsan, B. Chng, A. Cer` e, C. Kurtsiefer, New Journal of Physics2015, 17, 9 093034

  16. [16]

    Hudson, R

    A. Hudson, R. Stevenson, A. Bennett, R. Young, C. Nicoll, P. Atkinson, K. Cooper, D. Ritchie, A. Shields, Physical Review Letters2007, 99, 26 266802

  17. [17]

    M. B. Rota, F. B. Basset, D. Tedeschi, R. Trotta, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics2020, 26, 3 1

  18. [18]

    Schimpf, M

    C. Schimpf, M. Reindl, D. Huber, B. Lehner, S. F. Covre Da Silva, S. Manna, M. Vyvlecka, P. Walther, A. Rastelli, Science advances2021, 7, 16 eabe8905

  19. [19]

    Basso Basset, M

    F. Basso Basset, M. Valeri, E. Roccia, V. Muredda, D. Poderini, J. Neuwirth, N. Spagnolo, M. B. Rota, G. Carvacho, F. Sciarrino, et al., Science advances2021, 7, 12 eabe6379

  20. [20]

    F. B. Basset, S. C. Da Silva, et al., Quantum Science and Technology2023, 8, 2 025002

  21. [21]

    Laneve, G

    A. Laneve, G. Ronco, M. Beccaceci, P. Barigelli, F. Salusti, N. Claro-Rodriguez, G. De Pascalis, A. Suprano, L. Chiaudano, E. Sch¨ oll, et al.,Nature Communications2025, 16, 1 10028

  22. [22]

    Pennacchietti, B

    M. Pennacchietti, B. Cunard, S. Nahar, M. Zeeshan, S. Gangopadhyay, P. J. Poole, D. Dalacu, A. Fognini, K. D. J¨ ons, V. Zwiller, et al.,Communications Physics2024, 7, 1 62

  23. [23]

    M. K. Alqedra, S. Gyger, K. D. Zeuner, T. Lettner, M. Hammar, G. V. Llosera, V. Zwiller, Optica Quantum2026, 4, 1 31

  24. [24]

    J. Shi, S. Shen, Scientific Reports2022, 12, 1 10185

  25. [25]

    Valivarthi, L

    R. Valivarthi, L. Narv´ aez, S. I. Davis, N. Lauk, C. Pe˜ na, S. Xie, J. P. Allmaras, A. D. Beyer, B. Korzh, A. Mueller, et al., Journal of Lightwave Technology2022, 40, 23 7668

  26. [26]

    I. A. Burenkov, A. Semionov, Hala, T. Gerrits, A. Rahmouni, D. Anand, Y.-S. Li-Baboud, O. Slattery, A. Battou, S. V. Polyakov, Optics Express2023, 31, 7 11431

  27. [27]

    F. R. Giorgetta, W. C. Swann, L. C. Sinclair, E. Baumann, I. Coddington, N. R. Newbury, Nature Photonics2013, 7, 6 434

  28. [28]

    S. P. Neumann, A. Buchner, L. Bulla, M. Bohmann, R. Ursin, Nature Communications2022, 13, 1 6134

  29. [29]

    A. N. Craddock, A. Lazenby, G. B. Portmann, R. Sekelsky, M. Flament, M. Namazi, PRX Quantum 2024, 5, 3 030330

    2024

  30. [30]

    Alshowkan, P

    M. Alshowkan, P. G. Evans, B. P. Williams, N. S. Rao, C. E. Marvinney, Y.-Y. Pai, B. J. Lawrie, N. A. Peters, J. M. Lukens, Journal of Optical Communications and Networking2022, 14, 6 493

  31. [31]

    Brunner, G

    K. Brunner, G. Abstreiter, G. B¨ ohm, G. Tr¨ ankle, G. Weimann,Physical review letters1994, 73, 8 1138. 9 REFERENCES REFERENCES

  32. [32]

    Jayakumar, A

    H. Jayakumar, A. Predojevi´ c, T. Huber, T. Kauten, G. S. Solomon, G. Weihs,Physical review letters 2013, 110, 13 135505

    2013

  33. [33]

    Abasifard, C

    M. Abasifard, C. Cholsuk, R. G. Pousa, A. Kumar, A. Zand, T. Riel, D. K. Oi, T. Vogl,APL Quantum 2024, 1, 1

    2024

  34. [34]

    Huber, M

    D. Huber, M. Reindl, Y. Huo, H. Huang, J. S. Wildmann, O. G. Schmidt, A. Rastelli, R. Trotta, Nature Communications2017, 8, 1 15506

  35. [35]

    Hanschke, K

    L. Hanschke, K. A. Fischer, S. Appel, D. Lukin, J. Wierzbowski, S. Sun, R. Trivedi, J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, J. J. Finley, K. M¨ uller,npj Quantum Information2018, 4, 1 43

  36. [36]

    Neuwirth, F

    J. Neuwirth, F. Basso Basset, M. B. Rota, J.-G. Hartel, M. Sartison, S. F. Covre da Silva, K. D. J¨ ons, A. Rastelli, R. Trotta, Physical Review B2022, 106, 24 L241402

  37. [37]

    J. Liu, R. Su, Y. Wei, B. Yao, S. F. C. d. Silva, Y. Yu, J. Iles-Smith, K. Srinivasan, A. Rastelli, J. Li, et al., Nature Nanotechnology2019, 14, 6 586

  38. [38]

    H. Wang, H. Hu, T.-H. Chung, J. Qin, X. Yang, J.-P. Li, R.-Z. Liu, H.-S. Zhong, Y.-M. He, X. Ding, et al., Physical Review Letters2019, 122, 11 113602

  39. [39]

    Gammon, E

    D. Gammon, E. Snow, B. Shanabrook, D. Katzer, D. Park, Physical review letters1996, 76, 16 3005

  40. [40]

    Seguin, A

    R. Seguin, A. Schliwa, S. Rodt, K. P¨ otschke, U. Pohl, D. Bimberg, Physical review letters2005, 95, 25 257402

  41. [41]

    Fognini, A

    A. Fognini, A. Ahmadi, M. Zeeshan, J. Fokkens, S. Gibson, N. Sherlekar, S. Daley, D. Dalacu, P. Poole, K. Jo¨ns, et al., ACS Photonics2019, 6, 7 1656

  42. [42]

    Vogel, S

    M. Vogel, S. Ulrich, R. Hafenbrak, P. Michler, L. Wang, A. Rastelli, O. Schmidt, Applied Physics Letters2007, 91, 5

  43. [43]

    Gerardot, S

    B. Gerardot, S. Seidl, P. Dalgarno, R. J. Warburton, D. Granados, J. Garcia, K. Kowalik, O. Krebs, K. Karrai, A. Badolato, et al., Applied Physics Letters2007, 90, 4

  44. [44]

    Bennett, y

    A. Bennett, y. M. Pooley, n. R. Stevenson, M. Ward, R. Patel, A. B. de La Giroday, N. Sk¨ old, I. Farrer, C. Nicoll, D. Ritchie, et al., Nature Physics2010, 6, 12 947

  45. [45]

    Stevenson, R

    R. Stevenson, R. Young, P. See, D. Gevaux, K. Cooper, P. Atkinson, I. Farrer, D. Ritchie, A. Shields, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics2006, 73, 3 033306

  46. [46]

    Seidl, M

    S. Seidl, M. Kroner, A. H¨ ogele, K. Karrai, R. J. Warburton, A. Badolato, P. M. Petroff, Applied Physics Letters2006, 88, 20

  47. [47]

    J. D. Plumhof, R. Trotta, A. Rastelli, O. G. Schmidt, Nanoscale research letters2012, 7, 1 336

  48. [48]

    C. E. Kuklewicz, R. N. Malein, P. M. Petroff, B. D. Gerardot, Nano letters2012, 12, 7 3761

  49. [49]

    Trotta, E

    R. Trotta, E. Zallo, C. Ortix, P. Atkinson, J. Plumhof, J. Van den Brink, A. Rastelli, O. Schmidt, Physical review letters2012, 109, 14 147401

  50. [50]

    Trotta, J

    R. Trotta, J. Mart ´ ın-S´ anchez, I. Daruka, C. Ortix, A. Rastelli,Physical review letters2015, 114, 15 150502

  51. [51]

    Zhang, J

    J. Zhang, J. S. Wildmann, F. Ding, R. Trotta, Y. Huo, E. Zallo, D. Huber, A. Rastelli, O. G. Schmidt, Nature communications2015, 6, 1 10067

  52. [52]

    J. Wang, M. Gong, G.-C. Guo, L. He, Physical review letters2015, 115, 6 067401

  53. [53]

    A. L. Efros, D. J. Nesbitt, Nature nanotechnology2016, 11, 8 661. 10 REFERENCES REFERENCES

  54. [54]

    Brytavskyi, T

    I. Brytavskyi, T. Oberleitner, C. Weidinger, M. Aigner, G. Undeutsch, T. Steindl, J. Reindl, A. Gar- cia Jr., M. M. Peter, C. Schimpf, S. Manna, M. B. Rota, Q. Buchinger, S. H¨ ofling, T. Huber-Loyola, R. Trotta, T. M. Krieger, E. Sch¨ oll, A. Rastelli,arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.114942026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  55. [55]

    M. B. Rota, T. M. Krieger, Q. Buchinger, M. Beccaceci, J. Neuwirth, H. Huet, N. Horov´ a, G. Lovicu, G. Ronco, S. F. Covre da Silva, et al., Elight2024, 4, 1 13

  56. [56]

    Undeutsch, M

    G. Undeutsch, M. Aigner, A. J. Garcia Jr, J. Reindl, M. Peter, S. Mader, C. Weidinger, S. F. Covre da Silva, S. Manna, E. Scho¨ll, et al., Nano letters2025, 25, 17 7121

  57. [57]

    C.-Y. Lu, Y. Cao, C.-Z. Peng, J.-W. Pan, Reviews of Modern Physics2022, 94, 3 035001

  58. [58]

    Bulla, M

    L. Bulla, M. Pivoluska, K. Hjorth, O. Kohout, J. Lang, S. Ecker, S. P. Neumann, J. Bittermann, R. Kindler, M. Huber, et al., Physical Review X2023, 13, 2 021001

  59. [59]

    Grondalski, D

    J. Grondalski, D. Etlinger, D. James, Physics Letters A2002, 300, 6 573

  60. [60]

    J. B. Altepeter, E. R. Jeffrey, P. G. Kwiat, Advances in atomic, molecular, and optical physics2005, 52 105

  61. [61]

    ˇReh´ aˇ cek, Z

    J. ˇReh´ aˇ cek, Z. Hradil, E. Knill, A. Lvovsky,Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics2007, 75, 4 042108

  62. [62]

    Schimpf, F

    C. Schimpf, F. B. Basset, M. Aigner, W. Attenender, L. Gin´ es, G. Undeutsch, M. Reindl, D. Huber, D. Gangloff, E. A. Chekhovich, et al., Physical Review B2023, 108, 8 L081405

  63. [63]

    Pironio, A

    S. Pironio, A. Ac ´ ın, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, S. Massar, V. Scarani, New Journal of Physics2009, 11, 4 045021

  64. [64]

    Bruß, Physical Review Letters1998, 81, 14 3018

    D. Bruß, Physical Review Letters1998, 81, 14 3018

  65. [65]

    W. K. Wootters, Physical Review Letters1998, 80, 10 2245

  66. [66]

    Jozsa, D

    R. Jozsa, D. S. Abrams, J. P. Dowling, C. P. Williams, Physical Review Letters2000, 85, 9 2010

    2010

  67. [67]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, L. Maccone, Nature2001, 412, 6845 417

  68. [68]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, L. Maccone, Physical Review A2002, 65, 2 022309. 11

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.