Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Scalable Quantum Computing with Optical Links

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Near-term microwave-to-optics transducers, despite low efficiency and added noise, can generate on-demand entanglement between separated quantum processors with greater than 99% Bell-state fidelity after distillation, turning distributed…

desk verdict A useful, honest roadmap for optical links between superconducting processors, but the >99% fidelity claim hinges on an undemonstrated parameter (η_MW=0.95) and Example 1's arithmetic is off. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00542 v1 pith:XKEAZGF6 submitted 2025-05-01 quant-ph physics.optics

M.J. Weaver , G. Arnold , H. Weaver , S. Gröblacher , R. Stockill This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.optics PACS 03.67.Hk03.67.Lx03.67.Bg
keywords microwave-to-opticstransductiondistributedquantumcomputingon-demandentanglementBell-statefidelitysuperconductingqubitsdistillationmemoriesopticalswitching
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

Microwave-to-optics converters are widely assumed to need near-unity efficiency and negligible noise before they can connect quantum processors. This paper challenges that assumption: using loss-tolerant, heralded entanglement protocols with on-demand delivery, converters with already demonstrated or near-term performance can deliver interprocessor entanglement above the classical threshold today and about 99% fidelity after modest improvements and distillation. If the argument is right, distributed quantum computing—several cryogenic modules linked by optical fibers—becomes a near-term engineering target rather than a distant one, and optical links can outperform a single cryostat processor even while the converters remain imperfect. The paper ties this to concrete protocol choices, memory and parallelization trade-offs, and architectures where the links pay off first.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the on-demand entanglement link: each processor module has a communication qubit coupled to a transducer plus a storage qubit, and the link repeatedly runs a heralded entanglement attempt until an optical Bell-state measurement (a beamsplitter and photon detectors that project the qubits into an entangled state) reports success, or until a timeout $t_{\mathrm{del}}$; the storage qubit then delivers an entangled state on schedule, whether or not a herald arrived. The link is loss-resilient because the protocols herald success with photon detection instead of requiring the transduced photon to survive with high probability. Two protocol families carry the examples: one-photon two-mode squeezing, in which the transducer emits a microwave-optical pair with small probability $p_{\mathrm{MO}}$ and the microwave photon is absorbed by the qubit, and two-photon upconversion, in which time-bin photons emitted by the qubit are transduced to optics and both early and late herald photons must be detected. The governing quantity is the link capacity $\eta_{\mathrm{link}}=T_{\mathrm{coh}}p_{\mathrm{her}}/t_{\mathrm{rep}}$: storage coherence must outlast the mean time to a herald. Parallelization multiplies the heralding rate by the number of channels, and entanglement distillation consumes extra raw pairs to compress infidelity, while the transducer parameter sets in Table V (microwave loading $\eta_{\mathrm{MW}}$, pair probability $p_{\mathrm{MO}}$, detector efficiency $\eta_{\mathrm{det}}$, added noise $n_{\mathrm{th}}$, repetition time $t_{\mathrm{rep}}$) supply the numerical input for the examples.

What would settle it

Assemble a single integrated transducer with the Table V Transducer 1 parameters and measure the qubit state after a microwave round trip through the transducer; if the nondestructive transfer efficiency $\eta_{\mathrm{MW}}$ falls below 0.8 at an input-referred added noise of 0.1, the 88 microsecond on-demand link fidelity of Example 1 cannot be reached.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that deterministic conversion is the wrong benchmark. The authors show that loss-resilient entanglement protocols in which a Bell-state measurement at an optical beamsplitter herald success, combined with storage qubits that hold the entangled state until a fixed delivery time, make transducer efficiency unimportant for link fidelity: a conservative parameter set (total efficiency $4\times10^{-3}$, added noise 0.1, microwave loading efficiency 0.8) already gives an on-demand link fidelity of 0.73 in 88 microseconds, above the classical threshold of 0.55. With a projected parameter set (added noise 0.01, efficiency 0.1, microwave loading 0.95) plus a qubit-cavity optical memory and a 2.5 ms microwave memory, the memory-enhanced two-photon upconversion protocol delivers 91% fidelity in 400 microseconds, and a 20-link parallel one-photon two-mode-squeezing scheme delivers 91% in 15 microseconds. Consuming 16 raw pairs in four rounds of entanglement distillation reduces the infidelity by an order of magnitude, giving net fidelities near 99%. The authors conclude that on-demand optical links can surpass the performance of individual cryogenic modules before transducers reach unity efficiency, with near-term gains in sparse-link, graph-state, and switching-based architectures rather than full lattice surgery.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a qubit can hand its quantum state to the converter and receive it back nondestructively at 80 to 95 percent efficiency while all the other claimed noise and efficiency numbers hold simultaneously in one device, a combined capability that has not yet been demonstrated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With transducer parameters already demonstrated piecewise, a one-photon two-mode-squeezing link delivers entangled states on demand in 88 microseconds with fidelity 0.73, above the classical threshold of 0.55.
  • With modest projected improvements plus a qubit-cavity optical memory and longer-lived microwave storage, a memory-enhanced two-photon upconversion link reaches 91% fidelity in 400 microseconds, and 20 parallel one-photon links reach 91% in 15 microseconds.
  • Four rounds of entanglement distillation over 16 raw Bell pairs reduce the infidelity by an order of magnitude, giving about 99% net fidelity, at the cost of more transducers and communication qubits per link.
  • Full clock-cycle lattice surgery would require a 10- to 100-fold increase in link speed or efficiency, so near-term benefits come from sparse links, remote graph-state generation, and optical switching rather than full edge connectivity.
  • Scaling estimates place the requirement at 100 to 10,000 transducer channels per cryostat, a number compatible with already demonstrated integrated, low-power transducer designs, making dozens of on-demand links per processor a realistic target.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If these links mature as described, the practical bottleneck may shift from the converter to the supporting qubit infrastructure: the 99% example consumes 16 raw Bell pairs per distilled link, and clock-rate delivery would need hundreds of qubits and transducers per processor per link, so communication-qubit count and memory lifetime become the scarce resources.
  • The protocol toolbox generalizes beyond superconducting qubits: because the argument rests on heralding and storage rather than on any particular qubit platform, visible-wavelength systems such as trapped ions or neutral atoms could adopt the same on-demand link design with a different frequency converter at the front end.
  • A concrete near-term milestone implied by the paper is to demonstrate one on-demand link with greater than 90% fidelity in the 15- to 400-microsecond delivery window using a single integrated transducer; success would validate the projected parameter set before attempting the hundreds-of-channels scaling needed for architectural demonstrations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that microwave-to-optical transducers with currently demonstrated or near-term parameters can enable on-demand, high-fidelity entanglement links between superconducting quantum processors, contrary to the common view that deterministic transducers are required. The authors introduce figures of merit for transducers (efficiency, bandwidth, noise, integration), review state-of-the-art devices, propose two idealized transducer parameter sets (Tables II and V), and analyze four entanglement protocols (one- and two-photon upconversion and two-mode squeezing). Three example link configurations are computed, with claimed on-demand fidelities of 0.73, 0.91, and 0.91 (the last two boosted to 99% by distillation). The paper also discusses architectures such as lattice surgery, sparse links, remote graph states, and optical switching, concluding that sparse links and graph-state generation are feasible in the near term, while full lattice surgery is not.

Significance. The central claim—if correct—is significant: it would reframe distributed quantum computing over optical links as a near-term engineering target rather than a distant ideal. The paper draws on established entanglement protocols (DLCZ, Barrett-Kok) and clearly states its hardware assumptions, which helps the community calibrate feasibility. Its strength is the concrete parameter-based analysis linking transducer metrics to protocol performance, and its explicit admission of which parameters remain undemonstrated. However, the quantitative examples contain arithmetic inconsistencies and rely on a microwave transfer efficiency (η_MW) that the authors themselves state has not been achieved, so the numerical headline claims are not yet reproducible.

major comments (5)
  1. [§IV.F, Example 1 (Table VI)] The stated fidelity of 0.73 for Example 1 is not consistent with the stated infidelities. From Table III, the one-photon TMS protocol infidelity is ηMW·pMO + (1−ηMW) = 0.8×0.01 + 0.2 = 0.208 (≈0.21), and the thermal infidelity is 2·nth·ηMW² = 2×0.1×0.64 = 0.128 (≈0.13). Combining these as additive errors gives fidelity ≈ 1−0.21−0.13 = 0.66; as independent multiplicative errors it gives (1−0.21)(1−0.13) ≈ 0.69. Neither equals 0.73. Please show the exact expression used or correct the number, because this is the first quantitative demonstration that on-demand links exceed the classical bound.
  2. [§III.D and §IV.F, Tables V and VI] All three examples depend critically on η_MW = 0.8 or 0.95, yet §III.D explicitly states: 'The only not yet accomplished parameter is non-demolition state transfer between a qubit and a transducer with high efficiency, η_MW.' For the one-photon TMS protocol used in Examples 1 and 3, Table III shows that (1−η_MW) enters the protocol infidelity directly, and η_MW also affects p_her through η_tot. If η_MW were 0.5 instead of 0.95, Example 3's protocol infidelity would rise from ≈0.07 to ≈0.52, collapsing the claimed 91% fidelity to roughly 50%. The abstract's phrase 'existing or near-term performance levels' therefore overstates the current evidence; the possibility of non-demolition transfer at any efficiency is not yet demonstrated. Please qualify the central claim accordingly and treat this parameter as a projection, not a near-term given.
  3. [§IV.B and Table III] The formulas for pher, protocol infidelity, and thermal noise infidelity in Table III are presented without derivation or explicit source. The protocols are attributed to prior work (Krastanov et al. [84], Zeuthen et al. [37], Barrett and Kok [85]), but the specific expressions are not linked to equations in those references. Since the entire quantitative analysis in §IV.F rests on these entries, please either provide a self-contained derivation in an appendix or state exactly which equation in which reference yields each formula (including the one-photon upconversion thermal term 6nth/ηMW and the two-photon TMS terms).
  4. [§IV.F, Example 2] The claimed heralding probability of 3×10⁻² and fidelity of 91% are not traceable from the stated parameters. With transducer 2, η_tot = η_MW·p_MO·η_det = 0.95×0.1×0.5 = 0.0475 ≈ 0.05, and Table IV gives the memory-enhanced two-photon upconversion probability as η_tot·η_mem/2 ≈ 0.024 for η_mem=1, not 3×10⁻². The fidelity is described as limited by 'thermal infidelity, link efficiency and decoherence', but the individual contributions are not quantified. Please show the full calculation, including the decoherence term from T2=2500 µs and t_del=400 µs, so the 0.91 result can be reproduced.
  5. [§IV.F, distillation claim] The statement that 'By consuming 16 Bell pairs for four rounds of entanglement distillation, the infidelity can be reduced by an order of magnitude ... resulting in a net fidelity of 99% [34]' is not supported by a specific distillation protocol. The fidelity gain of a 16-to-1 distillation schedule depends on the input state structure (e.g., Werner vs. dephased) and the chosen purification circuit. Please specify the protocol and provide a reference or calculation demonstrating the quoted infidelity reduction for the states produced by the examples.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typos, including 'collectivelly', 'archictecture', 'frequenices', 'expored', 'contruct', 'achieavable', and 'succesful'. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [§IV.A, Fig. 3] Box 3, step 4 writes the projected state as (|ge> + e^{iφ}|eg>)/√2 + √pMO|ee> without normalization. This is acceptable only in the limit pMO≪1; please state this approximation explicitly.
  3. [Fig. 7] The dashed line at 0.1 is described as a 'threshold for surface code error correction with lattice surgery', but no reference or derivation is given for this threshold. Please cite a source or define the context.
  4. [Table IV] The row for '2-photon TMS, catch and release' gives pher with memory = (η_tot·η_MW·η_mem²)/2. It would help to state whether η_mem includes the herald efficiency of the parity check mentioned in the text, since that is not clear from the current definition.
  5. [Reference [74]] Reference [74] ('Deterministic quantum state and gate teleportation between distant superconducting chips') is missing author names and journal volume/page information; please complete the citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: link fidelities are computed from explicit protocol formulas with stated transducer parameters, and the 99% claim uses external distillation results, so the derivation does not reduce to its inputs.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The link fidelities in Section IV F are computed from explicit protocol expressions in Table III (for one-photon TMS, protocol infidelity = ηMW pMO + (1−ηMW), thermal infidelity = 2 nth ηMW², and heralding probability = 2ηtot/ηMW), with transducer parameters listed in Table V as near-term projections supported by both the authors' experimental work and independent groups. These parameters are inputs, not outputs, of the fidelity calculation: the paper does not fit ηMW, pMO, nth, or ηdet to the reported fidelities, and the headline 99% is obtained by applying an external distillation result [34] to the computed ~91% links. The paper explicitly flags the key missing experimental capability in Section III D: 'The only not yet accomplished parameter is non-demolition state transfer between a qubit and a transducer with high efficiency, ηMW.' This makes the practical claim conditional but does not make the calculation circular. The statement in Table VI that 'we intentionally reduce pMO to 0.02 in order to reduce the protocol infidelity' is a design trade-off between rate and protocol infidelity, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Self-citations [43,61,66] are used to justify feasibility of parameter values and integration metrics, but those are experimental reports, and the fidelity derivation would stand with the same parameter values regardless of their source. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work, and no step reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on assumed transducer and memory parameters (Tables V and VI) that combine demonstrated features from separate devices, on protocol formulas inherited from earlier papers, and on the on-demand delivery model. These are listed below.

free parameters (5)
  • Transducer 1 parameter set = eta_MW=0.8, pMO=0.01, eta_det=0.5, nth=0.1, trep=1 us, BW=10 MHz
    Table V; claimed as 'already demonstrated parameters' combined in one device; used for Example 1.
  • Transducer 2 parameter set = eta_MW=0.95, pMO=0.1, eta_det=0.5, nth=0.01, trep=1 us, BW=10 MHz
    Table V; projected near-term performance; used for Examples 2 and 3.
  • pMO in Example 3 = 0.02
    Intentionally lowered from 0.1 to reduce protocol infidelity (Table VI note); hand-picked.
  • Microwave storage coherence time T2 = 200 us (Examples 1 and 3) and 2500 us (Example 2)
    Assumed from literature; sets tdel and decoherence contribution.
  • Optical memory efficiency eta_mem = approximately 1
    Assumed for repeater-enhanced rates in Table IV; not demonstrated in the specific transducer context.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Non-demolition qubit-to-transducer state transfer with eta_MW = 0.8 to 0.95 is achievable.
    Section III D: 'The only not yet accomplished parameter is non-demolition state transfer between a qubit and a transducer with high efficiency, eta_MW.' All examples in Table VI depend on this.
  • domain assumption Protocol infidelity formulas in Table III are valid under the stated limits (nth, pMO, alpha much less than 1).
    Section IV B and Table III; formulas are quoted from prior works (Krastanov, Zeuthen) without derivation in this paper.
  • domain assumption On-demand delivery requires storage coherence T2 much greater than tdel and link capacity eta_link = Tcoh pher / trep much greater than 1.
    Section IV A, where eta_link = Tcoh pher / trep is defined; if violated, fidelity drops due to decoherence.
  • standard math Linear-optics Bell-state measurement and single-photon detectors are ideal apart from stated detection efficiencies.
    Section IV A and Figure 2; standard model used in all four protocols.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scalable Quantum Computing with Optical Links." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XKEAZGF6

@misc{pith2026250500542,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scalable Quantum Computing with Optical Links},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XKEAZGF6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00542}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum computers have great potential to solve problems which are intractable on classical computers. However, quantum processors have not yet reached the required scale to run applications which outperform traditional computers. Leading hardware platforms, such as superconducting qubit based processors, will soon become bottlenecked by the physical constraints of their low temperature environments, and the expansion of quantum computers will necessitate quantum links between multiple processor modules. Optical frequencies offer the most promising path for these links due to their resilience to noise even at ambient temperature and the maturity of classical optical networks. However, required microwave-to-optics transducers cannot operate deterministically yet, which has widely been seen as a key challenge for their integration into fault-tolerant quantum computers. In this work, we examine implementations of optical links between cryogenic units that surpass the performance of individual cryogenic modules even with the performance of existing or near-term microwave-to-optics transducers. We show methods for these transducers to provide on-demand entanglement between separated quantum processors with high fidelity and lay out key steps for adoption of the technology including scaling transducer numbers and integration with other hardware. Finally, we discuss a number of architectures comprised of these links which can drive the expansion of quantum data centers to utility scale.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00542 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Overview of the quantum computer hardware stack [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Entanglement Generation Protocols. a) General [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. As a first example of how entanglement can be generated, we use a single photon protocol with a two-mode-squeezer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. As a second example of how entanglement can be generated we use a two-photon protocol which is adapted from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Boosting entanglement rates with optical memories. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Through parallelization (top) multiple entanglement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Infidelities for the different schemes. We break down [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. In order to achieve a target link number, link rate and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Four potential architectures. a) In lattice surgery all edge physical qubits are connected to each other at every clock [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. A two-dimensional piezo-optomechanical transducer

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A two-dimensional optomechanical crystal with a single engineered mechanical mode performs bidirectional microwave-optical conversion at 0.85% internal efficiency.

  2. Efficient and scalable inter-module switching for distributed quantum computing architectures

    quant-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GMZI-based decentralized switch designs achieve any-to-any module connectivity with half the active depth and coupler count of GMZI-Spanke switches.

  3. Entanglement Cost of Erasure Correction in Quantum MDS Codes

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For an [[n,2t-n]]_Q quantum MDS code, correcting a single erased node over a star network costs exactly 2t qudits when the replacement node is the hub and 2t minus 1 qudits when a helper node is the hub.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

140 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [84]

    L. Chen, A. R. Korsch, C. M. Kersul, R. Benevides, Y. Yu, T. P. M. Alegre, and S. Groeblacher, Bandwidth- tunable telecom single photons enabled by low- noise optomechanical transduction, arXiv:2410.10947 10.48550/arXiv.2410.10947 (2024)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.10947 2024

  2. [37]

    Awschalom, K

    D. Awschalom, K. K. Berggren, H. Bernien, S. Bhave, L. D. Carr, P. Davids, S. E. Economou, D. Englund, A. Faraon, M. Fejer, S. Guha, M. V. Gustafsson, E. Hu, L. Jiang, J. Kim, B. Korzh, P. Kumar, P. G. Kwiat, 20 M. Lonˇ car, M. D. Lukin, D. A. Miller, C. Monroe, S. W. Nam, P. Narang, J. S. Orcutt, M. G. Raymer, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, M. Spiropulu, K. Sriniv...

    2021

  3. [85]

    Mirhosseini, A

    M. Mirhosseini, A. Sipahigil, M. Kalaee, and O. Painter, Superconducting qubit to optical photon transduction, Nature 588, 599 (2020)

    2020

  4. [34]

    Cheng, M

    Q. Cheng, M. Bahadori, M. Glick, S. Rumley, and K. Bergman, Recent advances in optical technologies for data centers: a review, Optica 5, 1354 (2018)

    2018

  5. [1]

    Initiate both communication qubits in the ground state|g⟩

  6. [2]

    Generate a microwave-optical photon pair in each transducer with a small probability, pMO , resulting in the state |ψ⟩MW 1O1,|ψ⟩MW 2O2 = √pMO|11⟩ +√1−pMO|00⟩

  7. [3]

    Absorb the emitted microwave photon with the communication qubit, resulting in the state |ψ⟩Q1O1,|ψ⟩Q2O2 =√pMO|e1⟩ +√1−pMO|g0⟩

  8. [4]

    If no photon is detected go back to step 1

    Combine the optical signals on a beamsplitter A. If no photon is detected go back to step 1. B. If a single photon (herald) is detected, the communication qubits are projected onto the state: |ψ⟩Q1Q2 = 1√ 2 ( |ge⟩ +eiϕ|eg⟩ ) +√pMO|ee⟩ where the phase, ϕ, is determined by which detector received a photon

Show all 140 references
  1. [5]

    Transfer the state of the communication qubits to the storage qubits, replacing the state if a herald was al- ready received

  2. [6]

    If no herald was received, randomly ini- tialize one of the two storage qubits in the ground state and one in the excited state( ρQ1Q2 = 1 2|ge⟩⟨ge| + 1 2|eg⟩⟨eg| )

    Repeat the entanglement generation (steps 1-5) until the delivery time tdel A. If no herald was received, randomly ini- tialize one of the two storage qubits in the ground state and one in the excited state( ρQ1Q2 = 1 2|ge⟩⟨ge| + 1 2|eg⟩⟨eg| )

  3. [7]

    Deliver the state in the storage qubits. FIG. 3. As a first example of how entanglement can be generated, we use a single photon protocol with a two-mode-squeezer (Figure 2c) which is adapted from the DLCZ protocol [83]. The protocol is described in detail for the specific cas...

  4. [8]

    Initiate the communication qubit in a superposition state, using the higher order |f ⟩ state: |ψ⟩Q1, |ψ⟩Q2 = 1√ 2 (|f ⟩ + |e⟩)

  5. [9]

    Emit a photon from the second excited state of the communication qubit into a microwave waveg- uide, resulting in the state |ψ⟩Q1MW 1e , |ψ⟩Q2MW 2e = 1√ 2 (|g1⟩ + |e0⟩)

  6. [10]

    Transduce the emitted photon from the microwave waveguide into an optical photon and combine the photonic signals on a beam-splitter and detect the outcome of the “early” time bin ( MW 1e or MW 2e)

  7. [11]

    Excite the communication qubit to a higher state |ψ⟩Q1MW 1e , |ψ⟩Q2MW 2e 1√ 2 (|e1⟩ + |f 0⟩)

  8. [12]

    Emit the state of the communication qubit into a microwave waveguide, resulting in the state |ψ⟩Q1MW 1eMW 1l , |ψ⟩Q2MW 2eMW 2l = 1√ 2 (|e01⟩ + |g10⟩)

  9. [13]

    If photons are not detected in both the early and late time bin go back to step 1

    Transduce the emitted photon from the microwave waveguide into an optical photon and combine the photonic signals on a beamsplitter and detect the out- come of the “late” time bin ( MW 1l or MW 2l) A. If photons are not detected in both the early and late time bin go back to s...

  10. [14]

    Transfer the state of the communication qubits to storage qubits, replacing the state if a herald was al- ready received

  11. [15]

    Repeat the entanglement generation (steps 1-5) until the delivery time tdel. A. If no herald was received, randomly ini- tialize one of the two storage qubits in the ground state and one in the excited state( ρQ1Q2 = 1 2 |ge⟩ ⟨ge| + 1 2 |eg⟩ ⟨eg| )

  12. [16]

    on-demand

    Deliver the state in the storage qubits. FIG. 4. As a second example of how entanglement can be generated we use a two-photon protocol which is adapted from the Barrett and Kok protocol [85]. A variant of this protocol is described in detail for the specific case of transducer...

  13. [17]

    The time spent on intra-module operation is am- ple to prepare and distill the long-range entangled states that enable teleportation between each cycle of graph consumption

  14. [18]

    The inter-module pipes are only required to transfer the states of the logical qubits between the widgets

    The number of inter-module physical channels that are required in each ‘pipe’ corresponds to the dis- tance of the code, so links are not required for all edge states such as in lattice surgery. The inter-module pipes are only required to transfer the states of the logical qub...

  15. [19]

    Horowitz and E

    M. Horowitz and E. Grumbling, Quantum comput- ing: progress and prospects (National Academies Press, 2019)

    2019

  16. [20]

    Alexeev, D

    Y. Alexeev, D. Bacon, K. R. Brown, R. Calderbank, L. D. Carr, F. T. Chong, B. Demarco, D. Englund, E. Farhi, B. Fefferman, A. V. Gorshkov, A. Houck, J. Kim, S. Kimmel, M. Lange, S. Lloyd, M. D. Lukin, D. Maslov, P. Maunz, C. Monroe, J. Preskill, M. Roet- 19 teler, M. J. Savage...

    2021

  17. [21]

    Gyongyosi and S

    L. Gyongyosi and S. Imre, A survey on quantum com- puting technology, Computer Science Review 31, 51 (2019)

    2019

  18. [22]

    C. D. Bruzewicz, J. Chiaverini, R. McConnell, and J. M. Sage, Trapped-ion quantum computing: Progress and challenges, Applied physics reviews 6 (2019)

    2019

  19. [23]

    Strohm, K

    T. Strohm, K. Wintersperger, F. Dommert, D. Basile- witsch, G. Reuber, A. Hoursanov, T. Ehmer, D. Vodola, and S. Luber, Ion-based quantum computing hard- ware: Performance and end-user perspective (2024), arXiv:2405.11450 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [24]

    Slussarenko and G

    S. Slussarenko and G. J. Pryde, Photonic quantum in- formation processing: A concise review, Applied physics reviews 6 (2019)

    2019

  21. [25]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braum¨ uller, P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Superconducting qubits: Current state of play, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 11, 369 (2020)

    2020

  22. [26]

    Bravyi, O

    S. Bravyi, O. Dial, J. M. Gambetta, D. Gil, and Z. Nazario, The future of quantum computing with su- perconducting qubits, Journal of Applied Physics 132, 160902 (2022)

    2022

  23. [27]

    Henriet, L

    L. Henriet, L. Beguin, A. Signoles, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, G.-O. Reymond, and C. Jurczak, Quan- tum computing with neutral atoms, Quantum 4, 327 (2020)

    2020

  24. [28]

    Wintersperger, F

    K. Wintersperger, F. Dommert, T. Ehmer, A. Hour- sanov, J. Klepsch, W. Mauerer, G. Reuber, T. Strohm, M. Yin, and S. Luber, Neutral atom quantum comput- ing hardware: performance and end-user perspective, EPJ Quantum Technology 10, 32 (2023)

    2023

  25. [29]

    A. Gold, J. Paquette, A. Stockklauser, M. J. Reagor, M. S. Alam, A. Bestwick, N. Didier, A. Nersisyan, F. Oruc, A. Razavi, et al. , Entanglement across sep- arate silicon dies in a modular superconducting qubit device, npj Quantum Information 7, 142 (2021)

    2021

  26. [30]

    Arute et al., Quantum supremacy using a pro- grammable superconducting processor, Nature 574, 505 (2019)

    F. Arute et al., Quantum supremacy using a pro- grammable superconducting processor, Nature 574, 505 (2019)

    2019

  27. [31]

    Roffe, Quantum error correction: an introductory guide, Contemporary Physics 60, 226 (2019)

    J. Roffe, Quantum error correction: an introductory guide, Contemporary Physics 60, 226 (2019)

    2019

  28. [32]

    Acharya, D

    R. Acharya, D. A. Abanin, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, N. Astrakhantsev, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, B. Ballard, J. C. Bardin, J. Bausch, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, S. Blackwell, S. Boixo, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa,...

    2025

  29. [33]

    A. M. Dalzell, S. McArdle, M. Berta, P. Bienias, C.- F. Chen, A. Gily´ en, C. T. Hann, M. J. Kastoryano, E. T. Khabiboulline, A. Kubica, G. Salton, S. Wang, and F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, Quantum algorithms: A sur- vey of applications and end-to-end complexities (2023), arXiv:2310...

    2023 arXiv

  30. [35]

    P. A. Baziana, Optical data center networking: A com- prehensive review on traffic, switching, bandwidth allo- cation, and challenges, IEEE Access (2024)

    2024

  31. [36]

    Barral, F

    D. Barral, F. J. Cardama, G. D´ ıaz-Camacho, D. Fa´ ılde, I. F. Llovo, M. Mussa-Juane, J. V´ azquez-P´ erez, J. Villa- suso, C. Pi˜ neiro, N. Costas, J. C. Pichel, T. F. Pena, and A. G´ omez, Review of distributed quantum computing: From single qpu to high performance quantum ...

    2025

  32. [38]

    Caleffi, M

    M. Caleffi, M. Amoretti, D. Ferrari, J. Illiano, A. Man- zalini, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, Distributed quantum com- puting: a survey, Computer Networks 254, 110672 (2024)

    2024

  33. [39]

    J. C. Boschero, N. M. P. Neumann, W. van der Schoot, T. Sijpesteijn, and R. Wezeman, Distributed quan- tum computing: Applications and challenges (2024), arXiv:2410.00609 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [40]

    D. L. Moehring, P. Maunz, S. Olmschenk, K. C. Younge, D. N. Matsukevich, L.-M. Duan, and C. Monroe, En- tanglement of single-atom quantum bits at a distance, Nature 449, 68 (2007)

    2007

  35. [41]

    Ritter, C

    S. Ritter, C. N¨ olleke, C. Hahn, A. Reiserer, A. Neuzner, M. Uphoff, M. M¨ ucke, E. Figueroa, J. Bochmann, and G. Rempe, An elementary quantum network of single atoms in optical cavities, Nature 484, 195 (2012)

    2012

  36. [42]

    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, et al. , Heralded entanglement between solid-state qubits separated by three metres, Nature 497, 86 (2013)

    2013

  37. [43]

    Magnard, S

    P. Magnard, S. Storz, P. Kurpiers, J. Sch¨ ar, F. Marxer, J. L¨ utolf, J.-C. Besse, M. Gabureac, K. Reuer, A. Akin, B. Royer, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Microwave quan- tum link between superconducting circuits housed in spatially separated cryogenic systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. ...

    2020

  38. [44]

    S. J. Devitt, A. D. Greentree, A. M. Stephens, and R. Van Meter, High-speed quantum networking by ship, Scientific Reports 6, 36163 (2016)

    2016

  39. [45]

    Kanamori, Transmission loss of optical fibers; achievements in half a century, IEICE Transactions on Communications E104-B, 922 (2021)

    H. Kanamori, Transmission loss of optical fibers; achievements in half a century, IEICE Transactions on Communications E104-B, 922 (2021)

    2021

  40. [46]

    M. T. Rakher, L. Ma, O. Slattery, X. Tang, and K. Srini- vasan, Quantum transduction of telecommunications- band single photons from a quantum dot by frequency upconversion, Nature Photonics 4, 786 (2010)

    2010

  41. [47]

    X. Han, W. Fu, C.-L. Zou, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Microwave-optical quantum frequency conversion, Op- tica 8, 1050 (2021)

    2021

  42. [48]

    Chu and S

    Y. Chu and S. Gr¨ oblacher, A perspective on hybrid quantum opto- and electromechanical systems, Appl. Phys. Lett. 117, 150503 (2020)

    2020

  43. [49]

    N. J. Lambert, A. Rueda, F. Sedlmeir, and H. G. L. Schwefel, Coherent conversion between microwave and optical photons – an overview of physical implementa- tions, Adv. Quantum Technol. 3, 1900077 (2020)

    2020

  44. [50]

    B. M. Brubaker, J. M. Kindem, M. D. Urmey, S. Mit- tal, R. D. Delaney, P. S. Burns, M. R. Vissers, K. W. Lehnert, and C. A. Regal, Optomechanical ground-state cooling in a continuous and efficient electro-optic trans- ducer, Phys. Rev. X 12, 021062 (2022)

    2022

  45. [51]

    Wehner, D

    S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, Quantum inter- net: A vision for the road ahead, Science 362, eaam9288 (2018)

    2018

  46. [52]

    J. Ang, G. Carini, Y. Chen, I. Chuang, M. Demarco, S. Economou, A. Eickbusch, A. Faraon, K.-M. Fu, S. Girvin, M. Hatridge, A. Houck, P. Hilaire, K. Kr- sulich, A. Li, C. Liu, Y. Liu, M. Martonosi, D. McKay, J. Misewich, M. Ritter, R. Schoelkopf, S. Stein, S. Suss- man, H. Tang...

    2024

  47. [53]

    Parekh, A

    R. Parekh, A. Ricciardi, A. Darwish, and S. DiAdamo, Quantum algorithms and simulation for parallel and distributed quantum computing, in 2021 IEEE/ACM Second International Workshop on Quantum Comput- ing Software (QCS) (IEEE, 2021) pp. 9–19

    2021

  48. [54]

    Ferrari, A

    D. Ferrari, A. S. Cacciapuoti, M. Amoretti, and M. Cal- effi, Compiler design for distributed quantum comput- ing, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 2, 1 (2021)

    2021

  49. [55]

    Zeuthen, A

    E. Zeuthen, A. Schliesser, A. S. Sørensen, and J. M. Tay- lor, Figures of merit for quantum transducers, Quantum Sci. Technol. 5, 34009 (2020)

    2020

  50. [56]

    R. W. Andrews, R. W. Peterson, T. P. Purdy, K. Ci- cak, R. W. Simmonds, C. A. Regal, and K. W. Lehn- ert, Bidirectional and efficient conversion between mi- crowave and optical light, Nature Phys. 10, 321 (2014)

    2014

  51. [57]

    Zhong, X

    C. Zhong, X. Han, and L. Jiang, Microwave and optical entanglement for quantum transduction with electro- optomechanics, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 054061 (2022)

    2022

  52. [58]

    Kurizki, P

    G. Kurizki, P. Bertet, Y. Kubo, K. Mølmer, D. Pet- rosyan, P. Rabl, and J. Schmiedmayer, Quantum tech- nologies with hybrid systems, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 3866 (2015)

    2015

  53. [59]

    N. Lauk, N. Sinclair, S. Barzanjeh, J. P. Covey, M. Saffman, M. Spiropulu, and C. Simon, Perspectives on quantum transduction, Quantum Sci. Technol. 5, 20501 (2020)

    2020

  54. [60]

    A. A. Clerk, K. W. Lehnert, P. Bertet, J. R. Petta, and Y. Nakamura, Hybrid quantum systems with circuit quantum electrodynamics, Nature Phys.16, 257 (2020)

    2020

  55. [61]

    M. J. Weaver, P. Duivestein, A. C. Bernasconi, S. Scharmer, M. Lemang, T. C. van Thiel, F. Hijazi, B. Hensen, S. Groeblacher, and R. Stockill, An inte- grated microwave-to-optics interface for scalable quan- tum computing, Nature Nanotechnology19, 166 (2024)

    2024

  56. [62]

    Jiang, F

    W. Jiang, F. M. Mayor, S. Malik, R. V. Laer, T. P. McKenna, R. N. Patel, J. D. Witmer, and A. H. Safavi- Naeini, Optically heralded microwave photon addition, Nature Physics 19, 1423 (2023)

    2023

  57. [63]

    Meesala, S

    S. Meesala, S. Wood, D. Lake, P. Chiappina, C. Zhong, A. D. Beyer, M. D. Shaw, L. Jiang, and O. Painter, Non- classical microwave–optical photon pair generation with a chip-scale transducer, Nature Physics 20, 871 (2024)

    2024

  58. [64]

    H. Zhao, W. D. Chen, A. Kejriwal, and M. Mirhosseini, Quantum-enabled continuous microwave-to-optics fre- quency conversion (2024), arXiv:2406.02704 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [65]

    H. K. Warner, J. Holzgrafe, B. Yankelevich, D. Bar- ton, S. Poletto, C. J. Xin, N. Sinclair, D. Zhu, E. Sete, B. Langley, E. Batson, M. Colangelo, A. Shams-Ansari, G. Joe, K. K. Berggren, L. Jiang, M. J. Reagor, and M. Lonˇ car, Coherent control of a superconducting qubit usin...

    2025 doi

  60. [66]

    M. Shen, J. Xie, Y. Xu, S. Wang, R. Cheng, W. Fu, Y. Zhou, and H. X. Tang, Photonic link from single-flux- quantum circuits to room temperature, Nature Photon- 21 ics 18, 371 (2024)

    2024

  61. [67]

    T. Xie, R. Fukumori, J. Li, and A. Faraon, Scalable microwave-to-optical transducers at the single-photon level with spins, Nature Physics , 1 (2025)

    2025

  62. [68]

    Y. Xu, A. A. Sayem, L. Fan, C. L. Zou, S. Wang, R. Cheng, W. Fu, L. Yang, M. Xu, and H. X. Tang, Bidi- rectional interconversion of microwave and light with thin-film lithium niobate, Nature Commun. 12, 4453 (2021)

    2021

  63. [69]

    Fan, C.-L

    L. Fan, C.-L. Zou, R. Cheng, X. Guo, X. Han, Z. Gong, S. Wang, and H. X. Tang, Superconducting cavity electro-optics: A platform for coherent photon con- version between superconducting and photonic circuits, Sci. Adv. 4, eaar4994 (2018)

    2018

  64. [70]

    C. Wang, Z. Li, J. Riemensberger, G. Lihachev, M. Chu- raev, W. Kao, X. Ji, J. Zhang, T. Blesin, A. Davydova, Y. Chen, K. Huang, X. Wang, X. Ou, and T. J. Kip- penberg, Lithium tantalate photonic integrated circuits for volume manufacturing, Nature 629, 784 (2024)

    2024

  65. [71]

    M¨ ohl, A

    C. M¨ ohl, A. Riedhauser, M. Glantschnig, D. Caimi, U. Drechsler, A. Olziersky, D. Sabonis, D. I. Indolese, T. M. Karg, and P. Seidler, Bidirectional microwave- optical conversion with an integrated soft-ferroelectric barium titanate transducer (2025), arXiv:2501.09728 [physic...

    2025 arXiv

  66. [72]

    C. P. Anderson, G. Scuri, A. Chan, S. Eun, A. D. White, G. H. Ahn, C. Jilly, A. Safavi-Naeini, K. V. Gasse, L. Li, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Quantum critical electro-optic and piezo-electric nonlinearities (2025), arXiv:2502.15164 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    2025 arXiv

  67. [73]

    Tsang, Cavity quantum electro-optics, Physical Re- view A 81, 063837 (2010)

    M. Tsang, Cavity quantum electro-optics, Physical Re- view A 81, 063837 (2010)

    2010

  68. [74]

    R. Sahu, L. Qiu, W. Hease, G. Arnold, Y. Minoguchi, P. Rabl, and J. M. Fink, Entangling microwaves with light, Science 380, 718 (2023)

    2023

  69. [75]

    Arnold, T

    G. Arnold, T. Werner, R. Sahu, L. N. Kapoor, L. Qiu, and J. M. Fink, All-optical superconducting qubit read- out, Nature Physics , 1 (2025)

    2025

  70. [76]

    R. Sahu, W. Hease, A. Rueda, G. Arnold, L. Qiu, and J. M. Fink, Quantum-enabled operation of a microwave- optical interface, Nature Commun. 13, 1276 (2022)

    2022

  71. [77]

    M. Wu, E. Zeuthen, K. C. Balram, and K. Srinivasan, Microwave-to-optical transduction using a mechanical supermode for coupling piezoelectric and optomechani- cal resonators, Phys. Rev. Applied 13, 014027 (2020)

    2020

  72. [78]

    C. Wang, I. Gonin, A. Grassellino, S. Kazakov, A. Romanenko, V. P. Yakovlev, and S. Zorzetti, High-efficiency microwave-optical quantum transduc- tion based on a cavity electro-optic superconducting sys- tem with long coherence time, npj Quantum Informa- tion 8, 10.1038/s41534...

    2022 doi

  73. [79]

    T. C. van Thiel, M. J. Weaver, F. Berto, P. Duivestein, M. Lemang, K. L. Schuurman, M. ˇZemliˇ cka, F. Hijazi, A. C. Bernasconi, C. Ferrer, E. Cataldo, E. Lachman, M. Field, Y. Mohan, F. K. de Vries, C. C. Bultink, J. C. van Oven, J. Y. Mutus, R. Stockill, and S. Gr¨ oblacher,...

    2025

  74. [80]

    Arnold, M

    G. Arnold, M. Wulf, S. Barzanjeh, E. S. Redchenko, A. Rueda, W. J. Hease, F. Hassani, and J. M. Fink, Converting microwave and telecom photons with a sil- icon photonic nanomechanical interface, Nature Com- mun. 11, 4460 (2020)

    2020

  75. [81]

    Eichenfield, J

    M. Eichenfield, J. Chan, R. M. Camacho, K. J. Vahala, and O. Painter, Optomechanical crystals, Nature 462, 78 (2009)

    2009

  76. [82]

    Sonar, U

    S. Sonar, U. Hatipoglu, S. Meesala, D. P. Lake, H. Ren, and O. Painter, High-efficiency low-noise optomechan- ical crystal photon-phonon transducers, Optica 12, 99 (2025)

    2025

  77. [83]

    F. M. Mayor, S. Malik, A. G. Primo, S. Gyger, W. Jiang, T. P. Alegre, and A. H. Safavi-Naeini, High photon- phonon pair generation rate in a two-dimensional op- tomechanical crystal, Nature Communications 16, 2576 (2025)

    2025

  78. [86]

    K. J. Satzinger, Y. P. Zhong, H.-S. Chang, G. A. Peairs, A. Bienfait, M.-H. Chou, A. Y. Cleland, C. R. Conner, E. Dumur, J. Grebel, I. Gutierrez, B. H. November, R. G. Povey, S. J. Whiteley, D. D. Awschalom, D. I. Schuster, and A. N. Cleland, Quantum control of surface acousti...

    2018

  79. [87]

    Y. Chu, P. Kharel, T. Yoon, L. Frunzio, P. T. Rakich, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Creation and control of multi- phonon fock states in a bulk acoustic-wave resonator, Nature 563, 666 (2018)

    2018

  80. [88]

    Eichler, C

    C. Eichler, C. Lang, J. M. Fink, J. Govenius, S. Filipp, and A. Wallraff, Observation of Entanglement between Itinerant Microwave Photons and a Superconducting Qubit, Physical Review Letters 109, 240501 (2012)

    2012

  81. [89]

    Kurpiers, M

    P. Kurpiers, M. Pechal, B. Royer, P. Magnard, T. Wal- ter, J. Heinsoo, Y. Salath´ e, A. Akin, S. Storz, J.- C. Besse, S. Gasparinetti, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Quantum Communication with Time-Bin Encoded Mi- crowave Photons, Physical Review Applied 12, 044067 (2019)

    2019

  82. [90]

    Ilves, S

    J. Ilves, S. Kono, Y. Sunada, S. Yamazaki, M. Kim, K. Koshino, and Y. Nakamura, On-demand generation and characterization of a microwave time-bin qubit, npj Quantum Information 6, 1 (2020)

    2020

  83. [91]

    Zhong, H.-S

    Y. Zhong, H.-S. Chang, A. Bienfait, E. Dumur, M.-H. Chou, C. R. Conner, J. Grebel, R. G. Povey, H. Yan, D. I. Schuster, and A. N. Cleland, Deterministic multi- qubit entanglement in a quantum network, Nature 590, 571 (2021)

    2021

  84. [92]

    Deterministic quantum state and gate teleportation be- tween distant superconducting chips, Science Bulletin https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2024.11.047 (2024)

    2024 doi

  85. [93]

    R. D. Delaney, M. D. Urmey, S. Mittal, B. M. Brubaker, J. M. Kindem, P. S. Burns, C. A. Regal, and K. W. Lehnert, Superconducting-qubit readout via low- backaction electro-optic transduction, Nature 606, 489 (2022)

    2022

  86. [94]

    Alexander, A

    K. Alexander, A. Benyamini, D. Black, D. Bon- neau, S. Burgos, B. Burridge, H. Cable, G. Camp- bell, G. Catalano, A. Ceballos, C.-M. Chang, S. S. Choudhury, C. Chung, F. Danesh, T. Dauer, M. Davis, E. Dudley, P. Er-Xuan, J. Fargas, A. Farsi, C. Fen- rich, J. Frazer, M. Fukami,...

    2025

  87. [95]

    Meesala, D

    S. Meesala, D. Lake, S. Wood, P. Chiappina, C. Zhong, A. D. Beyer, M. D. Shaw, L. Jiang, and O. Painter, Quantum entanglement between optical and microwave photonic qubits, Phys. Rev. X 14, 031055 (2024)

    2024

  88. [96]

    J. Wu, C. Cui, L. Fan, and Q. Zhuang, Deterministic microwave-optical transduction based on quantum tele- portation, Phys. Rev. Appl. 16, 064044 (2021)

    2021

  89. [97]

    Shi and Q

    H. Shi and Q. Zhuang, Overcoming the fundamental limit of quantum transduction via intraband entangle- ment, Optica Quantum 2, 475 (2024)

    2024

  90. [98]

    Wang and L

    Z. Wang and L. Jiang, Passive environment-assisted quantum transduction with gkp states (2024), arXiv:2401.16781 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  91. [99]

    H. K. Beukers, M. Pasini, H. Choi, D. Englund, R. Han- son, and J. Borregaard, Remote entanglement proto- cols for stationary qubits with photonic interfaces, PRX Quantum 5, 010202 (2024)

    2024

  92. [100]

    d’Avossa, C

    L. d’Avossa, C. Zhan, J. Chung, R. Kettimuthu, A. S. Cacciapuoti, and M. Caleffi, Simulation of quantum transduction strategies for quantum networks (2024), arXiv:2411.11377 [quant-ph]

    2024

  93. [101]

    L. M. Duan, M. D. Lukin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Long-distance quantum communication with atomic en- sembles and linear optics., Nature 414, 413 (2001)

    2001

  94. [102]

    Krastanov, H

    S. Krastanov, H. Raniwala, J. Holzgrafe, K. Jacobs, M. Lonˇ car, M. J. Reagor, and D. R. Englund, Optically- Heralded Entanglement of Superconducting Systems in Quantum Networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 040503 (2021)

    2021

  95. [103]

    S. D. Barrett and P. Kok, Efficient high-fidelity quan- tum computation using matter qubits and linear optics, Phys. Rev. A 71, 060310 (2005)

    2005

  96. [104]

    Hucul, I

    D. Hucul, I. V. Inlek, G. Vittorini, C. Crocker, S. Deb- nath, S. M. Clark, and C. Monroe, Modular entangle- ment of atomic qubits using photons and phonons, Na- ture Physics 11, 37 (2015)

    2015

  97. [105]

    P. C. Humphreys, N. Kalb, J. P. J. Morits, R. N. Schouten, R. F. L. Vermeulen, D. J. Twitchen, M. Markham, and R. Hanson, Deterministic delivery of remote entanglement on a quantum network, Nature 558, 268 (2018)

    2018

  98. [106]

    If no herald is received, the fidelity of the delivered state is maximized by delivering a random classical anti- correlated state which has a 50% fidelity with the ideal state

  99. [107]

    D. Main, P. Drmota, D. P. Nadlinger, E. M. Ainley, A. Agrawal, B. C. Nichol, R. Srinivas, G. Araneda, and D. M. Lucas, Distributed quantum computing across an optical network link, Nature 10.1038/s41586-024-08404- x (2025)

    2025 doi

  100. [108]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Cavity optomechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 1391 (2014)

    2014

  101. [109]

    In the two-mode squeezing case, two qubits are neces- sary in each link which store early and late component and then perform a heralding parity measurement to ensure that early and late photons were not generated by the same transducer [39]

  102. [110]

    Briegel, W

    H.-J. Briegel, W. D¨ ur, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Quan- tum repeaters: the role of imperfect local operations in quantum communication, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5932 (1998)

    1998

  103. [111]

    Azuma, S

    K. Azuma, S. E. Economou, D. Elkouss, P. Hilaire, L. Jiang, H.-K. Lo, and I. Tzitrin, Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 045006 (2023)

    2023

  104. [112]

    M. F. Askarani, M. G. Puigibert, T. Lutz, V. B. Verma, M. D. Shaw, S. W. Nam, N. Sinclair, D. Oblak, and W. Tittel, Storage and reemission of heralded telecommunication-wavelength photons using a crystal waveguide, Phys. Rev. Applied 11, 054056 (2019)

    2019

  105. [113]

    J. V. Rakonjac, G. Corrielli, D. Lago-Rivera, A. Seri, M. Mazzera, S. Grandi, R. Osellame, and H. de Riedmatten, Storage and analysis of light-matter entanglement in a fiber-integrated system, Science Advances 8, eabn3919 (2022), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.abn3919

    2022 doi

  106. [114]

    S. E. Thomas, L. Wagner, R. Joos, R. Sittig, C. Nawrath, P. Burdekin, I. M. de Buy Wenniger, M. J. Rasiah, T. Huber-Loyola, S. Sagona-Stophel, S. H¨ ofling, M. Jetter, P. Michler, I. A. Walmsley, S. L. Portalupi, and P. M. Ledingham, Deterministic storage and retrieval of tele...

    2024 doi

  107. [115]

    Y. Wang, A. N. Craddock, J. M. Mendoza, R. Sekelsky, M. Flament, and M. Namazi, High-fidelity entanglement between a telecom photon and a room-temperature quantum memory (2025), arXiv:2503.11564 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Wallucks, I

    A. Wallucks, I. Marinkovi´ c, B. Hensen, R. Stockill, and S. Gr¨ oblacher, A quantum memory at telecom wave- lengths, Nat. Phys. 16, 772 (2020)

    2020

  109. [117]

    Krutyanskiy, M

    V. Krutyanskiy, M. Canteri, M. Meraner, J. Bate, V. Krcmarsky, J. Schupp, N. Sangouard, and B. P. Lanyon, Telecom-wavelength quantum repeater node based on a trapped-ion processor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 213601 (2023)

    2023

  110. [118]

    Tchebotareva, S

    A. Tchebotareva, S. L. N. Hermans, P. C. Humphreys, D. Voigt, P. J. Harmsma, L. K. Cheng, A. L. Verlaan, N. Dijkhuizen, W. de Jong, A. Dr´ eau, and R. Hanson, Entanglement between a diamond spin qubit and a pho- tonic time-bin qubit at telecom wavelength, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123,...

    2019

  111. [119]

    van Leent, M

    T. van Leent, M. Bock, R. Garthoff, K. Redeker, W. Zhang, T. Bauer, W. Rosenfeld, C. Becher, and 23 H. Weinfurter, Long-distance distribution of atom- photon entanglement at telecom wavelength, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 010510 (2020)

    2020

  112. [120]

    M. K. Bhaskar, R. Riedinger, B. Machielse, D. S. Levo- nian, C. T. Nguyen, E. N. Knall, H. Park, D. Englund, M. Lonˇ car, D. D. Sukachev, and M. D. Lukin, Exper- imental demonstration of memory-enhanced quantum communication, Nature 580, 60 (2020)

    2020

  113. [121]

    L. Ma, X. Lei, J. Yan, R. Li, T. Chai, Z. Yan, X. Jia, C. Xie, and K. Peng, High-performance cavity-enhanced quantum memory with warm atomic cell, Nature Com- munications 13, 2368 (2022)

    2022

  114. [122]

    Vernaz-Gris, K

    P. Vernaz-Gris, K. Huang, M. Cao, A. S. Sheremet, and J. Laurat, Highly-efficient quantum memory for polar- ization qubits in a spatially-multiplexed cold atomic en- semble, Nature Communications 9, 363 (2018)

    2018

  115. [123]

    Dirnegger, M

    N. Dirnegger, M. Malekakhlagh, V. Siddhu, A. Rao, C. Xiong, M. Kumph, J. Orcutt, and A. Falk, Monte carlo model of distilled remote entanglement between superconducting qubits across optical channels (2025), arXiv:2503.10842 [quant-ph]

    2025

  116. [124]

    E. T. Campbell and S. C. Benjamin, Measurement- based entanglement under conditions of extreme photon loss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 130502 (2008)

    2008

  117. [125]

    Duan and H

    L.-M. Duan and H. J. Kimble, Scalable photonic quan- tum computation through cavity-assisted interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 127902 (2004)

    2004

  118. [126]

    Reiserer, N

    A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, G. Rempe, and S. Ritter, A quan- tum gate between a flying optical photon and a single trapped atom, Nature 508, 237 (2014)

    2014

  119. [127]

    C. T. Nguyen, D. D. Sukachev, M. K. Bhaskar, B. Machielse, D. S. Levonian, E. N. Knall, P. Stroganov, R. Riedinger, H. Park, M. Lonˇ car, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum network nodes based on diamond qubits with an efficient nanophotonic interface, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 183602 (2019)

    2019

  120. [128]

    M. Cao, F. Hoffet, S. Qiu, A. S. Sheremet, and J. Lau- rat, Efficient reversible entanglement transfer between light and quantum memories, Optica 7, 1440 (2020)

    2020

  121. [129]

    N. Kalb, A. A. Reiserer, P. C. Humphreys, J. J. W. Bak- ermans, S. J. Kamerling, N. H. Nickerson, S. C. Ben- jamin, D. J. Twitchen, M. Markham, and R. Hanson, Entanglement distillation between solid-state quantum network nodes, Science 356, 928 (2017)

    2017

  122. [130]

    Somoroff, Q

    A. Somoroff, Q. Ficheux, R. A. Mencia, H. Xiong, R. Kuzmin, and V. E. Manucharyan, Millisecond co- herence in a superconducting qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 267001 (2023)

    2023

  123. [131]

    M. P. Bland, F. Bahrami, J. G. C. Martinez, P. H. Prestegaard, B. M. Smitham, A. Joshi, E. Hedrick, A. Pakpour-Tabrizi, S. Kumar, A. Jindal, R. D. Chang, A. Yang, G. Cheng, N. Yao, R. J. Cava, N. P. de Leon, and A. A. Houck, 2d transmons with lifetimes and coherence times exce...

    2025 arXiv

  124. [132]

    Milul, B

    O. Milul, B. Guttel, U. Goldblatt, S. Hazanov, L. M. Joshi, D. Chausovsky, N. Kahn, E. C ¸ ifty¨ urek, F. Lafont, and S. Rosenblum, Superconducting cavity qubit with tens of milliseconds single-photon coherence time, PRX Quantum 4, 030336 (2023)

    2023

  125. [133]

    Y. Liu, H. Sun, Q. Liu, H. Wu, M. A. Sillanp¨ a¨ a, and T. Li, Long-lived microwave electromechanical sys- tems enabled by cubic silicon-carbide membrane crys- tals (2024), arXiv:2401.01020 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  126. [134]

    Ramette, J

    J. Ramette, J. Sinclair, N. P. Breuckmann, and V. Vuleti´ c, Fault-tolerant connection of error-corrected qubits with noisy links, npj Quantum Information 10, 58 (2024)

    2024

  127. [135]

    S. N. Saadatmand, T. L. Wilson, M. Field, M. K. Vijayan, T. P. Le, J. Ruh, A. S. Maan, I. Moflic, A. Caesura, A. Paler, M. J. Hodson, S. J. Devitt, and J. Y. Mutus, Fault-tolerant resource estimation using graph-state compilation on a modular superconducting architecture (2024...

    2024 arXiv

  128. [136]

    Sutcliffe, B

    E. Sutcliffe, B. Jonnadula, C. L. Gall, A. E. Moylett, and C. M. Westoby, Distributed quantum error cor- rection based on hyperbolic floquet codes (2025), arXiv:2501.14029 [quant-ph]

    2025

  129. [137]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Phys. Rev. A 64, 012310 (2001)

    2001

  130. [138]

    A. J. Brady, A. Eickbusch, S. Singh, J. Wu, and Q. Zhuang, Advances in bosonic quantum error correc- tion with gottesman–kitaev–preskill codes: Theory, en- gineering and applications, Progress in Quantum Elec- tronics 93, 100496 (2024)

    2024

  131. [139]

    V. V. Sivak, A. Eickbusch, B. Royer, S. Singh, I. Tsiout- sios, S. Ganjam, A. Miano, B. L. Brock, A. Z. Ding, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, Real-time quantum error correction beyond break-even, Nature 616, 50 (2023)

    2023

  132. [140]

    Konno, W

    S. Konno, W. Asavanant, F. Hanamura, H. Nagayoshi, K. Fukui, A. Sakaguchi, R. Ide, F. China, M. Yabuno, S. Miki, H. Terai, K. Takase, M. Endo, P. Marek, R. Filip, P. van Loock, and A. Furusawa, Logical states for fault-tolerant quantum computation with propagat- ing light, Sci...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.