Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Experimental demonstration of memory-enhanced quantum communication

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single diamond spin memory performs asynchronous Bell-state measurements, giving a four-fold increase in MDI-QKD secret key rate over loss-equivalent direct transmission.

desk verdict Memory-assisted MDI-QKD that beats the repeaterless bound—real first, but the four-fold advantage is conditional on the bench-top single-laser loss mapping the authors disclose. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01323 v1 pith:6E4BB6XJ submitted 2019-09-03 quant-ph

Mihir K. Bhaskar , Ralf Riedinger , Bartholomeus Machielse , David S. Levonian , Christian T. Nguyen , Erik N. Knall , Hongkun Park , Dirk Englund
show 3 more authors
Marko Lončar Denis D. Sukachev Mikhail D. Lukin
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumkeydistributionmeasurement-device-independentQKDmemorysilicon-vacancycenterBell-statemeasurementrepeaternanophotoniccavityasynchronous
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

The paper claims that a single solid-state quantum memory can perform the central operation of a quantum repeater—a Bell-state measurement between two photons that arrive at different times—and that this makes quantum key distribution faster than the best linear-optics approach under the same loss. Using a silicon-vacancy center embedded in a diamond nanophotonic cavity, the authors store the quantum state of Alice's photon in the spin memory while waiting for Bob's photon, then read out the combined parity. The measured secret key rate beats the ideal direct-transmission MDI-QKD bound by a factor of up to 4.1 and exceeds the fundamental repeaterless rate bound $1.44p_{A o B}$ with 99.2% statistical confidence. If correct, this demonstrates the viability of memory-enhanced quantum communication and a concrete path toward functional quantum repeaters.

What carries the argument

The central object is a single silicon-vacancy (SiV) color center coupled to a diamond nanophotonic cavity with cooperativity $C=105\pm 11$. Its spin-dependent cavity reflection implements a heralded spin-photon gate: when a photon is reflected, the spin becomes entangled with the photonic time-bin qubit, and detecting the reflected photon in the $X$ basis teleports the photon's state onto the spin. Two such heralded reflections, separated by less than the spin coherence time $T_2>0.2$ ms (preserved by XY8 dynamical decoupling) and followed by a final spin readout, constitute an asynchronous Bell-state measurement whose outcome is the parity $m_1m_2m_3$. Up to $N=504$ photonic qubits are interleaved within a single memory initialization, and effective channel loss is modelled as $p_{A\to B}=\langle n\rangle_p^2$, where $\langle n\rangle_p$ is the mean incident photon number per photonic qubit.

What would settle it

Take the same memory node, place Alice and Bob at opposite ends of a real fiber span with independent lasers and no shared phase reference, and compare the measured distilled secret key rate against the linear-optics MDI-QKD limit $p_{A\to B}/2$ and the repeaterless bound $1.44p_{A\to B}$; if the advantage vanishes or the quantum-bit error rate rises above the security threshold, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an asynchronous Bell-state measurement—one that does not require simultaneous arrival of two photons—can be implemented with a single silicon-vacancy spin memory and used for measurement-device-independent QKD at rates beyond what linear optics allows. The authors demonstrate this with a device in which spin-dependent cavity reflection entangles an incoming time-bin photonic qubit with the spin; a subsequent photon reflection and final spin readout in the $X$ basis complete a photon-photon Bell-state measurement that distinguishes two of the four Bell states by the parity $m_1m_2m_3$. They report an average quantum-bit error rate of $0.116\pm 0.002$, a secret key rate enhancement of up to $4.1\pm 0.5$ over the ideal linear-optics MDI-QKD limit, and a 99.2% confidence level for exceeding the fundamental repeaterless rate bound $R\le 1.44p_{A\to B}$. These results establish a memory node that performs the key operation needed for scalable quantum repeaters.

Load-bearing premise

The central experiment assumes that attenuation simulated by dimming a single laser faithfully reproduces the loss and independence conditions of two real remote parties sharing a channel, so the measured key-rate advantage would carry over to a field deployment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The secret key rate of MDI-QKD can exceed the ideal linear-optics limit by storing one party's photon in a quantum memory while waiting for the other's, even after including memory initialization and readout overhead.
  • The approach operates at megahertz clock rates and is competitive with an ideal unassisted MDI-QKD system running at about 4 MHz average clock rate.
  • The demonstrated multi-photon gate can be extended to full quantum repeater protocols, potentially giving polynomial rather than exponential scaling of communication rate with distance.
  • The same device can serve as a central node in a star-network topology for quantum communication between several parties.
  • With decoy-state protocols, biased bases, and finite-key analysis, the protocol can produce provably secure keys in practical, field-deployable settings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: because the memory's advantage grows with the number of photonic qubits per memory time while channel loss grows, pushing memory coherence and reducing microwave-induced heating should yield larger advantages at higher losses; the paper's own data show optimal performance near $N=124$ at about 69 dB effective loss.
  • Editorial extension: the mapping $p_{A\to B}=\langle n\rangle_p^2$ implies the central claim is best validated by repeating the experiment with truly independent photon sources at Alice and Bob, a limitation the authors explicitly acknowledge.
  • Editorial extension: with frequency conversion to telecommunications wavelengths and low-loss routing, the node could operate at roughly 350 km of fiber, where the paper expects effective loss around 70 dB.
  • Editorial extension: the asynchronous Bell-state measurement is not limited to QKD; it can be adapted to generate large entangled cluster states for one-way quantum communication protocols, as the paper notes.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a proof-of-principle demonstration of memory-enhanced measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution (MDI-QKD). A single SiV center in a diamond nanophotonic cavity is used as an asynchronous Bell-state measurement node: one photonic time-bin qubit is stored in the spin while a second, later-arriving qubit is reflected; a final spin readout completes a two-photon Bell measurement. The authors characterize the spin-photon gate, measure the QBER for N=124 time-bin qubits per memory initialization, observe a Bell-CHSH violation, and compare their measured sifted and distilled key rates with a theoretical direct-transmission MDI-QKD limit Rmax=pA->B/2, where the effective channel loss is set by pA->B=<n>_p^2. They report a four-fold advantage in secure key rate and a 99.2% confidence that the rate exceeds the repeaterless bound 1.44pA->B.

Significance. If properly qualified, this result is an important milestone for quantum repeaters: it demonstrates the core asynchronous BSM operation of a memory-based repeater node in a solid-state platform, with high cooperativity, single-shot spin readout, and measured rather than assumed device parameters. The supplement is thorough in its calibration of heralding efficiency, TDI visibility, spin coherence, and statistical posteriors, and the Bell-CHSH violation provides direct evidence of quantum correlations. The main weakness is that the experiment is a bench-top emulation with a single laser and a selected favorable data set, and the headline rates are computed under an individual-attacks security model. With these caveats stated, the work is a credible step toward practical memory-enhanced QKD.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplement, 'Performance of memory-assisted MDI-QKD' and Table S4; main text Fig. 4] The claimed four-fold secure-key advantage and the 99.2% confidence of exceeding 1.44pA->B rest on rates computed with the individual-attacks formula rs = I(A,B) - I(A/B,E)max, as stated in the Supplement. The comparison baseline Rmax=pA->B/2 is presented as a fundamental upper bound for direct-transmission MDI-QKD and is not restricted to individual attacks; comparing a rate secure only against individual attacks to an unconditional upper bound can overstate the advantage. The authors should either present rates under the same unconditional security model, for example using the Shor-Preskill key-rate formula with the measured QBER, or explicitly state in the main text and abstract that the reported four-fold factor applies to individual-attacks security and explain why the comparison to Rmax remains meaningful.
  2. [Supplement, 'Estimation of QBER' and main text Fig. 3/Fig. 4] The headline enhancement RS/Rmax=4.1+/-0.5 is evaluated for a single selected data set with N=124, <n>_m about 0.02 and QBER=0.110+/-0.004, as disclosed in the Supplement. The average QBER over the random bit strings in the same parameter regime is 0.116+/-0.002, which is above the unconditional security threshold Eu=0.110 used in the paper. Selecting the best run after the fact is not equivalent to the QBER that would be observed during key generation. Please report RS/Rmax for the average random-string QBER and describe the selection procedure explicitly; if the four-fold factor is intended as a best-case device capability, the abstract should say so.
  3. [Supplement, Fig. S1 and main text final paragraph] The central comparison uses pA->B=<n>_p^2, which assumes that equal, independent attenuation of Alice's and Bob's photons fully captures a real two-party channel. In the present experiment all photonic qubits are carved from one Ti:Sapphire laser that is also used to lock the time-delay interferometer, with all timing generated by a single HSDIO. This guarantees a common phase and frequency reference and removes the relative phase/frequency noise between independent sources; the asynchronous BSM depends on phase coherence across the delta-t=142 ns time bins and on the spin phase, so such noise would directly increase QBER. The authors correctly acknowledge in the final paragraph that the protocol must be implemented with truly independent parties. Given that the abstract says 'experimental realization of memory-enhanced quantum communication,' the manuscript should qualify the claim to a bench-top node characterization and ideally quantify the tolerance to relative source phase/frequency offsets.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4 axis label] The axis label 'Effective transmission pA->B (dB)' is ambiguous; please indicate 10 log10(pA->B) to make the logarithmic scale explicit.
  2. [Table S4 caption] The column headings of Table S4 are not defined in the table caption; the distinction between 'per channel occupancy' and 'per channel use' appears only in the main text. Please add a caption explaining these normalizations.
  3. [Supplement, 'Experimental setup'] There are several typos in the supplement, including 'reinitailizing' for 'reinitializing,' 'nececssary' for 'necessary,' and 'National Instriuments' for 'National Instruments.'
  4. [Main text, final paragraph] The sentence 'It does not require phase stabilization of long-distance links' could be misread, since the present experiment actively locks the interferometer to the same laser that generates the qubits; please clarify that this statement refers to the protocol rather than the current setup.
  5. [Supplement, Eq. (10)] In Eq. (10), the quantities N_pi and N_sub are used without definitions at the point of use; please define them explicitly when the equation is introduced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the memory-assisted key rates are measured and benchmarked against an external theoretical bound; the self-citations are to characterized hardware, not to the target claim.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The asynchronous BSM is implemented and characterized in this work: the QBER is estimated from observed correlations (main text, Fig. 3c), the Bell-CHSH test is measured (S+ = 2.21 ± 0.04, S− = 2.19 ± 0.04), and the distilled key rates are computed from the measured QBER using standard formulae from the literature. The direct-transmission benchmark Rmax = pA→B/2 is an external theoretical upper bound [23], evaluated at an independently defined effective loss pA→B = ⟨n⟩p^2; the memory-assisted rates are experimental measurements and are not fitted to this bound, nor is any parameter adjusted to force the crossing. The self-citations to [18–20] concern device fabrication and prior characterization of the SiV–cavity interface, while the memory-enhanced BSM operation that carries the central claim is demonstrated and measured here, so those citations are not load-bearing. The paper's own final-paragraph caveat — that 'this protocol must be implemented using truly independent, distant communicating parties' — is a genuine external-validity limitation arising from the single shared laser and bench-top loss mapping; it does not make the derivation circular, because the compared quantities are not defined in terms of each other. Thus the circularity burden is low or absent.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central result is experimental; it introduces no invented entities. Its key-rate advantage rests on disclosed modeling assumptions: the simulated photon-flux loss mapping, single-photon-per-qubit emission, and asymptotic individual-attacks security analysis. These are reasonable for a proof-of-principle but are domain assumptions rather than derived theorems.

free parameters (3)
  • operating mean photon number <n>_m = ≈0.02
    Hand-chosen operating point during key-rate measurements; it balances spin-photon gate fidelity against data acquisition rate and is fixed in the N=124 data set used for the headline four-fold enhancement.
  • single-shot readout threshold = 7 photons
    Chosen from the photon-number histogram in Fig. 2c to discriminate spin states in 30 microseconds; affects measured QBER but is an experimental setting, not a fitted theoretical parameter.
  • time-bin spacing δt = 142 ns
    Set equal to 2τ=142 ns, where the XY8-8 dynamical decoupling sequence maintains high spin coherence by avoiding entanglement with a nearby 13C nuclear spin.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Quantum mechanics and the standard cavity-QED model of spin-dependent reflection (Eq. 1 in the supplement)
    The BSM derivation and security analysis rely on the standard quantum description of spin-photon interactions; this is the established framework of the field.
  • domain assumption Loss-equivalent model pA->B = <n>_p^2
    Effective channel transmission is inferred from the mean photon number per qubit incident on the device, assuming Alice and Bob each send one photon per qubit; this maps fiber attenuation to the bench-top photon flux and is used in Fig. 4 and the key-rate comparison.
  • domain assumption Security of MDI-QKD with individual-attacks key-rate formula
    The distilled key rate RS is computed using rs = I(A;B) - I(A/B;E) for individual attacks; full finite-key and coherent-attack security is not proven in this demonstration, a point the authors acknowledge as future work.
  • domain assumption Single-laser simulation of independent parties
    Alice and Bob are implemented as weak pulses from a single laser routed to the same device; the protocol assumes these pulses faithfully represent photons from two remote, independent parties, a limitation stated in the outlook.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental demonstration of memory-enhanced quantum communication." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6E4BB6XJ

@misc{pith2026190901323,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental demonstration of memory-enhanced quantum communication},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6E4BB6XJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01323}
}
read the original abstract

The ability to communicate quantum information over long distances is of central importance in quantum science and engineering. For example, it enables secure quantum key distribution (QKD) relying on fundamental principles that prohibit the "cloning" of unknown quantum states. While QKD is being successfully deployed, its range is currently limited by photon losses and cannot be extended using straightforward measure-and-repeat strategies without compromising its unconditional security. Alternatively, quantum repeaters, which utilize intermediate quantum memory nodes and error correction techniques, can extend the range of quantum channels. However, their implementation remains an outstanding challenge, requiring a combination of efficient and high-fidelity quantum memories, gate operations, and measurements. Here we report the experimental realization of memory-enhanced quantum communication. We use a single solid-state spin memory integrated in a nanophotonic diamond resonator to implement asynchronous Bell-state measurements. This enables a four-fold increase in the secret key rate of measurement device independent (MDI)-QKD over the loss-equivalent direct-transmission method while operating megahertz clock rates. Our results represent a significant step towards practical quantum repeaters and large-scale quantum networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01323 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Optimal parameters for asynchronous Bell state measurements We minimize the experimentally extracted QBER for the asynchronous BSM to optimize the performance of the memory node. The first major factor contributing to QBER is the scattering of a third photon that is no…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H. J. Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature 453, 1023 (2008)

    2008

  2. [2]

    The phase of this spin state depends only on the sum of the incoming phases and the product of their detection outcomes, but not the indi- vidual phases themselves. As a result, if the photons were sent with phases that meet the conditionφ1+φ2∈{ 0,π}, a final measurement of the spin in theX basis (m3 =±1) completes an asynchronous photon-photon BSM, distin...

    work page

  3. [3]

    P. W. Shor and J. Preskill, Simple proof of security of the BB84 quantum key distribution protocol, Physical Review Letters 85, 441 (2000)

    2000

  4. [4]

    In practice, errors introduced by the quantum memory node could leak information to the environment, reduc- ing the security of the sifted key [3]

    Due to the high overall heralding efficiency and the large number of photonic qubits per memory time (up to N = 504), the memory-assisted sifted key rate exceeds the capability of direct-transmission MDI-QKD by a fac- tor of 78.4± 0.7 at an effective channel loss of about 88 dB. In practice, errors introduced by the quantum memory node could leak information...

    work page

  5. [5]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing, Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computers, Sys- tems and Signal Processing 175, 8 (1984)

    work page 1984

  6. [6]

    Gisin, G

    N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Quan- tum cryptography, Reviews of Modern Physics 74, 145 (2002)

    2002

  7. [7]

    W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek, A single quantum cannot be cloned, Nature 299, 802 (1982)

    1982

  8. [8]

    Dieks, Communication by EPR devices, Physics Let- ters A 92, 271 (1982)

    D. Dieks, Communication by EPR devices, Physics Let- ters A 92, 271 (1982)

    work page 1982

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Pirandola, U

    S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani, J. Pereira, M. Razavi, J. S. Shaari, M. Tomamichel, V. C. Usenko, G. Vallone, P. Villoresi, and P. Wallden, Advances in Quantum Cryptography, arXiv:1906.0...

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Boaron, G

    A. Boaron, G. Boso, D. Rusca, C. Vulliez, C. Autebert, M. Caloz, M. Perrenoud, G. Gras, F. Bussi` eres, M. J. Li, D. Nolan, A. Martin, and H. Zbinden, Secure Quantum Key Distribution over 421 km of Optical Fiber, Physical Review Letters 121, 1 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Zhang, F

    Q. Zhang, F. Xu, Y.-A. Chen, C.-Z. Peng, and J.-W. Pan, Large scale quantum key distribution: challenges and solutions [Invited], Optics Express 26, 24260 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    C.-W. Chou, J. Laurat, H. Deng, K. S. Choi, H. de Ried- matten, D. Felinto, and H. J. Kimble, Functional Quan- tum Nodes for Entanglement Distribution over Scalable Quantum Networks, Science 316, 1316 LP (2007)

    2007

  5. [13]

    Pirandola, R

    S. Pirandola, R. Laurenza, C. Ottaviani, and L. Banchi, Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communica- tions, Nature Communications 8, 15043 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Briegel, W

    H.-J. Briegel, W. D¨ ur, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Quantum Repeaters: The Role of Imperfect Local Operations in Quantum Communication, Physical Review Letters 81, 5932 (1998)

    1998

  7. [15]

    Reiserer and G

    A. Reiserer and G. Rempe, Cavity-based quantum net- works with single atoms and optical photons, Reviews of Modern Physics 87, 1379 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Yuan, Y.-A

    Z.-S. Yuan, Y.-A. Chen, B. Zhao, S. Chen, J. Schmied- mayer, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental demonstration of a BDCZ quantum repeater node, Nature 454, 1098 (2008)

    2008

  9. [17]

    W. B. Gao, P. Fallahi, E. Togan, J. Miguel-Sanchez, and A. Imamoglu, Observation of entanglement between a quantum dot spin and a single photon, Nature 491, 426 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    R. E. Evans, M. K. Bhaskar, D. D. Sukachev, C. T. Nguyen, A. Sipahigil, M. J. Burek, B. Machielse, G. H. Zhang, A. S. Zibrov, E. Bielejec, H. Park, M. Lonˇ car, and M. D. Lukin, Photon-mediated interactions between quantum emitters in a diamond nanocavity, Science362, 662 LP (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Hensen, H

    B. Hensen, H. Bernien, A. E. Dr´ eau, A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. L. Vermeulen, R. N. Schouten, C. Abell´ an, W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, M. W. 6 Mitchell, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, D. Elkouss, S. Wehner, T. H. Taminiau, and R. Hanson, Loophole- free Bel...

    2015

  12. [20]

    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 LP (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    E. T. Khabiboulline, J. Borregaard, K. De Greve, and M. D. Lukin, Optical interferometry with quantum net- works, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 070504 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    M. J. Burek, C. Meuwly, R. E. Evans, M. K. Bhaskar, A. Sipahigil, S. Meesala, B. Machielse, D. D. Sukachev, C. T. Nguyen, J. L. Pacheco, E. Bielejec, M. D. Lukin, and M. Lonˇ car, Fiber-Coupled Diamond Quan- tum Nanophotonic Interface, Physical Review Applied 8, 24026 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    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, arXiv:1907.13199 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    S. L. Braunstein and S. Pirandola, Side-Channel-Free Quantum Key Distribution, Physical Review Letters 108, 130502 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    Monroe, R

    C. Monroe, R. Raussendorf, A. Ruthven, K. R. Brown, P. Maunz, L.-M. Duan, and J. Kim, Large-scale modu- lar quantum-computer architecture with atomic memory and photonic interconnects, Physical Review A89, 22317 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    H.-K. Lo, M. Curty, and B. Qi, Measurement-Device- Independent Quantum Key Distribution, Physical Re- view Letters 108, 130503 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    See supplementary material following the main text

  20. [28]

    Minder, M

    M. Minder, M. Pittaluga, G. L. Roberts, M. Lucamarini, J. F. Dynes, Z. L. Yuan, and A. J. Shields, Experimental quantum key distribution beyond the repeaterless secret key capacity, Nature Photonics 13, 334 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Panayi, M

    C. Panayi, M. Razavi, X. Ma, and N. L¨ utkenhaus, Memory-assisted measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution, New Journal of Physics 16, 43005 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    H.-K. Lo, H. F. Chau, and M. Ardehali, Efficient Quan- tum Key Distribution Scheme and a Proof of Its Uncon- ditional Security, Journal of Cryptology 18, 133 (2005)

    2005

  23. [31]

    Duan and H

    L.-M. Duan and H. J. Kimble, Scalable Photonic Quan- tum Computation through Cavity-Assisted Interactions, Physical Review Letters 92, 127902 (2004)

    2004

  24. [32]

    H.-K. Lo, X. Ma, and K. Chen, Decoy State Quantum Key Distribution, Physical Review Letters 94, 230504 (2005)

    2005

  25. [33]

    should allow for operation of many quantum nodes at 5 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 Effective transmission p A→B (dB) Key Rate (bits/channel use) -65 -70 -75 -80 -85 -90 FIG. 4. Performance of memory-assisted quantum communication. Log-log plot of key rate in bits per...

  26. [34]

    Curty, F

    M. Curty, F. Xu, W. Cui, C. C. W. Lim, K. Tamaki, and H.-K. Lo, Finite-key analysis for measurement-device- independent quantum key distribution, Nature Commu- nications 5, 3732 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Biham, B

    E. Biham, B. Huttner, and T. Mor, Quantum crypto- graphic network based on quantum memories, Physical Review A 54, 2651 (1996)

    1996

  28. [36]

    Machielse, S

    B. Machielse, S. Bogdanovic, S. Meesala, S. Gauthier, M. J. Burek, G. Joe, M. Chalupnik, Y. I. Sohn, J. Holz- grafe, R. E. Evans, C. Chia, H. Atikian, M. K. Bhaskar, D. D. Sukachev, L. Shao, S. Maity, M. D. Lukin, and M. Lonˇ car, Quantum Interference of Electromechanically St...

    2019

  29. [37]

    Raussendorf and H

    R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A One-Way Quantum Computer, Physical Review Letters 86, 5188 (2001)

    2001

  30. [38]

    Borregaard, H

    J. Borregaard, H. Pichler, T. Sch¨ oder, M. D. Lukin, P. Lodahl, and A. S. Sørensen, One-way quantum re- peater based on near-deterministic photon-emitter inter- faces, arXiv:1907.05101 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    M. J. Burek, Y. Chu, M. S. Z. Liddy, P. Pa- tel, J. Rochman, S. Meesala, W. Hong, Q. Quan, M. D. Lukin, and M. Lonˇ car, High quality-factor opti- cal nanocavities in bulk single-crystal diamond, Nature Communications 5, 5718 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    H. A. Atikian, P. Latawiec, M. J. Burek, Y.-I. Sohn, S. Meesala, N. Gravel, A. B. Kouki, and M. Lonˇ car, Freestanding nanostructures via reactive ion beam an- gled etching, APL Photonics 2, 51301 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    C. T. Nguyen, D. D. Sukachev, M. K. Bhaskar, B. Machielse, D. S. Levonian, E. N. Knall, P. Stroganov, C. Chia, M. J. Burek, R. Riedinger, H. Park, M. Lonˇ car, and M. D. Lukin, An integrated nanophotonic quan- tum register based on silicon-vacancy spins in diamond, arXiv:1907....

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    de Riedmatten, I

    H. de Riedmatten, I. Marcikic, V. Scarani, W. Tittel, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, Tailoring photonic entangle- ment in high-dimensional Hilbert spaces, Physical Re- view A 69, 50304 (2004)

    2004

  35. [43]

    Sasaki, Y

    T. Sasaki, Y. Yamamoto, and M. Koashi, Practical quan- tum key distribution protocol without monitoring signal disturbance, Nature 509, 475 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    N. Kalb, A. Reiserer, S. Ritter, and G. Rempe, Heralded Storage of a Photonic Quantum Bit in a Single Atom, Physical Review Letters 114, 220501 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    readout” threshold of 7 photons (used only to record m3), and a “status

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories, Physical Review Letters 23, 880 (1969). 7 Supplementary Material EXPERIMENTAL SETUP Experimental setup and device fabrication [19, 33, 36, 37] for millikelvin na...

    1969

  38. [46]

    (1) By fitting |r(∆c)|2 using known values of κ and γ, we obtain the solid red curve in Fig

    as a function of probe detuning ∆ c is given by r(∆c) = i∆c + g2 i∆c+γ 2 −κwg + κ 2 i∆c + g2 i∆c+γ 2 + κ 2 . (1) By fitting |r(∆c)|2 using known values of κ and γ, we obtain the solid red curve in Fig. S2a which corresponds to a single-photon Rabi frequency g = 8.38± 0.05 GHz, ...

  39. [47]

    Rewriting Bob’s reflected photon in the X basis, the full system is in the state |ψm1,B⟩ ={|+x⟩ (|↑⟩ +m1ei(φ1+φ2)|↓⟩) +|−x⟩ (|↑⟩− m1ei(φ1+φ2)|↓⟩)}/2

    This state now has a phase that depends on the initial states of both photons, en- abling the photon-photon BSM measurements described below. Rewriting Bob’s reflected photon in the X basis, the full system is in the state |ψm1,B⟩ ={|+x⟩ (|↑⟩ +m1ei(φ1+φ2)|↓⟩) +|−x⟩ (|↑⟩− m1ei(φ...

  40. [48]

    input correlations,

    in the X and Y bases, where we have |Φ±⟩(X) = (|+x⟩|±x⟩ +|∓x⟩|−x⟩)/ √ 2 (4) |Φ±⟩(Y ) = (|+y⟩|∓y⟩ +|±y⟩|−y⟩)/ √ 2 (5) |Ψ±⟩(X) = (|+x⟩|±x⟩−|∓ x⟩|−x⟩)/ √ 2 (6) |Ψ±⟩(Y ) =i(|+y⟩|±y⟩−|∓ y⟩|−y⟩)/ √ 2 (7) For X basis inputs, as seen by Eq. 4 and 6, switching be- tween{|Φ±⟩} and{|Ψ±⟩}...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.