Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Analytical Fidelity Calculations for Photonic Linear Cluster State Generation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An analytical error model shows that photonic cluster states from quantum dots can reach near-unity fidelity at gigahertz clock rates.

desk verdict The central fidelity formula as printed is not a fidelity—it evaluates to 2^n at zero errors—so the near-unity numbers in Table 1 need a normalization fix and a benchmark before they can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11078 v1 pith:XSYUUOID submitted 2025-05-16 quant-ph

Rohit Prasad , Simon Rei{ss} , Giora Peniakov , Yorick Reum , Peter van Loock , Sven Höfling , Tobias Huber-Loyola , Andreas Theo Pfenning This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords photonicclusterstatesquantumdotspin-photonsourcesensemblefidelitypartialspinreinitializationdecoherenceexcited-statelifetimeg-factorratioexcitationtimingoptimization
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

Spin-based single-photon emitters can, in principle, grow chains of entangled photons that are useful for measurement-based quantum computing. This paper develops an analytical model that tracks the full density matrix through the pulsed-excitation generation protocol and turns the effect of realistic imperfections—excitation-pulse timing jitter, spin decoherence, finite excited-state lifetime, and unequal ground/excited g-factors—into closed-form ensemble fidelities. The central claim is that each emitted photon partially reinitializes the spin, so a short spin coherence time does not set a hard limit on the length of the cluster state, and that with currently demonstrated GaAs quantum-dot parameters a 7-photon cluster state can be produced with fidelity 0.99739 at a 1 GHz clock rate. A sympathetic reader would care because high-fidelity linear cluster sources are the main resource bottleneck in fusion-based optical quantum computing, and the model identifies which device parameters actually need improving.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is an algorithm that propagates the global density matrix through the generation circuit and produces an effective rotation error for the $i$th emitted photon, $$$e_i^{{(r,4)}}$=\left(\frac{\pi}{2\omega}+e_i-e_{i-1}-t_{i-1}\right)\omega' + g_{\mathrm{ratio}}t_i\omega' - \frac{\pi}{2},$$ where $e_i$ are pulse-timing errors, $t_i$ the excited-state residence times, $\omega'$ the actual spin precession frequency, and $g_{\mathrm{ratio}}=g_{\mathrm{ex}}/g_{\mathrm{gs}}$. The ensemble fidelity is then the average of the single-experiment fidelity from Eq. (2a) over a Gaussian frequency distribution with width set by $T_2^*$ and over the lifetime distribution, giving Eq. (10). The 'partial reinitialization' effect appears in the structure of the rotation errors: each photon emission localizes the error and resets the phase reference for the next excitation.

What would settle it

Measure the fidelity of the 7-photon cluster state from a device with $\tau=23$ ps and $T_2^*=535$ ns while separately characterizing the excitation efficiency and re-excitation probability; if the observed fidelity falls materially below 0.99739 and the shortfall tracks the excitation-error rate, the perfect-CNOT assumption in the model is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the fidelity of an $n$-photon linear cluster state generated by the pulsed spin-emission protocol can be written as a closed-form integral over physically meaningful error parameters. Its Eq. (10) combines, for each emitted photon, a rotation error $e_i^{(r,4)}$ that depends on pulse-timing errors, the time the spin spends in the excited state, and the ratio $g_{\mathrm{ex}}/g_{\mathrm{gs}}$ of excited-state to ground-state g-factors; the ensemble is averaged over a Gaussian spread of spin precession frequencies (set by $T_2^*$) and the probabilistic lifetime distribution of the emitter. Evaluating this model at experimentally demonstrated parameters—cavity-shortened lifetime 23 ps, spin coherence time 535 ns, and $g_{\mathrm{ex}}/g_{\mathrm{gs}}\approx 0$—gives an $R_y(\pi/2)$ gate fidelity of 0.99965, a 3-photon cluster-state fidelity of 0.99869, and a 7-photon fidelity of 0.99739. The same calculation shows that the optimal spin precession period is independent of cluster length, because each photon emission partially reinitializes the spin, so one optimal operating point serves states of any size.

Load-bearing premise

The calculations treat the entangling photon-emission step as effectively perfect, because post-selection removes events without excitation, and set the excitation rise time to zero; if excitation failure, re-excitation, photon loss, or photon indistinguishability are not negligible, all quoted fidelities are upper bounds rather than achievable values, which the authors themselves flag as the next dominant error source.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a device with 23 ps lifetime, 535 ns coherence time, and near-zero excited-state g-factor, the model says near-unity gate and 7-photon state fidelities are reachable at a 1 GHz clock rate, so material properties alone need not limit source performance.
  • Because the optimal precession time is independent of cluster length, a single calibrated clock setting can be used for 3-, 7-, or longer cluster states.
  • The model predicts a trade-off between lifetime error and decoherence, so each sample has a finite optimal spin precession frequency that maximizes entangling-gate fidelity.
  • Partial reinitialization implies cluster-state fidelity decays with chain length more slowly than the spin coherence envelope, allowing strings built over times longer than $T_2^*$ to remain useful.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same density-matrix tracking could be applied to other spin-photon platforms—trapped atoms, defects in solids—by replacing the lifetime population function and g-factor ratio, producing comparable design curves without numerical simulation.
  • Editorial inference: the closed-form fidelity can be used in reverse as a design tolerance tool, e.g., specifying the cavity enhancement needed to meet a given fidelity threshold, or the maximum acceptable pulse-timing jitter.
  • Editorial inference: since the quoted fidelities are conditional on perfect excitation, the practical near-unity claim should be read as an error-budget splitting prescription: the spin-error component is now below other source errors, so engineering effort should move to excitation and re-excitation suppression.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops an analytical error model for linear photonic cluster state generation via the Lindner-Rudolph protocol with a quantum-dot emitter. The authors introduce rotation-error variables that combine pulse-timing offsets, ground- and excited-state Larmor precession, finite excited-state lifetime, and the ratio of excited to ground-state g-factors. They claim to track the global density matrix analytically and derive closed-form expressions for the entangling-gate fidelity and the ensemble state fidelity, Eqs. (2a) and (2b), and then integrate these over Gaussian spin-frequency disorder and exponential lifetime distributions, Eqs. (10) and (11). Using experimentally reported parameters for four quantum-dot systems, Table 1 reports Ry gate fidelities and 3- and 7-photon linear cluster state fidelities, including a combined state-of-the-art GaAs quantum-dot case with gate fidelity 0.99965 and 7-photon state fidelity 0.99739 at a 1 GHz clock rate. The paper also argues that photon emission causes partial reinitialization of the spin coherence, so that the spin coherence time does not impose a hard limit on cluster-state length, and it studies trade-offs between lifetime, coherence time, and g-factor ratio to identify optimal operating points.

Significance. If the analytical expressions are correct, the work would provide a useful and computationally cheap design tool for optimizing Lindner-Rudolph sources, and the partial-reinitialization effect is a physically important message for the quantum-dot single-photon-source community. The paper is not circular: no free parameters are fitted to target fidelities, and experimental parameters enter as literature inputs. Its strengths are the explicit factorization of physically motivated error channels and the comparison across four concrete material systems. However, the central formulas as printed are not valid fidelities, and the derivation is not auditable from the manuscript; these issues must be fixed before the quantitative conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (2a) and Eq. (2b)] As printed, Eq. (2a) cannot be a state fidelity. With all rotation errors set to zero, sin(e_i^(r))=0 and cos(e_i^(r))=1, and the sum over even-cardinality nonempty subsets of {1,...,n+1} contains 2^n terms, so the expression evaluates to 2^n (for n=1 it gives 2). A fidelity to the ideal cluster state must equal 1 in this limit. Similarly, Eq. (2b) evaluates to 1/2 at e_1^(r)=0, whereas the text in the same section defines the Ry gate fidelity as cos^2(e/2). Because Table 1 is computed from these expressions, every quoted fidelity is suspect. The manuscript should display the normalized formula, provide the computer-algebra output for at least n=2, and verify the ensemble result against an exact master-equation propagation.
  2. [§2.2, Eqs. (2a), (10), (11)] The derivation leading to Eq. (2a) and to the analytical integrals is not shown. The text states that an algorithm tracks the global density matrix through 'matrix operators', but neither the operators nor the step-by-step reduction is given, and no Mathematica notebook or numerical benchmark is supplied. A reader cannot audit the normalization, the sign of the sine product, or the integration limits. Please provide a full derivation in an appendix or supplementary material, and benchmark the resulting fidelities for n=2 and n=3 against a direct numerical master-equation propagation that includes the same modeled noise channels.
  3. [§2.2, p. 10-11; §2.2, p. 17; Table 1] The near-unity headline numbers are conditional on several omitted error channels. The model takes the entangling CNOT to be effectively unity because post-selection removes events lacking excitation (p. 10-11), and it sets the excitation rise time to zero (p. 17). As the authors state on p. 26, pulse width, re-excitation, and state-preparation fidelity 'may now dominate' for state-of-the-art parameters. Table 1 therefore reports upper bounds under idealized excitation, and the abstract's claim that near-unity fidelities 'can be reached' is too strong without quantifying these channels. Please either model these errors or explicitly label every reported fidelity as an upper bound conditional on negligible excitation failure, re-excitation, photon loss, and photon indistinguishability.
  4. [§2.2, last paragraph; §3] The statement that conclusions obtained for 2- to 4-qubit states 'can readily be extended to states of arbitrary size' is an assertion rather than a demonstrated result, especially because the text also says that solving the integration becomes an 'n-fold exponentially growing problem'. The partial-reinitialization argument supports locality of errors, but a scaling claim for arbitrary n needs either a closed-form scaling expression or explicit demonstration for larger n. Please provide a derivation or a numerical demonstration for at least n=5 or n=6, or state the restriction to small n as a limitation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2a)] The summation bound '1≤k≤ n+1/2' is ambiguous; it presumably means 1≤k≤floor((n+1)/2). Please write this explicitly.
  2. [§2.2, Eq. (10)] Eq. (10) integrates over the frequency disorder and the lifetime variables t_i, but not over the pulse-timing offsets e_i. If these offsets are deterministic tunable parameters, please state this; if they are experimental jitter, a distribution over e_i is needed for an ensemble fidelity.
  3. [p. 19] The phrase 'rotation error Ry(π + e(r))' appears to be a typo; the context indicates Ry(π/2 + e^(r)). Please correct it.
  4. [p. 28] The final paragraph contains typos: 'ant its results derived here, will be useful fur optimizing' should be 'and its results derived here, will be useful for optimizing'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: fidelities are outputs of an analytic density-matrix model evaluated with externally supplied experimental parameters; no fitted target quantity or load-bearing self-citation chain is present.

full rationale

The paper's central quantity is the ensemble fidelity defined in Eq. (1) as an average of single-shot fidelities. The single-shot fidelity entering Eq. (10) is presented as the result of an analytic density-matrix tracking algorithm, not as a value fitted to any measurement. The error parameters in Eqs. (3)-(8) are defined from physical inputs: pulse timing errors, spin precession frequencies, excited-state lifetime distribution, and g-factor ratio. The probability distribution in Eq. (9) is the product of a Gaussian frequency spread with sigma_c = sqrt(2)/T2* and the lifetime distribution; no parameter in these distributions is adjusted to match the fidelities later reported. Table 1 uses independently measured experimental parameters from Refs. [28]-[33] or stated laboratory values and evaluates Eq. (10); the reported fidelities are outputs, not fit targets. The partial-reinitialization conclusion follows from the structure of the rotation-error recursion, in which each e_i^(r,4) depends on the immediately preceding timing and lifetime rather than on an accumulated phase; this is a derived property of the error model, not an input assumption. Self-citations appear in the motivation ([16], a coauthor manuscript in preparation, alongside external Ref. [17]) and as experimental parameter sources; they do not supply model constants, uniqueness theorems, or forbid alternatives, so they are not load-bearing. The paper explicitly states that excitation-scheme errors such as pulse width, re-excitation, and state-preparation fidelity are omitted and may now dominate; that is an honest scope limitation, not circularity. There is a separate internal-consistency concern: as printed, Eq. (2a) evaluates to 2^n at zero rotation error and Eq. (2b) gives 1/2 at zero error, suggesting a missing normalization or transcription error. That is a correctness issue, not a circular reduction of the predicted fidelities to their inputs.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters fitted to the target fidelities; T2*, tau, and g-ratio are experimental inputs from prior literature. The central derivation rests on the error decomposition in Eqs. (3)-(8), where each rotation error involves only the current and immediately preceding lifetimes; this form encodes partial reinitialization. The CNOT-fidelity-unity and instantaneous-excitation assumptions make Table 1 an upper bound. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The photon emission step implements a polarization-preserving deexcitation, and post-selection removes events lacking excitation, so the CNOT gate fidelity is effectively unity.
    Load-bearing because it lets the model reduce all error to the Ry gate; excitation failure and photon loss are explicitly set aside (Section 2.2, p.10-11).
  • domain assumption Spin decoherence is represented as a Gaussian distribution of angular precession frequencies with standard deviation sqrt(2)/T2*.
    Standard inhomogeneous dephasing model; Eq. (4) in Section 2.2. It converts T2* into a frequency spread.
  • domain assumption Excited state population follows an error-function rise times an exponential decay, and the excitation is taken as instantaneous (tau_r goes to 0).
    Eq. (6) and the simplification on p.17; this turns the lifetime integral into a one-sided exponential integral. A finite pulse width is ignored.
  • ad hoc to paper The combined rotation error for pulse i depends only on the immediately preceding decay time t_{i-1} and the current decay time t_i, implementing partial reinitialization by construction.
    Eq. (8) is stated after algorithm evaluation but its derivation is not shown. The conclusion that errors localize and the coherence limitation is lifted follows from this form.
  • domain assumption Landé g-factors are constant scalars; g-factor anisotropy is neglected.
    Stated on p.16 as appropriate for the scope; the fidelity numbers depend on the scalar ratio g_excited/g_ground.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytical Fidelity Calculations for Photonic Linear Cluster State Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XSYUUOID

@misc{pith2026250511078,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytical Fidelity Calculations for Photonic Linear Cluster State Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XSYUUOID}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11078}
}
read the original abstract

By precisely timed optical excitation of their spin, optical emitters such as semiconductor quantum dots or atoms can be harnessed as sources of linear photonic cluster states. This significantly reduces the required resource overhead to reach fault-tolerant optical quantum computing. Here, we develop an algorithm that analytically tracks the global density matrix through the process of the protocol for generating linear-cluster states by Lindner and Rudolph. From this we derive a model to calculate the entangling gate fidelity and the state fidelity of the generated linear optical cluster states. Our model factors in various sources of error, such as spin decoherence and the finite excited state lifetime. Additionally, we highlight the presence of partial reinitialization of spin coherence with each photon emission, eliminating the hard limitation of coherence time. Our framework provides valuable insight into the cost-to-improvement trade-offs for device design parameters as well as the identification of optimal working points. For a combined state-of-the-art quantum dot with a spin coherence time of T_2^*=535 ns and an excited state lifetime of {\tau}=23 ps, we show that a near-unity entangling gate fidelity as well as near-unity state fidelity for 3-photon and 7-photon linear cluster states can be reached.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.11078 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Linear cluster states via the Lindner-Rudolph protocol. (a) Quantum circuit notation. The creation of a linear cluster state can be depicted in a quantum circuit notation by preparing all qubits in the |+⟩ state, e.g., by using a Hadamard (H) gate on a |0⟩ state and entangling all neighboring qubits by applying controlled Pauli Z gates. Green dots represent the photons entangled through a controlled Z gate. (b) Sche… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Rotation deviation affecting fidelity. (a) The rotation error by the pulse timing is depicted in the Bloch sphere. (b) A depiction of the quantum state evolution, incorporating pulse timing errors 𝑒𝑖 , and 𝑡𝑖 denotes the time the spin spends in the excited state during the emission of the 𝑖 𝑡ℎ photon. With the photon emission acting as the partial initialization, the polarization of the i th photon is influenced by … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics, Nature 409, 46 (2001). DOI: 10.1038/35051009

    doi:10.1038/35051009 2001

  2. [2]

    Raussendorf and H

    R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A One-Way Quantum Computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188 (2001). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.5188

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.86.5188 2001

  3. [3]

    H. J. Briegel and R. Raussendorf, Persistent Entanglement in Arrays of Interacting Particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 910 (2001). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.910

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.86.910 2001

  4. [4]

    Walther, K

    P. Walther, K. J. Resch, T. Rudolph, E. Schenck, H. Weinfurter, V. Vedral, M. Aspelmeyer, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental one-way quantum computing, Nature 434, 169 (2005). DOI: 10.1038/nature03347

    doi:10.1038/nature03347 2005

  5. [5]

    Bartolucci et al., Fusion-based quantum computation, Nat

    S. Bartolucci et al., Fusion-based quantum computation, Nat. Commun. 14, 912 (2023). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-36493-1

    doi:10.1038/s41467-023-36493-1 2023

  6. [6]

    Melkozerov, A

    A. Melkozerov, A. Avanesov, I. Dyakonov, and S. Straupe, Analysis of optical loss thresholds in the fusion - based quantum computing architecture, APL Quantum 1, (2024). DOI: 10.1063/5.0214728

    doi:10.1063/5.0214728 2024

  7. [7]

    Istrati et al., Sequential generation of linear cluster states from a single photon emitter, Nat

    D. Istrati et al., Sequential generation of linear cluster states from a single photon emitter, Nat. Commun. 11, 5501 (2020). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-19341-4

    doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19341-4 2020

  8. [8]

    Chen et al., Heralded Three-Photon Entanglement from a Single-Photon Source on a Photonic Chip, Phys

    S. Chen et al., Heralded Three-Photon Entanglement from a Single-Photon Source on a Photonic Chip, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 130603 (2024). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.130603

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.130603 2024

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    H. Cao, L. M. Hansen, F. Giorgino, L. Carosini, P. Zahálka, F. Zilk, J. C. Loredo, and P. Walther, Photonic Source of Heralded Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 130604 (2024). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.130604

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Kiesel, C

    N. Kiesel, C. Schmid, U. Weber, G. Tóth, O. Gühne, R. Ursin, and H. Weinfurter, Experimental Analysis of a Four-Qubit Photon Cluster State, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 210502 (2005). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.210502

    2005 doi

  3. [11]

    Schwartz, D

    I. Schwartz, D. Cogan, E. R. Schmidgall, Y. Don, L. Gantz, O. Kenneth, N. H. Lindner, and D. Gershoni, Deterministic generation of a cluster state of entangled photons, Science (80 -. ). 354, 434 (2016). DOI: 10.1126/science.aah4758

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    Cogan, Z.-E

    D. Cogan, Z.-E. Su, O. Kenneth, and D. Gershoni, Deterministic generation of indistinguishable photons in a cluster state, Nat. Photonics 354, 434 (2023). DOI: 10.1038/s41566-022-01152-2

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Coste et al., High-rate entanglement between a semiconductor spin and indistinguishable photons, Nat

    N. Coste et al., High-rate entanglement between a semiconductor spin and indistinguishable photons, Nat. Photonics 17, 582 (2023). DOI: 10.1038/s41566-023-01186-0

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Thomas, L

    P. Thomas, L. Ruscio, O. Morin, and G. Rempe, Efficient generation of entangled multiphoton graph states from a single atom, Nature 608, 677 (2022). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-04987-5

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    N. H. Lindner and T. Rudolph, Proposal for Pulsed On-Demand Sources of Photonic Cluster State Strings, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 113602 (2009). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.113602

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    Reum, Manuscript in preparation: Fault-tolerant optical quantum computing is closer than you might think — thanks to semiconductor quantum dots, (2025)

    Y. Reum, Manuscript in preparation: Fault-tolerant optical quantum computing is closer than you might think — thanks to semiconductor quantum dots, (2025). DOI: Not available (manuscript in preparation)

    2025

  9. [17]

    S. C. Wein, T. G. de Brugière, L. Music, P. Senellart, B. Bourdoncle, and S. Mansfield, Minimizing resource overhead in fusion-based quantum computation using hybrid spin-photon devices, (2024). DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.08611

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    M. L. Chan, T. J. Bell, L. A. Pettersson, S. X. Chen, P. Yard, A. S. Sørensen, and S. Paesani, Tailoring Fusion-Based Photonic Quantum Computing Schemes to Quantum Emitters, PRX Quantum 6, 020304 (2025). DOI: 10.1103/PRXQuantum.6.020304

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    Wiesner, H

    F. Wiesner, H. M. Chrzanowski, G. Pieplow, T. Schröder, A. Pappa, and J. Wolters, The influence of experimental imperfections on photonic GHZ state generation, New J. Phys. 26, 113021 (2024). DOI 10.1088/1367-2630/ad916f

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Qin, W.-R

    Z. Qin, W.-R. Lee, B. DeMarco, B. Gadway, S. Kotochigova, and V. W. Scarola, Quantifying entanglement in cluster states built with error-prone interactions, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 043118 (2021). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.043118

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    Raussendorf, J

    R. Raussendorf, J. Harrington, and K. Goyal, A fault-tolerant one-way quantum computer, Ann. Phys. (N. Y). 321, 2242 (2006). DOI: 10.1016/j.aop.2006.01.012

    2006 doi

  14. [22]

    C. M. Dawson, H. L. Haselgrove, and M. A. Nielsen, Noise Thresholds for Optical Quantum Computers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 020501 (2006). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.020501

    2006 doi

  15. [23]

    Aliferis and D

    P. Aliferis and D. W. Leung, Simple proof of fault tolerance in the graph -state model, Phys. Rev. A 73, 032308 (2006). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.73.032308 Page 31|31

    2006 doi

  16. [24]

    Brandhofer, I

    S. Brandhofer, I. Polian, S. Barz, and D. Bhatti, Hardware-efficient preparation of architecture-specific graph states on near-term quantum computers, Sci. Rep. 15, 2095 (2025). DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-82715- x

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    Titov, B

    M. Titov, B. Trauzettel, B. Michaelis, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Transfer of entanglement from electrons to photons by optical selection rules, New J. Phys. 7, 186 (2005). DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/7/1/186

    2005 doi

  18. [26]

    Z.-E. Su, B. Taitler, I. Schwartz, D. Cogan, I. Nassar, O. Kenneth, N. H. Lindner, and D. Gershoni, Continuous and deterministic all-photonic cluster state of indistinguishable photons, Reports Prog. Phys. 87, 077601 (2024). DOI: 10.1088/1361-6633/ad4c93

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    P. R. Ramesh et al., The impact of hole $g$-factor anisotropy on spin-photon entanglement generation with InGaAs quantum dots, 1 (2025). DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.07627

    2025 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    M. B. Rota et al., A source of entangled photons based on a cavity-enhanced and strain-tuned GaAs quantum dot, ELight 4, 13 (2024). DOI: 10.1186/s43593-024-00072-8

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Hogg et al., Fast optical control of a coherent hole spin in a microcavity, 1 (2024)

    M. Hogg et al., Fast optical control of a coherent hole spin in a microcavity, 1 (2024). DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.18876

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    Schimpf et al., Optical and magnetic response by design in GaAs quantum dots, (2025)

    C. Schimpf et al., Optical and magnetic response by design in GaAs quantum dots, (2025). DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.02355

    2025 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    Cogan, Z.-E

    D. Cogan, Z.-E. Su, O. Kenneth, and D. Gershoni, Spin purity of the quantum dot confined electron and hole in an external magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B 105, L041407 (2022). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.105.L041407

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Kaupp, Y

    J. Kaupp, Y. Reum, F. Kohr, J. Michl, Q. Buchinger, A. Wolf, G. Peniakov, T. Huber‐Loyola, A. Pfenning, and S. Höfling, Purcell‐Enhanced Single‐Photon Emission in the Telecom C‐Band, Adv. Quantum Technol. (2023). DOI: 10.1002/qute.202300242

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    Cogan, O

    D. Cogan, O. Kenneth, N. H. Lindner, G. Peniakov, C. Hopfmann, D. Dalacu, P. J. Poole, P. Hawrylak, and D. Gershoni, Depolarization of Electronic Spin Qubits Confined in Semiconductor Quantum Dots, Phys. Rev. X 8, 041050 (2018). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.8.041050

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.