Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Indistinguishability of remote quantum dot-cavity single-photon sources

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Remote two-photon interference between four pairs of cavity-enhanced quantum-dot sources reaches 44–69%, a record for such sources, and the remaining distinguishability is traced to low-frequency spectral wandering.

desk verdict Measured 44–69% remote visibilities are credible and a real step forward; the spectral wandering story is plausible but underevidenced. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15762 v1 pith:SEUN7K2Z submitted 2024-12-20 quant-ph

Mathias Pont , Stephen C. Wein , Ilse Maillette de Buy Wenniger , Valentin Guichard , Nathan Coste , Abdelmounaim Harouri , Aristide Lemaître , Isabelle Sagnes
show 5 more authors
Loïc Lanco Nadia Belabas Niccolo Somaschi Sarah E. Thomas Pascale Senellart
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumdotssingle-photonsourcesHong-Ou-MandelinterferenceremoteindistinguishabilitymicropillarcavitiesspectraldiffusionPurcellenhancementopticalcomputing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Quantum information machines made of light will need many sources that emit truly identical photons, not just one bright source recycled many times. This paper claims that separate, cavity-enhanced quantum-dot sources can be brought into mutual coherence: by deterministically positioning quantum dots in micropillar cavities and electrically tuning their wavelengths, the authors match four pairs among five sources and measure remote two-photon Hong-Ou-Mandel visibilities (the interference signal that shows two photons are identical) between 44±1% and 69±1%, the highest reported for quantum dots in cavities. The significance is practical: it would mean multiple bright single-photon sources can be used together in the same photonic circuit. The paper also diagnoses what limits the remaining mismatches, arguing that slow spectral wandering of each source, rather than intrinsic dephasing or temporal mismatch, is the main obstacle left.

What carries the argument

The argument rides on a two-part model of photon overlap. First, Eq. (1) gives the classical temporal overlap $s_{i,j}=4\gamma_i\gamma_j/(\gamma_i+\gamma_j)^2$ for matched frequencies, generalized in Eq. (2) to arbitrary pulse shapes; the measured overlaps are 98.4–99.6%. Second, the paper treats each source's emission frequency as an independent Gaussian random variable with a single exponential correlation time, so that the mean two-photon wavepacket overlap becomes a Voigt function (a Gaussian-broadened Lorentzian line shape) in Eq. (6), and the delay-dependent single-source visibility follows $V(\tau)=V(0)/[1+2\delta\omega_r^2(1-e^{-\Delta\tau/\tau_c})]$ in Eq. (7). Fitting Eq. (7) to the delayed Hong-Ou-Mandel data separates pure dephasing $\gamma^\star$ from spectral-wandering amplitude $\delta\omega$, and Eq. (6) then converts those parameters into a prediction for remote visibility. On the fabrication side, deterministic in-situ lithography plus electrical bias tuning is the machinery that makes the sources bright and mutually resonant in the first place.

What would settle it

Measure the remote Hong-Ou-Mandel visibility while recording (or actively cancelling) each source's emission-frequency fluctuations in real time: if visibility does not rise toward $\sqrt{M_iM_j}$ when the jitter is removed, or if long-delay indistinguishability does not degrade for all pairs, the spectral-wandering explanation is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that remote indistinguishability is not limited to the roughly 40% level previously seen for quantum dots in cavities. Across four pairs of sources built on two samples, the authors measure $V_{\mathrm{TPI}}$ between $(44\pm1)\%$ and $(69\pm1)\%$, with an average of $(54\pm9)\%$, and identify the strongest pair as {IA, IIA} under resonant excitation with an 8 pm spectral filter. The measured remote values lie below the upper bound $\min(s_{i,j},\sqrt{M_iM_j})$ set by the near-unity classical temporal overlap and the 93–97% individual indistinguishabilities, so the shortfall is not pure dephasing or spectral and temporal mismatch. Fitting the delay-dependent indistinguishability of successively emitted photons to the spectral-diffusion law gives pure-dephasing rates $\gamma^\star_{I_A}=(0.17\pm0.01)\,\mathrm{ns}^{-1}$ and $\gamma^\star_{II_A}=(0.03\pm0.01)\,\mathrm{ns}^{-1}$ and spectral-wandering amplitudes $\delta\omega\sim4.7\,\mathrm{ns}^{-1}$ and $2.1\,\mathrm{ns}^{-1}$; plugging these into the Voigt-averaged overlap reproduces the measured remote visibility within error. The authors conclude that independent low-frequency spectral wandering, likely of electrical or magnetic origin, is the main remaining source of distinguishability.

Load-bearing premise

The diagnosis that spectral wandering is the main limiter rests on a fitted model where each source's frequency jitters independently with one characteristic memory time, and the fit uses delay data from one pair with one point treated as an outlier; if the real noise is more complex, the conclusion could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If these values hold, building multi-photon states from several independent, cavity-bright sources is viable, so scaling is no longer limited to demultiplexing one source.
  • Because the remaining distinguishability is dominated by low-frequency spectral wandering, suppressing charge and magnetic noise is the next concrete target.
  • An 8 pm spectral filter raises the best pair's visibility from $(54.8\pm1)\%$ to $(69\pm1)\%$ at roughly half the brightness, showing a tunable tradeoff between rate and indistinguishability.
  • The method works for both neutral and charged quantum dots and under both resonant and phonon-assisted excitation, so the result is not tied to one charge state or pumping scheme.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the spectral-wandering diagnosis would be active frequency locking of both sources to a common reference; if that lifts remote visibility toward the individual-source bound $\sqrt{M_iM_j}\sim95\%$, the diagnosis is confirmed and a practical stabilizer is in hand.
  • The assumption of independent, single-timescale Gaussian jitter could be checked by measuring the two sources' frequency fluctuations simultaneously; correlated noise would make Eq. (6) overestimate the impact of wandering, while non-Gaussian or multi-timescale noise would require a richer model.
  • The same fabrication and tuning platform could be extended to three or more sources to test whether pairwise indistinguishability is transitive enough for multi-photon interference experiments, which is the next natural step toward fault-tolerant optical quantum computing.
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 remote two-photon Hong-Ou-Mandel (HOM) interference between quantum-dot micropillar-cavity sources fabricated from two samples. Five sources are wavelength-matched into four pairs; under resonant or LA-phonon-assisted excitation and with an 8 pm etalon filter, the remote two-photon visibility ranges from (44±1)% to (69±1)% (Table I). The authors measure single-source delay-dependent indistinguishability for the best pair (IA, IIA), fit Eq. (7) to extract pure dephasing and spectral-diffusion parameters, and use these to derive model bounds of 65% (unfiltered) and 71% (filtered) for the remote visibility. They conclude that the residual distinguishability is mostly due to low-frequency spectral wandering and claim record remote indistinguishability for quantum-dot sources in cavities.

Significance. The experimental core is valuable: remote HOM visibilities are measured directly with the standard normalization of Eq. (4), low g(2)(0), and quoted statistical uncertainties, for four independently matched pairs. The 44–69% range is a substantial improvement over the prior ~40% level for QD-cavity sources and is directly relevant to scaling photonic quantum computing. I also note in the paper's favor that the remote-visibility data are not fitted to the model: the model parameters come from single-source delay measurements, so there is no circularity in the main comparison. The weaknesses lie in the mechanistic interpretation and in the strength of the 'record' claim, not in the core HOM measurements.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (7)] The central mechanistic claim—that the remaining distinguishability is mostly due to low-frequency spectral wandering—rests on a single fit to delay-dependent single-source indistinguishability for one pair (IA, IIA). That fit is fragile: the unfiltered IA point at 12 ns is down-weighted to a 10% error because its quoted 0.01% error prevents convergence (footnote [45]), the correlation time tau_c is not reported, and the resulting bounds M_IA,IIA < 65% (unfiltered) and < 71% (filtered) are compared with the measured 54.8% in a one-sided way. An upper bound above the measured value does not validate the mechanism; delay-resolved remote HOM data, or at minimum a robustness analysis of the fit, would be needed. Please report tau_c and the fit residuals, and either strengthen the evidence or soften the claim.
  2. [Section V and abstract] The conclusion is generalized from the single characterized pair (IA, IIA under resonant excitation) to all four pairs and both excitation schemes, but no spectral-diffusion or pure-dephasing parameters are reported for IIB, IIC, or IB. The assumption that every source follows an independent normal frequency distribution with one exponential correlation time is stated in Section V but not tested. The abstract's statement that the remaining distinguishability is 'mostly due to low frequency noise' should therefore be restricted to the measured pair, or supported by per-source delay-dependent data.
  3. [Abstract and Note] The abstract states that the 44–69% values are 'record values for quantum dots in cavities', but the two concurrent works [50,51] are mentioned only in a note without quantitative comparison. If either work reports a higher remote visibility for QD-cavity sources, the record claim is unsupported. Please add a benchmark against [50,51] or qualify the claim as 'to our knowledge'.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption lists the four pairs as {IA, IIA}, {IA, IIB}, {IB, IIB} and {IB, IIB}; the second occurrence of {IB, IIB} should be {IA, IIC} to agree with the text and Table I.
  2. [Section III and Table I] The text reports T1,IA=(162±1) ps for the resonant-excitation fit, while Table I gives T1,IA=162±7 ps; the discrepancy in uncertainty should be explained.
  3. [Table II] The header of the last column, 'M_i^p M_i M_j', is unclear; it should be labeled as the geometric mean sqrt(M_i M_j), if that is what is reported.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'indistinguishabiltiy' in the abstract, 'exictation' in the Fig. 2 caption, and 'Mach-Zender' in Section IV; these should be corrected.
  5. [Footnote [45]] The footnote describes treating one data point as a possible outlier with a 10% error bar, but no quantitative criterion is given; state the criterion or show the fit with and without that point.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: remote HOM visibilities are directly measured, and the spectral-diffusion model is fitted to single-source delay data before being compared with the remote values.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims are the remote two-photon visibilities V_TPI in Table I, computed from Eq. (4) as 1 - A_parallel/A_perp from measured parallel and perpendicular coincidences; these are direct measurements, not outputs of any fitted model. The Section V attribution of residual distinguishability to low-frequency spectral wandering uses Eq. (7) fitted to delay-dependent indistinguishability of individual sources IA and IIA (Fig. 5) to extract gamma* and delta_omega, then inserts these single-source parameters into Eq. (6) to derive an upper bound M_IA,IIA < 65% (unfiltered) or < 71% (filtered). Because the remote visibilities (54.8% and 69%) are not used in this fit, the model comparison is not an identity or a fitted-input-called-prediction. The upper bound M_ij <= min(s_ij, sqrt(M_i M_j)) is derived from the measured classical overlaps and individual indistinguishabilities and compared with the measured remote values, again without fitting the remote result. The citations to prior group work ([37] device benchmark, [43] spectral-diffusion model) are self-citations, but they are not load-bearing circularity: the remote interference values are independently measured and the model is parameterized on new data under stated assumptions (independent Gaussian frequency fluctuations, single exponential correlation time). The robustness weaknesses—the outlier down-weighting in footnote [45], the unreported correlation timescale tau_c, and the unbenchmarked concurrent works [50,51]—are correctness or external-validation concerns, not circular reductions of the derivation to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experimental claim rests on measured lifetimes and visibilities, which are not free parameters. The interpretive claim about spectral wandering, however, depends on several fitted parameters (dephasing rates, diffusion amplitudes, correlation time, dipole angles) and on modeling assumptions about the noise statistics.

free parameters (6)
  • Pure dephasing rate gamma*_IA = 0.17 ± 0.01 ns^-1
    Fitted from delay-dependent indistinguishability of source IA using Eq. (7) (Section V).
  • Pure dephasing rate gamma*_IIA = 0.03 ± 0.01 ns^-1
    Fitted from delay-dependent indistinguishability of source IIA using Eq. (7) (Section V).
  • Spectral diffusion amplitude delta-omega_IA = 4.7 ns^-1 (without filter), 4.6 ns^-1 (with filter)
    Fitted from Eq. (7); no error bars reported.
  • Spectral diffusion amplitude delta-omega_IIA = 2.12 ns^-1 (without filter), 1.78 ns^-1 (with filter)
    Fitted from Eq. (7); no error bars reported.
  • Spectral wandering correlation time tau_c = not reported
    Appears in Eq. (7) and is needed to fit the delay dependence, but the fitted value is not given.
  • Exciton dipole angle theta for IA and IIA = not reported
    Used in Eq. (3) for resonant excitation temporal fits; fitted values not stated.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Equation (1) gives the two-photon wavepacket overlap for mono-exponential decay sources
    Taken from ref [23]; assumes Lorentzian spectra and no dephasing.
  • domain assumption The upper bound Mi,j <= min(si,j, sqrt(MiMj)) for remote overlap
    Stated in Section V with derivation deferred to Supporting Information; assumes independent sources.
  • domain assumption Spectral wander of each source is an independent normal process with a single exponential correlation time
    Introduced in Section V before Eq. (6), following ref [43].
  • domain assumption The etalon spectral filter does not alter the temporal decay
    Asserted in Section IV with reference to Supporting Information.
  • domain assumption Neutral QD resonant emission is described by two non-degenerate dipoles with beating in Eq. (3)
    Used to fit the temporal decay for resonant excitation in Section III.
  • domain assumption Second-order correlation g(2)(0) is negligible so the remote mean wavepacket overlap equals the measured HOM visibility
    Section V, citing ref [42].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Indistinguishability of remote quantum dot-cavity single-photon sources." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SEUN7K2Z

@misc{pith2026241215762,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Indistinguishability of remote quantum dot-cavity single-photon sources},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SEUN7K2Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15762}
}
abstract

Generating identical photons from remote emitter-based bright single-photon sources is an important step for scaling up optical quantum technologies. Here, we study the Hong-Ou-Mandel interference of photons emitted from remote sources based on semiconductor quantum dots. We make use of a deterministic fabrication technique to position the quantum dots in a spectrally resonant micropillar cavity and fine tune their operation wavelength electrically. Doing so, we can match four pairs of sources between five distinct sources, study them under various excitation schemes and measure their degree of indistinguishability. We demonstrate remote indistinguishabiltiy between 44$\pm$1% and 69$\pm$1% depending on the pair of sources and excitation conditions, record values for quantum dots in cavities. The relative contribution of pure dephasing and spectral diffusion is then analysed, revealing that the remaining distinguishability is mostly due to low frequency noise

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15762 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Optical microscope image of the two samples [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Overlapped time evolution of the PL emission (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: (a) Scheme of the experimental setup used to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Indistinguishability of sources I [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [45]

    We use an error bar of 10% during fit to account for a possible outlier, but display the measure value of 2% in Fig

    The datapoint for source I A without filtering for a delay between photons of ∆t=12 ns has been treated differently in the numerical fit as it does not allow the fit to converge. We use an error bar of 10% during fit to account for a possible outlier, but display the measure value of 2% in Fig. 5

    work page

  2. [1]

    Zhong, Y

    H.-S. Zhong, Y. Li, W. Li, L.-C. Peng, Z.-E. Su, Y. Hu, Y.-M. He, X. Ding, W. Zhang, H. Li, et al., Physical review letters 121, 250505 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

    Wang, Y.-H

    X.-L. Wang, Y.-H. Luo, H.-L. Huang, M.-C. Chen, Z.-E. Su, C. Liu, C. Chen, W. Li, Y.-Q. Fang, X. Jiang, et al., Physical review letters 120, 260502 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    Vigliar, S

    C. Vigliar, S. Paesani, Y. Ding, J. C. Adcock, J. Wang, S. Morley-Short, D. Bacco, L. K. Oxenløwe, M. G. Thompson, J. G. Rarity, et al., Nature Physics 17, 1137 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Alexander, A

    K. Alexander, A. Bahgat, A. Benyamini, D. Black, D. Bonneau, S. Burgos, B. Burridge, G. Camp- bell, G. Catalano, A. Ceballos, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.17570 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    Senellart, G

    P. Senellart, G. Solomon, and A. White, Nature nan- otechnology 12, 1026 (2017)

    2017

  7. [6]

    Somaschi, V

    N. Somaschi, V. Giesz, L. De Santis, J. Loredo, M. P. Almeida, G. Hornecker, S. L. Portalupi, T. Grange, C. Anton, J. Demory, et al., Nature Photonics 10, 340 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [7]

    N. Tomm, A. Javadi, N. O. Antoniadis, D. Najer, M. C. L¨ obl, A. R. Korsch, R. Schott, S. R. Valentin, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, et al., Nature Nanotechnology 16, 399 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 52 references
  1. [8]

    R. Uppu, F. T. Pedersen, Y. Wang, C. T. Olesen, C. Pa- pon, X. Zhou, L. Midolo, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Lud- wig, et al., Science advances 6, eabc8268 (2020)

    2020

  2. [9]

    H. Wang, J. Qin, X. Ding, M.-C. Chen, S. Chen, X. You, Y.-M. He, X. Jiang, L. You, Z. Wang, et al., Physical review letters 123, 250503 (2019)

    2019

  3. [10]

    H. Cao, L. Hansen, F. Giorgino, L. Carosini, P. Za- halka, F. Zilk, J. Loredo, and P. Walther, arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.05709 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  4. [11]

    L. M. Hansen, L. Carosini, L. Jehle, F. Giorgino, R. Hou- venaghel, M. Vyvlecka, J. C. Loredo, and P. Walther, arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12956 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Maring, A

    N. Maring, A. Fyrillas, M. Pont, E. Ivanov, P. Stepanov, N. Margaria, W. Hease, A. Pishchagin, T. H. Au, S. Boissier, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.00874 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  6. [13]

    J.-P. Li, J. Qin, A. Chen, Z.-C. Duan, Y. Yu, Y. Huo, S. H¨ ofling, C.-Y. Lu, K. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, ACS Photonics 7, 1603 (2020)

    2020

  7. [14]

    J.-P. Li, X. Gu, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. You, H. Wang, C. Schneider, S. H¨ ofling, Y.-H. Huo, C.-Y. Lu, et al., Physical Review Letters 126, 140501 (2021)

    2021

  8. [15]

    M. Pont, R. Albiero, S. E. Thomas, N. Spagnolo, F. Cec- carelli, G. Corrielli, A. Brieussel, N. Somaschi, H. Huet, A. Harouri, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.13333 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  9. [16]

    M. Pont, G. Corrielli, A. Fyrillas, I. Agresti, G. Carvacho, N. Maring, P.-E. Emeriau, F. Ceccarelli, R. Albiero, P. H. Ferreira, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.15626 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  10. [17]

    S. C. Wein, T. G. de Brugi` ere, L. Music, P. Senel- lart, B. Bourdoncle, and S. Mansfield, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.08611 (2024)

    2024

  11. [18]

    R. B. Patel, A. J. Bennett, I. Farrer, C. A. Nicoll, D. A. Ritchie, and A. J. Shields, Nature photonics 4, 632 (2010)

    2010

  12. [19]

    E. B. Flagg, A. Muller, S. V. Polyakov, A. Ling, A. Migdall, and G. S. Solomon, Physical Review Let- ters 104, 137401 (2010)

    2010

  13. [20]

    W. Gao, P. Fallahi, E. Togan, A. Delteil, Y. Chin, J. Miguel-Sanchez, and A. Imamo˘ glu, Nature commu- nications 4, 1 (2013)

    2013

  14. [21]

    He, Y.-M

    Y. He, Y.-M. He, Y.-J. Wei, X. Jiang, M.-C. Chen, F.- L. Xiong, Y. Zhao, C. Schneider, M. Kamp, S. H¨ ofling, et al., Physical review letters 111, 237403 (2013). 8

    2013

  15. [22]

    P. Gold, A. Thoma, S. Maier, S. Reitzenstein, C. Schnei- der, S. H¨ ofling, and M. Kamp, Physical Review B 89, 035313 (2014)

    2014

  16. [23]

    Giesz, S

    V. Giesz, S. Portalupi, T. Grange, C. Ant´ on, L. De San- tis, J. Demory, N. Somaschi, I. Sagnes, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, L. Lanco, et al., Physical Review B 92, 161302 (2015)

    2015

  17. [24]

    J.-H. Kim, C. J. Richardson, R. P. Leavitt, and E. Waks, Nano Letters 16, 7061 (2016)

    2016

  18. [25]

    K. D. J¨ ons, K. Stensson, M. Reindl, M. Swillo, Y. Huo, V. Zwiller, A. Rastelli, R. Trotta, and G. Bj¨ ork, Physical Review B 96, 075430 (2017)

    2017

  19. [26]

    Reindl, K

    M. Reindl, K. D. Jons, D. Huber, C. Schimpf, Y. Huo, V. Zwiller, A. Rastelli, and R. Trotta, Nano letters 17, 4090 (2017)

    2017

  20. [27]

    J. H. Weber, J. Kettler, H. Vural, M. M¨ uller, J. Maisch, M. Jetter, S. L. Portalupi, and P. Michler, Physical Re- view B 97, 195414 (2018)

    2018

  21. [28]

    Thoma, P

    A. Thoma, P. Schnauber, J. B¨ ohm, M. Gschrey, J.-H. Schulze, A. Strittmatter, S. Rodt, T. Heindel, and S. Re- itzenstein, Applied Physics Letters 110, 011104 (2017)

    2017

  22. [29]

    M. Zopf, T. Macha, R. Keil, E. Uru˜ nuela, Y. Chen, W. Alt, L. Ratschbacher, F. Ding, D. Meschede, and O. G. Schmidt, Physical Review B 98, 161302 (2018)

    2018

  23. [30]

    J. H. Weber, B. Kambs, J. Kettler, S. Kern, J. Maisch, H. Vural, M. Jetter, S. L. Portalupi, C. Becher, and P. Michler, Nature nanotechnology 14, 23 (2019)

    2019

  24. [31]

    L. Zhai, G. N. Nguyen, C. Spinnler, J. Ritzmann, M. C. L¨ obl, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, A. Javadi, and R. J. Warburton, Nature Nanotechnology , 1 (2022)

    2022

  25. [32]

    You, M.-Y

    X. You, M.-Y. Zheng, S. Chen, R.-Z. Liu, J. Qin, M.- C. Xu, Z.-X. Ge, T.-H. Chung, Y.-K. Qiao, Y.-F. Jiang, et al., Advanced Photonics 4, 066003 (2022)

    2022

  26. [33]

    Papon, Y

    C. Papon, Y. Wang, R. Uppu, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, P. Lodahl, and L. Midolo, arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09826 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Dusanowski, D

    L. Dusanowski, D. K¨ ock, C. Schneider, and S. H¨ ofling, arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.01706 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Dousse, L

    A. Dousse, L. Lanco, J. Suffczy´ nski, E. Semenova, A. Mi- ard, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, C. Roblin, J. Bloch, and P. Senellart, Physical review letters 101, 267404 (2008)

    2008

  29. [36]

    Nowak, S

    A. Nowak, S. Portalupi, V. Giesz, O. Gazzano, C. Dal Savio, P.-F. Braun, K. Karrai, C. Arnold, L. Lanco, I. Sagnes, et al., Nature communications 5, 1 (2014)

    2014

  30. [37]

    Ollivier, I

    H. Ollivier, I. M. d. B. Wenniger, S. Thomas, S. Wein, G. Coppola, A. Harouri, P. Hilaire, C. Millet, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, O. Krebs, L. Lanco, J. C. Loredo, C. Ant´ on, N. Somaschi, and P. Senellart, ACS Photonics 7, 1050 (2020), arXiv: 1910.08863

    2020 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Thomas, M

    S. Thomas, M. Billard, N. Coste, S. Wein, H. Ollivier, O. Krebs, L. Taza ¨ ırt, A. Harouri, A. Lemaitre, I. Sagnes, et al., Physical Review Letters 126, 233601 (2021)

    2021

  32. [39]

    Ding, Y.-P

    X. Ding, Y.-P. Guo, M.-C. Xu, R.-Z. Liu, G.-Y. Zou, J.- Y. Zhao, Z.-X. Ge, Q.-H. Zhang, H.-L. Liu, L.-J. Wang, et al., arXiv:2311.08347 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Coste, D

    N. Coste, D. Fioretto, N. Belabas, S. Wein, P. Hilaire, R. Frantzeskakis, M. Gundin, B. Goes, N. Somaschi, M. Morassi, et al., Nature Photonics 17, 582 (2023)

    2023

  34. [41]

    Gammon, E

    D. Gammon, E. Snow, B. Shanabrook, D. Katzer, and D. Park, Physical review letters 76, 3005 (1996)

    1996

  35. [42]

    The single-photon indistinguishability M can be com- puted from the visibility of the Hong-Ou-Mandel in- terference fringe VH OM and the g(2)(0) as M = VHOM +g((2)(0) 1−g(2)(0) [52]

  36. [43]

    J. C. Loredo, N. A. Zakaria, N. Somaschi, C. Anton, L. De Santis, V. Giesz, T. Grange, M. A. Broome, O. Gazzano, G. Coppola, et al., Optica 3, 433 (2016)

    2016

  37. [44]

    Such simplication can be done for lorentzian single pho- ton spectra

  38. [46]

    De Santis, C

    L. De Santis, C. Ant´ on, B. Reznychenko, N. Somaschi, G. Coppola, J. Senellart, C. G´ omez, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, A. G. White, et al., Nature nanotechnology 12, 663 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    A. V. Kuhlmann, J. Houel, A. Ludwig, L. Greuter, D. Reuter, A. D. Wieck, M. Poggio, and R. J. War- burton, Nature Physics 9, 570 (2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    de Gliniasty, P

    G. de Gliniasty, P. Hilaire, P.-E. Emeriau, S. C. Wein, A. Salavrakos, and S. Mansfield, Quantum 8, 1423 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Hilaire, T

    P. Hilaire, T. Dessertaine, B. Bourdoncle, A. Denys, G. de Gliniasty, G. Valent ´ ı-Rojas, and S. Mansfield, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07065 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    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., arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12387 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Strobel, M

    T. Strobel, M. Vyvlecka, I. Neureuther, T. Bauer, M. Sch¨ afer, S. Kazmaier, N. L. Sharma, R. Joos, J. H. Weber, C. Nawrath, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12904 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Ollivier, S

    H. Ollivier, S. Thomas, S. Wein, I. M. de Buy Wen- niger, N. Coste, J. Loredo, N. Somaschi, A. Harouri, A. Lemaitre, I. Sagnes, et al., Physical Review Letters 126, 063602 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.