Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

A digital twin of atomic ensemble quantum memories

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Atomic ensemble quantum memories can be modeled as noisy quantum channels whose read-in and read-out are beamsplitter operations and whose noise is a thermal channel, so fidelity, visibility, and protocol correctness follow from a few…

desk verdict Sound framework and a genuinely useful parameter compilation, but 'accurate performance estimation' outruns the validation, which currently checks internal consistency only. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20403 v1 pith:2F6R2HRQ submitted 2025-06-25 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Elizabeth Robertson , Benjamin Maa{ss} , Konrad Tschernig , Janik Wolters This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords quantummemoryatomicensemblechannelKrausoperatorsdigitaltwinperformancesimulationnetworktokenprotocol
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

This paper builds a digital twin for ensemble-based atomic quantum memories: a quantum-channel model in which storage and retrieval are beamsplitter operations with transmissivities set by the memory's internal efficiency, followed by a lossy thermal noise channel whose strength is fixed by the reported noise figure $\mu_1$. Every parameter is a quantity that memory experiments already measure, and the authors provide parameter sets for several published vapor memories spanning $\lambda$- and ladder-type protocols. They validate the construction against analytic expressions for a Mach-Zehnder interferometer with a memory in one arm, and apply it to a quantum token protocol, showing which memory implementations can keep correctness above the security threshold and for how long. If correct, the framework lets network engineers compare memory platforms and predict protocol performance from published parameters instead of rebuilding each experiment.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Kraus-operator decomposition of the memory as a quantum channel. Read-in and read-out are photon-number-conserving beamsplitter unitaries whose matrix elements are expressed through Jacobi polynomials with parameters fixed by $\eta_{in}$ and $\eta_{out}$. Loss and noise are then described by a lossy thermal channel, decomposed as a pure-loss channel $\hat A_l$ followed by a quantum-limited amplifier $\hat B_k$, with the mean thermal photon number derived from the reported noise figure via $\bar n_B = \mu_1\eta_{int}/(1-\eta_{trans})$. This object is what bridges experiment and simulation: it turns efficiency, lifetime, and noise measurements into a channel that can be inserted into larger photonic-network simulations.

What would settle it

Take any memory in the comparison table, set $\tau_s = 0$, simulate retrieval of a coherent state with the published $\eta_{e2e}$ and $\mu_1$, and compare the simulated average photon number and SNR with the memory's own storage-retrieval histogram; systematic mismatch indicates a missing loss or noise process. A sharper test is to send photons with bandwidth exceeding the memory's stated $\Delta\nu_{mem}$, where the model rejects them outright but a real memory partially filters them, so predicted efficiency should deviate from measured transmission.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a real ensemble memory can be replaced, for simulation purposes, by a short sequence of quantum operations with directly measurable parameters. A perfect memory would carry an early time-bin photon to a late time-bin photon; here, read-in and read-out are each a beamsplitter with transmissivity $t_{in}=1-\eta_{in}$ and $t_{out}=1-\eta_{out}$, and the storage mode is traced out after retrieval. Optical losses are absorbed into a pure-loss channel with transmissivity $\eta_{trans}$, and retrieval noise is applied as a quantum-limited amplifier whose gain is set by $\bar n_B = \mu_1\eta_{int}/(1-\eta_{trans})$. The resulting Kraus operators act on Fock states truncated at a few photons, so the state after storage can be inspected directly. The paper argues that this is enough to compute quantities that are otherwise hard to measure, including single-photon fidelity, fringe visibility, and protocol correctness.

Load-bearing premise

The model treats each photon as occupying one of two discrete time slots, ignores the temporal shape and bandwidth filtering of the light pulse, and assumes efficiency decays exponentially with storage time; if a real memory reshapes or disperses the retrieved pulse, the simulated efficiency, fidelity, and visibility will drift from experiment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Memory fidelity becomes accessible without two full state tomographies, because the simulation outputs the complete retrieved density matrix.
  • Stored-photon interference visibility decays exponentially with storage time, and the Mach-Zehnder simulation reproduces the analytic visibility formulas for both single-photon and coherent-state inputs.
  • In the quantum token protocol, correctness at zero storage time is governed mainly by the noise figure: memories with $\mu_1$ of order $10^{-2}$ can fail the $c > 7/8$ security threshold even with ideal single-photon emission, while memories with SNR around $10^3$ pass.
  • The same parameterized channel can be extended to other optically controlled memories and dropped into existing network simulation frameworks, so memory comparisons and protocol benchmarks can be made before hardware is built.
  • Fidelity comparisons between memories are only meaningful when the same input state is used, because the paper shows raw fidelity depends on whether the input is a single photon or a coherent state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Since the model rejects photons whose bandwidth exceeds the memory bandwidth rather than filtering them, adding a spectral-filter channel would be a direct extension; for broadband or shaped pulses the current simulation will diverge from experiment exactly where bandwidth matching matters.
  • The same beamsplitter-plus-thermal-channel construction is platform-agnostic, so it could be lifted to solid-state or rare-earth memories, and its noise parameters could be tied to microscopic models of spinwave decoherence.
  • Because the noise model is a standard bosonic thermal channel, the digital twin could be connected to entanglement-distillation and repeater analyses that share the same channel decomposition.
  • A testable consequence of the parameterization is that at short storage times fidelity is dominated by end-to-end efficiency rather than by noise, so two memories with very different $\mu_1$ can show nearly identical fidelity; distinguishing them requires measuring SNR or higher-order correlations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 develops a quantum-channel model of ensemble-based atomic quantum memories. Read-in and read-out are represented as beamsplitter operations, and loss plus background noise are represented through a lossy thermal-noise channel with Kraus operators derived in the supplement. The model is parameterized for twelve published memory experiments using reported end-to-end efficiency, noise figure, lifetime, and bandwidth, and is implemented in a simulation framework. The paper demonstrates the simulator on a Mach-Zehnder interferometer with a memory in one arm, compares the simulated fringes to analytic formulas derived in the supplement, and simulates a memory-assisted quantum token protocol to obtain correctness values as a function of storage time and single-photon emission probability. The central claim is that the resulting 'digital twins' provide accurate performance estimation for real ensemble quantum memories.

Significance. If the claimed predictive accuracy were established, this would be a useful and extensible engineering tool for quantum network simulation. The paper has several genuine strengths: the supplement gives a careful analytic derivation of the beamsplitter Kraus operators and closed-form MZI visibility formulas; the simulation reproduces those analytic expressions; Table 2 collects performance parameters for many recent vapor memory experiments in one place; and Appendix B contains a thoughtful warning about the interpretation of fidelity in the presence of loss and noise. The code is made available on GitHub. The main gap is that the paper validates the simulator only against its own analytic channel model, not against measured memory performance, so the 'accurate performance estimation' claim is not yet supported by the evidence presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1; Appendix S2-S3] The agreement shown in Fig. 5b is between the simulation and analytic expressions derived from the same channel model, so it validates the numerical implementation of the model but not the mapping from the model to physical memories. No figure or table in the manuscript compares a simulated visibility, fidelity, or token correctness to a measured value from any of the experiments listed in Table 2. Since the abstract and conclusion claim accurate performance estimation, this is the load-bearing gap. I recommend adding at least one external benchmark, for example reproducing a published visibility-versus-storage-time curve or a measured fidelity/SNR for one of the tabulated memories, or explicitly reframing the central claim as model-based extrapolation from measured parameters rather than validated prediction.
  2. [Section 4.2] The acknowledged simplifications directly affect the quantities the tool predicts: temporal pulse envelopes and wavepacket dispersion are ignored, bandwidth acceptance is implemented as a hard cut, read-in and read-out efficiencies are assumed equal, and decoherence is assumed to be a homogeneous exponential decay. Because the only validation in the paper is internal consistency, there is currently no estimate of how much error these simplifications introduce for real memories. The paper should either provide a quantified sensitivity analysis for at least one memory where the temporal and spectral behavior is known, or restrict the performance claims to the discrete-time-bin, narrowband regime for which the model is designed.
  3. [Section 4.1; Table 2] The simulated outputs are deterministic consequences of the same experimentally fitted parameters, namely eta_e2e, mu_1, and tau, that define each memory. Consequently, the simulations cannot independently confirm the parameter values or the underlying model. This is not by itself a flaw for an interpolation or design tool, but the paper should state clearly that the predictions are conditional on measured parameters and do not constitute a test of the model. The current wording, including 'digital twin' and 'accurate performance estimation,' overstates the evidence provided by the simulation-versus-analytic agreement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (5)] The terminology for the read-out beamsplitter is confusing: eta_out is defined as the probability of retrieving a photon into the late mode, yet the text sets tout = 1 - eta_out and calls it a transmissivity. Please clarify whether 'transmissivity' refers to remaining in the storage mode or to transfer into the late mode, and make the parameter definitions consistent with the mode transformations in Eq. (5).
  2. [Section 3.3, Eq. (10)] The relation nB = mu_1 eta_int / (1 - eta_trans) is stated without derivation. Since mu_1 is defined through the input photon number and SNR, a short derivation of how the mean thermal photon number of the amplifier channel follows from mu_1 and eta_trans would help readers check the noise-model calibration.
  3. [Supplement S2] The text uses 'Krauss operators' in the supplement; this should be 'Kraus operators' throughout.
  4. [Table 2] Several entries report 'n.a.' for mu_1 (Wei et al., Vernaz-Gris et al., and Katz et al.). The table caption or Section 4.1 should state how the simulation handles memories without a reported noise figure, rather than leaving the reader to infer that these memories cannot be used with the default noise model.
  5. [References] Reference [33] points to a bare GitHub URL. For reproducibility, please provide a persistent versioned identifier (e.g., a DOI or a tagged release) and state the software license.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The central channel-formalism framework is independently derived, but the paper's only quantitative validation is an internal self-consistency check against its own analytic model, not an external benchmark.

  1. other [Sec. 5.1, Fig. 5; App. S2/S3]
    "The data points represent simulated values, while the curves correspond to theoretical predictions from analytical solutions (see MZI section of the supplementary document). An excellent agreement between the analytical predictions and simulated results is observed."

    The analytic MZI curves in App. S2/S3 are closed-form evaluations of the same channel model implemented in the simulator: the same beamsplitter unitary, the same loss Kraus operators, and the same quantum-limited amplifier with kappa = eta_trans and n_bar_B fixed by Eq. (10). Agreement between simulation and this analytic theory is therefore a check that the numerical code reproduces its own defining equations (up to truncation), not a verification against any measured memory visibility or fidelity. The paper uses this agreement as its main 'excellent agreement' evidence, so the advertised 'accurate performance estimation' rests on an internal benchmark rather than an external, falsifiable test.

full rationale

The paper's model construction is not circular: the read-in/read-out Kraus operators are derived from an explicit beamsplitter Hamiltonian (Eqs. 4-7, App. S1), the loss/noise channel follows standard pure-loss-plus-amplifier decomposition, and the memory parameters in Table 2 are treated as inputs taken from experimental literature. No load-bearing claim is justified solely by a self-citation, and no 'uniqueness theorem' or ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The token-protocol correctness values, MZI visibilities, and fidelity estimates are genuine derived outputs of the model, not tautologically equal to the fitted parameters. The only circular element is the validation strategy: the simulation is compared exclusively against analytic results obtained from the same channel model, so the observed agreement cannot certify physical accuracy against real quantum memories. This is a validation gap rather than a collapse of the derivation, so the circularity score is low.

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

The model introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are all measured memory characteristics taken from the cited experimental literature. The main burden is the set of modeling assumptions listed above, particularly the treatment of the memory as a linear beamsplitter plus thermal noise amplifier and the neglect of temporal pulse shaping.

free parameters (4)
  • end_to_end_efficiency_eta_e2e = Table 2, e.g., 0.054 (Lambda895Compact), 0.35 (Ladder780)
    Taken from experimental references; sets the beamsplitter transmissivities via tin=tout=1-sqrt(eta_int).
  • noise_figure_mu1 = Table 2, e.g., 0.06 (Lambda895Compact), 3e-6 (Ladder780)
    Converted to mean thermal photon number via Eq. (10), controlling the noise amplifier strength.
  • one_over_e_storage_lifetime_tau = Table 2, e.g., 2.4 us (Lambda895Compact), 108 ns (Ladder780)
    Sets the exponential decay of internal efficiency with storage time.
  • fock_truncation_n = n=5 (coherent), n=3 (single photon), n=7 (alpha=1.5)
    Fock space cutoff chosen by hand in Section 4.1 and Appendix A; affects accuracy of all simulated quantities.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The memory storage operation is a beamsplitter between the photonic mode and a storage mode.
    Section 3.2, Eqs. (4)-(7); reduces a complex atom-light interaction to a linear optical element.
  • domain assumption Internal efficiency decays homogeneously and exponentially: eta_int(t) = eta_int(0) exp(-t/tau).
    Section 4.1; the paper warns users to check this holds for their memory, so it is a load-bearing modeling assumption.
  • standard math Noise is modeled as a loss channel followed by a quantum-limited amplifier.
    Section 3.3, citing Gagatsos et al. [32]; this is a standard decomposition of a thermal-loss channel.
  • domain assumption The temporal shape and wavepacket dispersion of photons do not affect stored fidelity.
    Section 4.2 explicitly states this is not considered, yet it strongly affects photon retrieval in real memories.
  • domain assumption Average noise photon number mu1 is the same for both polarization orientations of the memory.
    Section 4.2: 'We assume that the average noise photon mu1 remains the same for both polarization orientations.'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A digital twin of atomic ensemble quantum memories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2F6R2HRQ

@misc{pith2026250620403,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A digital twin of atomic ensemble quantum memories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2F6R2HRQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20403}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate performance estimation of experimentally demonstrated quantum memories is key to understand the nuances in their deployment in photonic quantum networks. While several software packages allow for accessible quantum simulation, they often do not account for the loss and noise in physical devices. We present a framework for modeling ensemble-based atomic quantum memories using the quantum channel formalism. We provide a Kraus matrix representation of several experimentally implemented state-of-the art quantum memories and give an overview of their most important performance metrics. To showcase the applicability of this approach, we implement a memory-assisted quantum token protocol within our simulation framework. Our digital twin model is readily extensible to other memory implementations and easily compatible with existing frameworks for performance simulation of experimental quantum networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20403 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A typical photon arrival time histogram for an optically controlled memory experiment. The upper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Internal and external efficiencies of a quantum memory. a) The incident light field gets stored in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Bandwidth and memory type comparison. a) Spectral overlap of memory bandwidth and signal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Depiction of the quantum memory operation in the quantum channel formalism. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: a) Quantum channel diagram for a Mach-Zehnder Interferometer (MZI). A single photon is sent into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visibility of the single photon MZI interference fringes after storage in a memory, as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Quantum channel description of a quantum token protocol. A polarization encoded quantum token is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: a) Simulated correctness values for different memories used in the protocol, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Convergence of the average photon number after storage in a ’Lambda895’ memory. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: a) Variation of the fidelity of photons out of a memory, with no noise, and varying internal efficiency. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Simulated fidelity of different quantum memory experiments with and coherent state input [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H. J. Kimble, Nature 453(7198), 1023 (2008), Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    L.-M. Duan, M. D. Lukin, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, Nature 414(6862), 413 (2001), Publisher: Nature Publish- ing Group

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    Lvovsky, Barry C

    Alexander I. Lvovsky, Barry C. Sanders, Wolfgang Tittel, Nature Photonics 3(12), 706 (2009), Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Pearson Jr, Bin Fang, Elizabeth A

    Kai Shinbrough, Donny R. Pearson Jr, Bin Fang, Elizabeth A. Goldschmidt, Virginia O. Lorenz, Broad- band Quantum Memory in Atomic Ensembles (2023), arXiv:2301.08772 [quant-ph]. http://arxiv. org/abs/2301.08772

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Gorshkov, Axel Andr´e, Michael Fleischhauer, Anders S

    Alexey V . Gorshkov, Axel Andr´e, Michael Fleischhauer, Anders S. Sørensen, Mikhail D. Lukin, Physical Review Letters 98(12), 123601 (2007). 14

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Gorshkov, David F

    Irina Novikova, Alexey V . Gorshkov, David F. Phillips, Anders S. Sørensen, Mikhail D. Lukin, Ronald L. Walsworth, Physical Review Letters98(24), 243602 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Nathan Killoran, Josh Izaac, Nicol ´as Quesada, Ville Bergholm, Matthew Amy, Christian Weedbrook, Quantum 3, 129 (2019), arXiv:1804.03159 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Nicolas Heurtel, Andreas Fyrillas, Gr ´egoire de Gliniasty, Rapha ¨el Le Bihan, S ´ebastien Malherbe, Marceau Pailhas, Eric Bertasi, Boris Bourdoncle, Pierre-Emmanuel Emeriau, Rawad Mezher, Luka Mu- sic, Nadia Belabas, Beno ˆıt Valiron, Pascale Senellart, Shane Mansfield, Jean Senellart, Quantum 7, 931 (2023), Publisher: Verein zur F¨orderung des Open Acc...

    work page 2023

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Zolt ´an Kolarovszki, Tomasz Rybotycki, P´eter Rakyta, ´Agoston Kaposi, Boldizs´ar Po´or, Szabolcs J´oczik, D´aniel T. R. Nagy, Henrik Varga, Kareem H. El-Safty, Gregory Morse, Michał Oszmaniec, Tam´as Kozsik, Zolt´an Zimbor ´as, Piquasso: A Photonic Quantum Computer Simulatio...

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Neill Lambert, Eric Gigu `ere, Paul Menczel, Boxi Li, Patrick Hopf, Gerardo Su´arez, Marc Gali, Jake Lish- man, Rushiraj Gadhvi, Rochisha Agarwal, Asier Galicia, Nathan Shammah, Paul Nation, J. R. Johansson, Shahnawaz Ahmed, Simon Cross, Alexander Pitchford, Franco Nori, QuTiP...

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Wood, Jake Lishman, Julien Gacon, Simon Martiel, Paul D

    Ali Javadi-Abhari, Matthew Treinish, Kevin Krsulich, Christopher J. Wood, Jake Lishman, Julien Gacon, Simon Martiel, Paul D. Nation, Lev S. Bishop, Andrew W. Cross, Blake R. Johnson, Jay M. Gambetta, Quantum computing with Qiskit (2024), arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph]. http://arx...

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Javier Osca, Jiri Vala, SoftwareX 25, 101603 (2024), arXiv:2307.06965 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    W. K. Wootters, W. H. Zurek, Nature 299(5886), 802 (1982), Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    1982

  6. [14]

    Kim Fook Lee, Gamze G ¨ul, Zhao Jim, Prem Kumar, New Journal of Physics 26(8), 083011 (2024), Publisher: IOP Publishing

    2024

  7. [15]

    Gianni Buser, Roberto Mottola, Bj ¨orn Cotting, Janik Wolters, Philipp Treutlein, PRX Quantum 3(2), 020349 (2022), Publisher: American Physical Society

    2022

  8. [16]

    Pin-Ju Tsai, Ya-Fen Hsiao, Ying-Cheng Chen, Physical Review Research 2(3), 033155 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    P S Michelberger, T F M Champion, M R Sprague, K T Kaczmarek, M Barbieri, X M Jin, D G England, W S Kolthammer, D J Saunders, J Nunn, I A Walmsley, New Journal of Physics17(4), 043006 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Omri Davidson, Ohad Yogev, Eilon Poem, Ofer Firstenberg, Physical Review Letters 131(3), 033601 (2023), Publisher: American Physical Society

    2023

  11. [19]

    Thomas, Lukas Wagner, Raphael Joos, Robert Sittig, Cornelius Nawrath, Paul Burdekin, Ilse Maillette de Buy Wenniger, Mikhael J

    Sarah E. Thomas, Lukas Wagner, Raphael Joos, Robert Sittig, Cornelius Nawrath, Paul Burdekin, Ilse Maillette de Buy Wenniger, Mikhael J. Rasiah, Tobias Huber-Loyola, Steven Sagona-Stophel, Sven H¨ofling, Michael Jetter, Peter Michler, Ian A. Walmsley, Simone L. Portalupi, Patr...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Benjamin Maaß, Avijit Barua, Norman Vincenz Ewald, Elizabeth Robertson, Kartik Gaur, Suk In Park, Sven Rodt, Jin-Dong Song, Stephan Reitzenstein, Janik Wolters, On-demand storage and retrieval of single photons from a semiconductor quantum dot in a room-temperature atomic vapo...

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    K. F. Reim, J. Nunn, V . O. Lorenz, B. J. Sussman, K. C. Lee, N. K. Langford, D. Jaksch, I. A. Walmsley, Nature Photonics 4(4), 218 (2010), Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2010

  14. [22]

    LeBlanc, Nature Photonics 12(12), 774 (2018), Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    Erhan Saglamyurek, Taras Hrushevskyi, Anindya Rastogi, Khabat Heshami, Lindsay J. LeBlanc, Nature Photonics 12(12), 774 (2018), Publisher: Nature Publishing Group. 15

    2018

  15. [23]

    Roberto Mottola, Gianni Buser, Philipp Treutlein, Physical Review Letters 131(26), 260801 (2023), Pub- lisher: American Physical Society

    2023

  16. [24]

    Martin Jutisz, Alexander Erl, Janik Wolters, Mustafa G ¨undo˘gan, Markus Krutzik, Physical Review Ap- plied 23(2), 024045 (2025), Publisher: American Physical Society

    2025

  17. [25]

    Yu-Ping Liu, Zhong-Wen Ou, Tian-Xiang Zhu, Ming-Xu Su, Chao Liu, Yong-Jian Han, Zong-Quan Zhou, Chuan-Feng Li, Guang-Can Guo, Science Advances 11(13), eadu5264 (2025), Publisher: American As- sociation for the Advancement of Science

    2025

  18. [26]

    C. Li, S. Zhang, Y .-K. Wu, N. Jiang, Y .-F. Pu, L.-M. Duan, PRX Quantum2(4), 040307 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Leon Messner, Elizabeth Robertson, Luisa Esguerra, Kathy L ¨udge, Janik Wolters, Optics Express 31(6), 10150 (2023), Publisher: Optica Publishing Group

    2023

  20. [28]

    Sheng Zhang, Jixuan Shi, Zhaibin Cui, Ye Wang, Yukai Wu, Luming Duan, Yunfei Pu, Physical Review X 14(2), 021018 (2024), Publisher: American Physical Society

    2024

  21. [29]

    Mehdi Namazi, Connor Kupchak, Bertus Jordaan, Reihaneh Shahrokhshahi, Eden Figueroa, Physical Review Applied 8(3), 034023 (2017), Publisher: American Physical Society

    2017

  22. [30]

    Or Katz, Ofer Firstenberg, Nature Communications 9(1), 2074 (2018), Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2018

  23. [31]

    Craddock, Rourke Sekelsky, Mael Flament, Mehdi Namazi, Physical Review Applied 18(4), 044058 (2022), Publisher: American Physical Society

    Yang Wang, Alexander N. Craddock, Rourke Sekelsky, Mael Flament, Mehdi Namazi, Physical Review Applied 18(4), 044058 (2022), Publisher: American Physical Society

    2022

  24. [32]

    Gagatsos, Boulat A

    Christos N. Gagatsos, Boulat A. Bash, Saikat Guha, Animesh Datta, Physical Review A 96(6), 062306 (2017), arXiv:1701.05518 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    https://github.com/erlizzard/quantum-memory-digital-twin

    Elizabeth Robertson . https://github.com/erlizzard/quantum-memory-digital-twin. git

  26. [34]

    Luisa Esguerra, Leon Meßner, Elizabeth Robertson, Norman Vincenz Ewald, Mustafa G ¨undo˘gan, Janik Wolters, Physical Review A107(4), 042607 (2023), Publisher: American Physical Society

    2023

  27. [35]

    Mathieu Bozzio, Adeline Orieux, Luis Trigo Vidarte, Isabelle Zaquine, Iordanis Kerenidis, Eleni Dia- manti, npj Quantum Information 4(1), 1 (2018), Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2018

  28. [36]

    Benjamin Maaß, Norman Vincenz Ewald, Avijit Barua, Stephan Reitzenstein, Janik Wolters, Physical Review Applied 22(4), 044050 (2024), Publisher: American Physical Society

    2024

  29. [37]

    Omri Davidson, Ohad Yogev, Eilon Poem, Ofer Firstenberg, Communications Physics 6(1), 1 (2023), Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2023

  30. [38]

    Thomas, S

    S.E. Thomas, S. Sagona-Stophel, Z. Schofield, I.A. Walmsley, P.M. Ledingham, Physical Review Applied 19(3), L031005 (2023), Publisher: American Physical Society

    2023

  31. [39]

    LeBlanc, Physical Review Letters 129(12), 120502 (2022), Publisher: American Physical Society

    Anindya Rastogi, Erhan Saglamyurek, Taras Hrushevskyi, Lindsay J. LeBlanc, Physical Review Letters 129(12), 120502 (2022), Publisher: American Physical Society

    2022

  32. [40]

    Heller, J

    L. Heller, J. Lowinski, K. Theophilo, A. Padr´on-Brito, H. de Riedmatten, Physical Review Applied18(2), 024036 (2022), Publisher: American Physical Society

    2022

  33. [41]

    Erhan Saglamyurek, Taras Hrushevskyi, Anindya Rastogi, Logan W Cooke, Benjamin D Smith, Lindsay J LeBlanc, New Journal of Physics 23(4), 043028 (2021), Publisher: IOP Publishing

    2021

  34. [42]

    K. T. Kaczmarek, P. M. Ledingham, B. Brecht, S. E. Thomas, G. S. Thekkadath, O. Lazo-Arjona, J. H. D. Munns, E. Poem, A. Feizpour, D. J. Saunders, J. Nunn, I. A. Walmsley, Physical Review A97(4), 042316 (2018), Publisher: American Physical Society. 16

    2018

  35. [43]

    Yan-Cheng Wei, Bo-Han Wu, Ya-Fen Hsiao, Pin-Ju Tsai, Ying-Cheng Chen, Physical Review A 102(6), 063720 (2020), Publisher: American Physical Society

    2020

  36. [44]

    Sheremet, Julien Laurat, Nature Communi- cations 9(1), 363 (2018), Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    Pierre Vernaz-Gris, Kun Huang, Mingtao Cao, Alexandra S. Sheremet, Julien Laurat, Nature Communi- cations 9(1), 363 (2018), Publisher: Nature Publishing Group. 17 A Truncation We analyze the truncation of our presented memory simulation by varying the truncation of a memory ex...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.