Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 57 references

Photonic Networking of Quantum Memories in High-Dimensions

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 Two spatially separated atomic qudit memories can be entangled by interfering their time-bin-encoded photons, with fidelity up to 0.987(13).

desk verdict Solid experimental demonstration of remote qudit-memory entanglement up to d=4 with thorough fidelity characterization; the headline 'beyond 50%' success-fraction claim is statistically underpowered and needs error-propagated revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11704 v1 pith:JTQLO34F submitted 2025-05-16 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Mikhail Shalaev , Sagnik Saha , George Toh , Isabella Goetting , Ashish Kalakuntla , Harriet Bufan Shi , Jameson O'Reilly , Yichao Yu
show 1 more author
Christopher Monroe
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords quantumnetworkshigh-dimensionalmemoriesquditstime-binencodingBell-statemeasurementremoteentanglementtrappedionssinglephotons
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 networks usually encode information in two-level systems, or qubits. This paper demonstrates a network link built from higher-dimensional quantum memories, or qudits, stored in individual atoms. Two ions, each entangled with a single photon encoded in $d = 2, 3, 4$ time bins, are linked by sending the photons to a beamsplitter; detecting a coincidence in two different time bins heralds an entangled state between the atoms. Measured fidelities reach 0.987(13), and the heralding success fraction scales as $F = 1 - 1/d$, exceeding the 1/2 limit of qubit Bell-state measurements for $d > 2$. This matters because extra dimensions add quantum-information capacity to a network without requiring more photons or more complex feed-forward.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the time-bin-encoded flying qudit: each atomic level $|j\rangle$ is correlated with a photon arriving in the j-th time window, so the atom-photon pair is ideally $|\psi\rangle = (1/\sqrt{d})\sum_j |j\rangle |j\rangle_{\rm phot}$. Additional time-bins are generated by swapping atomic populations and re-exciting the atom, while the 5680-ns spacing is synchronized with the ion's motion so that path and recoil phases cancel. Two such photons are brought to a beamsplitter; when one is detected in bin $n$ and the other in bin $m$, the which-path information is erased and the atoms are projected onto $|n\rangle_A|m\rangle_B \pm |m\rangle_A|n\rangle_B$. This interference-and-detection step is what converts local atom-photon entanglement into remote atom-atom entanglement.

What would settle it

Re-measure the parity contrast of a low-sensitivity state such as $|13\rangle\pm|31\rangle$ while increasing the time-bin spacing or deliberately adding a known phase to one atom's optical path: if the phase-cancellation assumption holds, the contrast stays near its reported 0.987 value, whereas path-length drift or desynchronization over the 5.68-microsecond spacing suppresses the contrast by a calculable amount.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that interference of two time-bin-encoded single photons, each emitted from an atom whose internal state is entangled with the photon's time-bin, can herald maximally entangled states between two spatially separated atomic qudit memories. With the 5680-ns time-bin spacing synchronized to the ion motion, a coincidence detection in bins $n$ and $m$ projects the atoms into $|\Psi^{\pm}\rangle = (|n\rangle_A|m\rangle_B \pm |m\rangle_A|n\rangle_B)/\sqrt{2}$. For $d = 2, 3, 4$, the authors report fidelities between 0.849(23) and 0.987(13), not corrected for state preparation and measurement errors, and they directly verify that the entanglement success fraction follows $F = 1 - 1/d$, beating the qubit Bell-state detection limit of 1/2 for $d > 2$.

Load-bearing premise

In Appendix B, the protocol assumes that the optical path from each atom to the beamsplitter stays stable over the 5.68-microsecond time-bin spacing and the excitation pulses stay synchronized with the ion motion, so the two interfering amplitudes acquire no unknown relative phase; if that fails, the heralded state is not the known Bell state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any dimension $d$, the heralding success fraction $F = 1 - 1/d$ strictly exceeds the 1/2 qubit bound once $d > 2$, so a passive beamsplitter network can herald entanglement more often than qubit-based protocols.
  • Adding dimensions costs time: the entanglement rate scales as $R = F p_A p_B/(\tau_0 + \tau_{\rm bin}(d-1))$, so the practical gain depends on how quickly extra time-bins can be generated.
  • The highest-fidelity states (such as $|13\rangle\pm|31\rangle$, $F = 0.987(13)$) are those least sensitive to magnetic-field noise and swapping errors, showing that the protocol can already meet prior two-qubit entanglement benchmarks.
  • Because the final atomic states are advanced by one during the swapping sequence, detection in bins $(n,m)$ heralds states involving shifted atomic levels, and the mapping is known and used for readout.
  • The protocol can be extended from Bell-like two-party states to arbitrary high-dimensional entangled states spanning every qudit level, using programmable all-to-all interference between photonic time-bins or single-photon pitch-and-catch transfer.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If $F = 1 - 1/d$ continues to larger $d$, a single beamsplitter network would herald entanglement with probability approaching 1; a decisive test would be measuring $F$ for $d = 5$ or 6, where time-bin generation overhead becomes the limiting factor.
  • The magnetic-field feed-forward used in data analysis could be converted into a real-time stabilization loop, which would make the high-dimension protocol useful outside post-processing.
  • Using hyperfine clock states, or ions with smaller magnetic g-factors, should suppress the decoherence that limits the most sensitive Bell states, offering a concrete route to raise the fidelity of states such as $|23\rangle\pm|32\rangle$.
  • A natural next experiment is to use the herald to demonstrate qudit quantum key distribution or a qudit Bell-inequality violation; that would confirm the high-dimensional resource is operationally useful, not just high-fidelity.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a two-node quantum network in which two single 138Ba+ ions separated by approximately 2 m each emit time-bin-encoded single photons entangled with their internal qudit states for dimensions d = 2, 3, and 4. The two photons are interfered on a beamsplitter, and coincidence detection in time bins n and m (n ≠ m) is claimed to herald atom-atom Bell states of the form |n>|m> ± |m>|n>. The authors characterize the resulting states with population measurements and parity scans, report fidelities up to 0.987(13), and extract a photonic heralding success fraction F = 1 − 1/d, which they claim improves on the standard qubit limit of 1/2 for d > 2. The appendices provide details on efficiency calibration, the protocol derivation, a magnetic-field feed-forward phase correction, and an error budget.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is an important experimental step: it extends remote entanglement generation from qubit memories to qudit memories, demonstrates high-dimensional Bell-state heralding between single atoms, and provides a detailed error budget for a high-dimensional atom-photon interface. The work is careful in several respects: it includes erasure conversion for false heralds, independent calibration of collection and detection efficiencies, and parity-scan characterization of the generated states. The success-fraction comparison is not circular, since F is extracted from measured coincidence counts and independently estimated efficiencies and is compared with a separate theoretical expression. However, the statistical support for the headline 'beyond 50%' claim is currently limited, and the phase-correction procedure would benefit from explicit validation. The main value of the paper lies in the experimental realization and characterization of high-dimensional remote entanglement rather than in the theoretical prediction, which is already present in the cited literature.

major comments (4)
  1. [Main text, 'QUDIT BELL STATE SUCCESS FRACTION' and Fig. 4; Appendix A, Tables I-II] The extracted success fractions are F = 0.37(11), 0.64(17), and 0.90(24) for d = 2, 3, and 4. Only the d = 4 point exceeds 1/2 by roughly 1.7σ; the d = 3 point is about 0.8σ above 1/2, and the d = 2 calibration point is about 1.2σ below the expected 0.5. The abstract's claim that the protocol 'improves the entanglement success fraction beyond the standard 50% limit' is therefore not established at conventional statistical confidence. Please state the uncertainty model explicitly, propagate all uncertainties (including the systematic errors from Table II) into Fig. 4, and either provide additional data or temper the claim accordingly.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (3) and Tables I-II] Because F is obtained by dividing Pent by the product pA pB, any drift or miscalibration in the independently calibrated efficiencies over the multi-hour acquisitions directly propagates into the central result. The d = 2 anchor sitting below 0.5 is consistent with such a drift. Please provide a stability check of pA and pB over the acquisition periods, or include a model for this systematic uncertainty in the reported error bars, so that the extracted F values can be assessed on an equal footing with the theoretical curve.
  3. [Appendix C, Fig. 6 and Table III] The phase feed-forward procedure fits a time-dependent differential magnetic field δB(t) using the known state sensitivities. This is a reasonable model, but it introduces a free parameter and is reported to improve the most sensitive state's contrast by up to approximately 22%. Since all reported fidelities are corrected with this procedure, please quantify the robustness of the correction, for example by cross-validating the fit, stating the number of fit parameters, or showing sensitivity to the assumed model. This would assure the reader that the corrected contrasts are not inflated by overfitting.
  4. [Appendix B, Eqs. (5)-(8)] The derivation of the heralded Bell state assumes that optical and motional phase contributions cancel between time bins n and m. The synchronization with the ion's motional period is described, but the cancellation of the optical-path phase over the 5.68 μs time-bin spacing is an assumption rather than a directly measured quantity. The high measured fidelities are indirect evidence, but a direct test or quantitative estimate of the residual differential optical phase would strengthen the central claim that the detected state is a known Bell state.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix A] The text refers to 'Fig. 4d', but Fig. 4 has no subpanels; this should be 'Fig. 4'.
  2. [Appendix A] The phrase 'as listed in Table A' should be 'as listed in Table II'.
  3. [Appendix D] The first sentence of the error-budget section says 'Table D' but the table is numbered Table IV; please correct the cross-reference.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says 'statistical error bars', but the F values quoted in Appendix A appear to include uncertainties from Table II. Please clarify which error bars are shown and how they were computed.
  5. [Appendix B, Eq. (5)] The symbol p is used for the overall probability to detect the photon, while the main text uses pA and pB for the same kind of quantity; please unify the notation to avoid confusion.
  6. [Table III] The d = 2 state is labeled |10>±|01> in the table but |01>±|10> elsewhere in the text; please make the labeling consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the qudit networking claims are supported by independent calibrations, known prior results, and external atomic physics inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims do not reduce to their inputs by construction. The heralding success fraction is extracted by dividing the measured atom-atom success probability Pent (Table I) by independently calibrated collection/detection efficiencies pA and pB (Table II), whose components (lens solid angle, fiber coupling, trap clipping, optical losses, APD efficiency, excitation probability, branching ratio) are listed without using the target fidelities. The theoretical benchmark F = 1 - 1/d is a combinatorial count from the equal-superposition input state, and it is cited to prior literature [11,37] rather than fitted to the data. Fidelity is measured as F = (P + C)/2 from population and parity-contrast data, with the magnetic-field feed-forward of Appendix C using known g-factor sensitivities (Table III) rather than the measured fidelities as fit parameters. Self-citations to Refs. [25], [33], and [38] describe previously published techniques (erasure shelving, motional synchronization, and state detection) that are externally falsifiable and do not assume the present qudit result. The main caveats identified by the skeptic are legitimate but are not circularity: the phase-cancellation assumption in Appendix B is an experimental stability assumption, and the limited statistical significance of the F > 1/2 claim is a statistical/correctness concern. No step in the derivation chain is equivalent to its own input, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on standard atomic physics of 138Ba+, linear-optics Bell-state measurement, a combinatorial count for F, and an assumption of optical phase stability between time-bins. The only fitted quantity is the magnetic field used for phase feed-forward.

free parameters (1)
  • Differential magnetic field delta-B(t) = time-varying, not tabulated
    Fitted in Appendix C to the measured phase drifts to minimize deviations from the known sensitivity ratios; used to rephase the parity scans and improve reported fidelity by up to 22 percent for the most sensitive state.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Two-photon interference at a beamsplitter erases which-path information for indistinguishable photons, projecting the remote memories into an entangled state.
    This is the core of the Bell-state measurement used throughout, stated in the networking section and Appendix B.
  • domain assumption The optical and motional phases acquired by photons from each atom to the beamsplitter cancel between time-bins n and m, so the differential phase Delta-phi is negligible.
    Assumed in Appendix B after synchronization of excitation pulses with ion motion; if false, the heralded state accumulates an unknown phase.
  • domain assumption The decay from |e> to |0> versus |X> follows the 138Ba+ branching ratio (0.486 to the qudit state), and polarization filtering plus shelving converts residual |X> decays into detectable erasures.
    Used in the atom-photon interface and Appendix D for erasure conversion; the 0.486 branching ratio is an atomic constant.
  • standard math Of the d^2 possible photon time-bin input pairs, only the d pairs with n=m fail to herald entanglement, giving F=1-1/d.
    Combinatorial counting in the 'Qudit Bell state success fraction' section; assumes all input pairs occur with equal probability and same-time-bin coincidences are discarded.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photonic Networking of Quantum Memories in High-Dimensions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JTQLO34F

@misc{pith2026250511704,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photonic Networking of Quantum Memories in High-Dimensions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JTQLO34F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11704}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum networking enables the exchange of quantum information between physically separated quantum systems, which has applications ranging from quantum computing to unconditionally secure communication. Such quantum information is generally represented by two-level quantum systems or qubits. Here, we demonstrate a quantum network of high-dimensional (HD) quantum memories or ``qudits" stored in individual atoms. The interference and detection of HD time-bin encoded single photons emitted from atomic qudit memories heralds maximally-entangled Bell states across pairs of atomic qudit levels. This approach expands the quantum information capacity of a quantum network while improving the entanglement success fraction beyond the standard 50\% limit of qubit-based measurement protocols.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.11704 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 (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Measured Bell-state measurement (BSM) success [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Remote entanglement rates and total entanglement success probabilities for dimensions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Differential magnetic field drift and phase feed-forward. Solid points are measured phase drifts of all entangled state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The states of ions A and B ion after the entanglement heralding. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The states of ions A and B ion after entanglement heralding followed by analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [25]

    S. Saha, M. Shalaev, J. O’Reilly, I. Goetting, G. Toh, A. Kalakuntla, Y. Yu, and C. Monroe, Nature Commu- nications 16, 2533 (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Azuma, S

    K. Azuma, S. E. Economou, D. Elkouss, P. Hilaire, L. Jiang, H. K. Lo, and I. Tzitrin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [2]

    Calsamiglia and N

    J. Calsamiglia and N. L¨ utkenhaus, Applied Physics B- Lasers and Optics 72, 67 (2001)

    work page 2001

  4. [3]

    Monroe and J

    C. Monroe and J. Kim, Science 339, 1164 (2013)

    2013

  5. [4]

    J. P. Covey, H. Weinfurter, and H. Bernien, npj Quan- tum Information 9, 90 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Ringbauer, M

    M. Ringbauer, M. Meth, L. Postler, R. Stricker, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, and T. Monz, Nature Phys. 18, 1053 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    P. Hrmo, B. Wilhelm, L. Gerster, M. W. van Mourik, M. Huber, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, T. Monz, and M. Ring- bauer, Nature Communications 14, 2242 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    P. J. Low, B. M. White, A. A. Cox, M. L. Day, and C. Senko, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033128 (2020)

    2020

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    Jiang Low, B

    P. Jiang Low, B. White, and C. Senko, arXiv:2306.03340 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  2. [9]

    M. Meth, J. Zhang, J. F. Haase, C. Edmunds, L. Postler, A. J. Jena, A. Steiner, L. Dellantonio, R. Blatt, P. Zoller, T. Monz, P. Schindler, C. Muschik, and M. Ringbauer, Nature Phys. (2025)

    2025

  3. [10]

    Erhard, M

    M. Erhard, M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger, Nature Reviews Physics 2, 365 (2020)

    2020

  4. [11]

    Yamazaki and K

    T. Yamazaki and K. Azuma, arXiv:2407.10893 (2024)

    2024

  5. [12]

    N. J. Cerf, M. Bourennane, A. Karlsson, and N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. Letters 88, 127902 (2002)

    2002

  6. [13]

    Bacco, Y

    D. Bacco, Y. Ding, K. Dalgaard, X. Cai, X. Zhou, K. Rot- twitt, and L. K. Oxenløwe, Nature Communications 15, 45876 (2024)

    2024

  7. [14]

    Morvan, V

    A. Morvan, V. V. Ramasesh, M. S. Blok, J. M. Kreike- baum, K. O’Brien, L. Chen, B. K. Mitchell, R. K. Naik, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 210504 (2021)

    2021

  8. [15]

    M. S. Blok, V. V. Ramasesh, T. Schuster, K. O’Brien, J. M. Kreikebaum, D. Dahlen, A. Morvan, B. Yoshida, N. Y. Yao, and I. Siddiqi, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021010 (2021)

    2021

  9. [16]

    Mirhosseini, A

    M. Mirhosseini, A. Sipahigil, M. Kalaee, and O. Painter, Nature 588, 599 (2020)

    2020

  10. [17]

    Krastanov, H

    S. Krastanov, H. Raniwala, J. Holzgrafe, K. Jacobs, M. Lonˇ car, M. J. Reagor, and D. R. Englund, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 040503 (2021)

    2021

  11. [18]

    Zhang, D.-S

    W. Zhang, D.-S. Ding, M.-X. Dong, S. Shi, K. Wang, S.-L. Liu, Y. Li, Z.-Y. Zhou, B.-S. Shi, and G.-C. Guo, Nature Communications 7, 13514 (2016)

    2016

  12. [19]

    Krenn, M

    M. Krenn, M. Huber, R. Fickler, R. Lapkiewicz, S. Ramelow, and A. Zeilinger, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 111, 6243 (2014)

    2014

  13. [20]

    Saffman and K

    M. Saffman and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. A 78, 012336 (2008)

    2008

  14. [21]

    Z. Jia, W. Huie, L. Li, W. K. C. Sun, X. Hu, Aakash, H. Kogan, A. Karve, J. Y. Lee, and J. P. Covey, npj Quantum Information 10, 106 (2024)

    2024

  15. [22]

    Omanakuttan, A

    S. Omanakuttan, A. Mitra, M. J. Martin, and I. H. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. A 104, L060401 (2021)

    2021

  16. [23]

    Crocker, M

    C. Crocker, M. Lichtman, K. Sosnova, A. Carter, S. Scarano, and C. Monroe, Optics Express 27, 28143 (2019)

    2019

  17. [24]

    L. J. Stephenson, D. P. Nadlinger, B. C. Nichol, S. An, P. Drmota, T. G. Ballance, K. Thirumalai, J. F. Good- win, D. M. Lucas, and C. J. Ballance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 110501 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    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, Nature 484, 195 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    van Leent, M

    T. van Leent, M. Bock, F. Fertig, R. Garthoff, S. Eppelt, Y. Zhou, P. Malik, M. Seubert, T. Bauer, W. Rosenfeld, W. Zhang, C. Becher, and H. Weinfurter, Nature 607, 69 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    P. F. Wang, C. Y. Luan, M. Qiao, M. Um, J. H. Zhang, Y. Wang, X. Yuan, M. L. Gu, J. N. Zhang, and K. W. Kim, Nature Communications 12, 233 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    A. S. Sotirova, J. D. Leppard, A. Vazquez-Brennan, S. M. Decoppet, F. Pokorny, M. Malinowski, and C. J. Bal- lance, arXiv:2409.05805 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    C. M. L¨ oschnauer, J. Mosca Toba, A. C. Hughes, S. A. King, M. A. Weber, R. Srinivas, R. Matt, R. Nourshargh, D. T. C. Allcock, C. J. Ballance, C. Matthiesen, M. Ma- linowski, and T. P. Harty, arXiv: 2407.07694 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Finkelstein, R

    R. Finkelstein, R. B.-S. Tsai, X. Sun, P. Scholl, S. Di- rekci, T. Gefen, J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, and M. Endres, Nature 634, 321 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    S. D. Barrett and P. Kok, Phys. Rev. A 71, 060310 (2005). 7

    2005

  25. [33]

    Y. Yu, S. Saha, M. Shalaev, G. Toh, J. OReilly, I. Goet- ting, A. Kalakuntla, and C. Monroe, arXiv: 2503.19818 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Kikura, R

    S. Kikura, R. Inoue, H. Yamasaki, A. Goban, and S. Sunami, arXiv: 2502.14859 (2025), 2502.14859

    2025

  27. [35]

    Apol´ ın and D

    J. Apol´ ın and D. P. Nadlinger, arXiv: 2503.16837 (2025), arXiv:2503.16837

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    +” when the photons are detected on the same side of the beamsplitter and “−

    on the atom-photon entanglement fidelities of each atom-photon system to be F >{0.959, 0.931, 0.913} for qudit dimensions d ={2, 3, 4}. NETWORKING QUDIT MEMORIES When two separate atom-photon HD entangled states are generated as outlined above, the atomic qudits can be entangl...

  29. [37]

    K. M. R. Audenaert and M. B. Plenio, New Journal of Physics 8, 266 (2006)

    2006

  30. [38]

    Bouchard, A

    F. Bouchard, A. Sit, Y. W. Zhang, R. Fickler, F. M. Miatto, Y. Yao, F. Sciarrino, and E. Karimi, Rep. Prog. Phys. 84 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    O’Reilly, G

    J. O’Reilly, G. Toh, I. Goetting, S. Saha, M. Sha- laev, A. L. Carter, A. Risinger, A. Kalakuntla, T. Li, A. Verma, and C. Monroe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 090802 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    C. A. Sackett, D. Kielpinski, B. E. King, C. Langer, V. Meyer, C. J. Myatt, M. Rowe, Q. A. Turchette, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and C. Monroe, Nature 404, 256 (2000)

    2000

  33. [41]

    Ghosh, G

    S. Ghosh, G. Kar, A. Roy, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 277902 (2001)

    2001

  34. [42]

    W. P. Grice, Phys. Rev. A 84, 042331 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    M. J. Bayerbach, S. E. D’Aurelio, P. van Loock, and S. Barz, Science Advances 9, eadf4080 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    P. G. Kwiat and H. Weinfurter, Phys. Rev. A 58, R2623 (1998)

    1998

  37. [45]

    Schuck, G

    C. Schuck, G. Huber, C. Kurtsiefer, and H. Weinfurter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 190501 (2006)

    2006

  38. [46]

    Barbieri, F

    M. Barbieri, F. De Martini, P. Mataloni, G. Vallone, and A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 140407 (2006)

    2006

  39. [47]

    Wang and C

    T.-J. Wang and C. Wang, Scientific Reports 6, 19497 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    Li and S

    X.-H. Li and S. Ghose, Phys. Rev. A 91, 062302 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    Y. H. Kim, S. P. Kulik, and Y. Shih, Phys. Rev. Letters 86, 1370 (2001)

    2001

  42. [50]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, Nature 409, 46 (2001)

    2001

  43. [51]

    Aghaee Rad et al

    H. Aghaee Rad et al. , Nature 638, 912 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    Bartolucci, P

    S. Bartolucci, P. Birchall, H. Bomb´ ın, H. Cable, C. Daw- son, M. Gimeno-Segovia, E. Johnston, K. Kieling, N. Nickerson, M. Pant, F. Pastawski, T. Rudolph, and C. Sparrow, Nature Communications 14 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Erhard, M

    M. Erhard, M. Malik, M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger, Na- ture Photonics 12, 759 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, H. J. Kimble, and H. Mabuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3221 (1997)

    1997

  47. [55]

    T. Wilk, S. C. Webster, A. Kuhn, and G. Rempe, Science 317, 488 (2007)

    2007

  48. [56]

    C. Kurz, M. Schug, P. Eich, J. Huwer, P. Muller, and J. Eschner, Nature Communications 5, 5527 (2014)

    2014

  49. [57]

    leftover

    L. Li, X. Hu, Z. Jia, W. Huie, W. K. Calvin Sun, Aakash, Y. Dong, N. Hiri-O-Tuppa, and J. P. Covey, arXiv: 2502.17406 (2025). 8 APPENDICES A. Remote entanglement rate and success probability Fig. 5 presents the remote qudit-qudit entanglement generation rates and entanglement ...

    2025

Pith tools

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