Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 85 references

Exploring the feasibility of probabilistic and deterministic quantum gates between T centers in silicon

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A photon interference scheme with feedback can push entanglement gates between T centers in silicon past the 50 percent success limit while keeping competitive fidelity.

desk verdict Useful analytical analysis of the IBF gate for T centers, but the headline efficiency advantage is contingent on sub-10 ns total feedback latency that may be out of reach. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06474 v2 pith:ZBWAOD2B submitted 2025-08-08 quant-ph physics.optics

Shahrzad Taherizadegan , Faezeh Kimiaee Asadi , Jia-Wei Ji , Daniel Higginbottom , Christoph Simon This is my paper
classification quant-phphysics.optics MSC 81P6881P40 PACS 03.67.-a42.50.Ex
keywords TcentersiliconentanglementgenerationquantumgatesphotoninterferencefeedbackcavityQEDfidelity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks which two-qubit gate protocol between T centers in silicon is worth building, and its main claim is that a photon-interference scheme with feedback (IBF) can beat the usual 50 percent success cap of the Barrett-Kok scheme. Using the photon-count decomposition method, it provides what it says are the first analytical formulas for the IBF scheme's entanglement fidelity and efficiency while including optical decoherence, spin dephasing, photon loss, and collection and detection losses. On currently demonstrated T-center cavity parameters the IBF scheme already beats the standard interference scheme at low to moderate cavity cooperativity, and with near-future parameters it reaches success probabilities well above 50 percent at competitive fidelities. If correct, this makes IBF the leading candidate for local two-qubit gates on T centers, while the deterministic magnetic dipole gate remains feasible only for very close pairs.

What carries the argument

The central object is the photon-count decomposition method, which splits the open-system density operator solution of the master equation into conditional components labeled by the photon count in early and late detection time windows; each component contributes to the entanglement-generation efficiency through its trace and to the fidelity through its overlap with the target Bell states. For IBF, a feedback superoperator applies the spin flip during the delay $\delta t$ between the first and second photon detections. The feedback $\pi$-pulse is what lifts the success probability above 0.5, and the factor $e^{-\gamma'\delta t}$ in the efficiency quantifies how much of that advantage is lost

What would settle it

Measure the IBF entanglement-generation efficiency and fidelity as a function of $\delta t$ and $T_d$ on cavity-coupled T centers at the 1326 nm transition; the claim fails if the efficiency does not follow $\eta'^2 e^{-\gamma'\delta t}(1-e^{-2\gamma'T_d})(1-e^{-\gamma'T_d})$ or if the fidelity stays below the predicted values for $\delta t$ near 1.4 ns.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the interference-based scheme with feedback (IBF) can exceed the 50 percent success probability of the standard interference-based (IB) scheme, and can do so with competitive fidelity once realistic imperfections are included. The paper derives analytical expressions for IBF efficiency and fidelity using the photon-count decomposition method: with spin dephasing, the efficiency is $\eta_{\mathrm{IBF}} = \eta'^2 e^{-\gamma'\delta t}(1-e^{-2\gamma'T_d})(1-e^{-\gamma'T_d})$ and the fidelity is $F_{\mathrm{IBF}} = \frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{\tilde{C}_{\mathrm{IBF}}(T_d)}{1-e^{-\gamma'T_d}}\right)$, with $\tilde{C}_{\mathrm{IBF}}(T_d)$ encoding optical dephasing, spin deph

Load-bearing premise

The predicted advantage of the feedback scheme depends on the feedback delay $\delta t$ being as small as 20.9 ns with current parameters and 1.4 ns (possibly 0.2 ns via Raman transitions) in the near future, with electronic feedforward latency below about 10 ns; the paper acknowledges that such low-latency control is still experimentally challenging.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the IBF formulas hold, the scheme's success probability can exceed 50 percent while the standard IB scheme saturates at 50 percent, removing a major overhead for entanglement generation.
  • At currently demonstrated T-center cavity parameters, IBF achieves higher efficiency than IB at low cavity cooperativity ($C<50$), and with $\delta t=1.4$ ns it sustains this advantage into moderate cooperativity.
  • With near-future parameters, IBF at a short detection time gives the highest fidelity among IB, IBF, and the scattering-based scheme across the optical dephasing range, because short $T_d$ acts as temporal filtering.
  • The scattering-based gate becomes the efficiency leader only at high cooperativity, and the deterministic magnetic dipole gate is practical only when T centers can be placed within tens of nanometres, so the near-term choice is between IB and IBF.
  • The feedback delay $\delta t$ is the decisive engineering target: efficiency contains $e^{-\gamma'\delta t}$, and delays below about 10 ns are stated as the current experimental threshold for feedforward control.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same analytical approach could be ported to other solid-state emitters, and the IBF scheme's sensitivity to $\delta t$ might become an asset in long-lived telecom platforms such as Er$^{3+}$:Y$_2$SiO$_5$, where relaxed feedback timing would allow gates between more distant nodes; the paper only sketches this direction.
  • Because $\eta_{\mathrm{IBF}}$ couples $T_d$ and $\delta t$ through a product of exponential factors, jointly optimizing both variables instead of using the paper's discrete scenario values could reveal schedules with higher efficiency at a fixed fidelity target.
  • The paper uses an absolute time-bin filter; adapting a correlation filter to IBF, listed by the authors as an open question, could raise the observed success probability further and is directly testable.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes two-qubit gate protocols for T centers in silicon: the interference-based (IB) scheme, the interference-based scheme with feedback (IBF), a near-deterministic photon-scattering (SB) gate, and a deterministic magnetic-dipole (MDG) gate. Its central contribution is a set of analytical expressions, obtained via the photon-count decomposition method, for the efficiency and fidelity of the IBF scheme in the presence of optical dephasing, spin dephasing, photon loss, and finite collection/detection efficiencies. These expressions are evaluated under two parameter scenarios (current and near-future), and the protocols are compared in fidelity, efficiency, and gate time. The main claim is that IBF can exceed 50% success probability and offers competitive fidelity, particularly at low to moderate cavity cooperativity, making it an attractive candidate for experimental implementation.

Significance. If the analytical IBF results are correct, this is the first quantitative treatment of this feedback-based protocol for T centers and would be a useful reference for experimental groups working on silicon quantum photonics. The paper also performs a useful systematic comparison of several gate families under a common parameter set. However, the headline performance advantage of IBF is exponentially sensitive to the feedback delay used in Eq. (10), and the paper's optimistic delay values omit electronic feedforward latency. Because the paper explicitly acknowledges that sub-10 ns feedforward is at the current experimental limit, the central numerical comparison is more conditional than the abstract and conclusions suggest. The work is nevertheless valuable as a feasibility analysis, provided the latency dependence is made explicit and the claims are scaled back accordingly.

major comments (2)
  1. [§IIB, Eq. (10), Figs. 2, 5, 7; §VI] The central efficiency formula for IBF is η_IBF = η'^2 e^{-γ'δt} in the optical limit, and the paper defines δt only as the microwave π-pulse duration (20.9 ns or 1.4 ns). But the quantity entering the protocol is the total latency from the first detected photon to completion of the feedback spin flip, including detector response, electrical readout, logic decision, pulse synthesis, and delivery. Section VI states that sub-10 ns cryo-CMOS feedforward is currently the experimental limit, and Section V acknowledges that processing and triggering must be included. This is not a minor caveat: for scenario 2, γ'=2π×12.7 MHz and δt=1.4 ns give γ'δt=0.112 and e^{-γ'δt}=0.89; adding a conservative 10 ns electronic latency gives γ'δt≈0.91 and e^{-γ'δt}≈0.40, dropping the optical-limit efficiency from ≈0.64 to ≈0.29—below the ≈0.36 efficiency of the ordinary IB scheme in the same scenario and belo
  2. [§IIB, Eqs. (10)–(13)] The paper's main original results, the analytical efficiency and fidelity expressions for IBF, are stated without derivation. The text says they follow from the photon-count decomposition method of Ref. [38], but neither the main text nor the supplementary material shows the decomposition for the |ee> initial state, the two collapse superoperators, the spin-flip propagator, or the steps leading to Eqs. (10)–(13). This is load-bearing because the paper claims to provide 'the first analytical calculations' of these quantities and uses them for all subsequent comparisons. I recommend adding a derivation appendix (or a detailed supplementary section) so the expressions can be verified, particularly the fidelity expression in Eq. (12), whose linear coherence term has a different structure from the squared term in the IB fidelity in Eq. (3).
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IIA, Eq. (2)] The symbol η' is introduced as a combined efficiency, but its components η_d, η_c, η_zpl, η_em, and F_p are defined in prose. A short table or glossary would improve readability, especially since η_r and η_zpl are numerically close in the assumed values.
  2. [§IIB, Fig. 2] The panels (a) and (b) use many overlapping curves. Labeling the curves directly or using a table for the key operating points (T_d=10 ns and T_d=500 ns) would make the trade-off between efficiency and fidelity easier to read.
  3. [§III, Eq. (16)] The optimized spectral standard deviation σ_p is stated without derivation. A brief explanation of the optimization condition would make the expression less opaque, especially since the fidelity expression contains terms that depend on σ_p nonlinearly.
  4. [§V, Fig. 5] The caption says the enhanced emitter lifetimes τ are shown on the top axis, but the units (ns) are only implied. Also, the statement that IBF efficiency drops at large C because rapid decay prevents the second photon from arriving after the feedback pulse is correct and worth making more prominent, since it is a key qualitative difference from IB.
  5. [§VI] The discussion of spectral diffusion and the absolute time-bin filter is helpful, but it would be better placed earlier, since it directly affects how the reported efficiencies should be interpreted. In particular, the statement that the absolute filter may underestimate efficiency relative to a correlation filter is relevant to the quantitative comparisons in Figs. 2 and 5.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: IBF efficiency/fidelity are derived from a master-equation decomposition with independently specified parameters.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The IBF efficiency and fidelity formulas (Eqs. 10 and 12) are obtained by applying the photon-count decomposition method of Ref. [38] to the master equation of two cavity-coupled T centers; the resulting expressions are closed-form functions of independently specified parameters (gamma-prime, gamma-star, gamma-star-s, delta-t, T_d, eta_d, eta_c, eta_r, F_p). None of these parameters is fitted to the target claim that IBF can exceed 50% efficiency; they are taken from cited experimental measurements or stated assumptions (e.g., delta-t from microwave Rabi frequency; gamma-prime from Refs. [35,51]). The comparison with IB uses the same parameters and the paper's own equations, so the 'prediction' is a direct evaluation, not a renaming or a fit renamed as prediction. The acknowledged limitations in Section VI—electronic feedforward latency, sub-10 ns cryo-CMOS threshold, spectral diffusion—are caveats on input assumptions, not circular reductions of the output to the input. Although several cited works share authors (Refs. [32,35,38,40,51]), they provide either a general analytical method or experimental parameter values, not the conclusion that IBF is competitive for T centers. The cited method is independent support because it does not assume the target result; it is a published master-equation decomposition tool. The paper therefore does not reduce to its own inputs by construction.

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

The central predictions rest on measured or assumed T-center parameters and on the validity of standard cavity-QED modeling. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Purcell-enhanced decay rate and Purcell factor scenarios = γ' = 2π×2.5 MHz, Fp=256.5 (scenario 1); γ'=2π×12.7 MHz, Fp=1402.4 (scenario 2)
    Chosen to represent currently demonstrated and near-future cavity performance for T centers, sourced from Refs [31,35,48,50,51].
  • Feedback delay δt = 20.9 ns (scenario 1), 1.4 ns (scenario 2), 0.2 ns (Raman limit)
    Assumed spin-flip and feedforward times; directly enters IBF efficiency as e^{-γ'δt} and is a load-bearing experimental assumption.
  • Detection efficiency ηd = 0.95
    Assumed achievable with SNSPDs at telecom wavelengths; multiplies all efficiencies.
  • Collection efficiency ηc = 0.9
    Assumed; 0.7 has been demonstrated in a nanobeam (Ref [52]).
  • Radiative efficiency ηr = 0.23
    Set to the lower bound from Ref [48]; actual value not precisely known.
  • Magnetic dipole gate parameters = g=2.01, branching 90/10, Ω from 2π×8 kHz to 2π×0.8 MHz
    Used for MDG fidelity estimates; g anisotropy at the 10^-3 level is neglected.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Photon-count decomposition of the master equation is valid for the IBF protocol with feedback.
    The conditional-state superoperator approach from Ref [38] is applied without deriving it anew; the scheme's sequential collapse and feedback is assumed to fit this formalism.
  • domain assumption T centers can be modeled as three-level systems with one cavity-coupled optical transition.
    Used for IB, IBF, and SB schemes; neglects additional T-center levels and orientational subsets.
  • domain assumption Bad-cavity regime γ << κ holds for the cavity-enhanced schemes.
    Used to express η' and γ' via Purcell factor formulas, citing Refs [16,49].
  • domain assumption Spin dephasing dominates over spin decay for electron spins, so spin decay is neglected.
    Stated in Section IIA based on Fig. 1c rates.
  • domain assumption Spectral diffusion can be controlled or neglected during the gate.
    Explicitly stated in Section VI as an assumption; fidelity calculations assume matched or statistically averaged optical frequencies.
  • domain assumption The magnetic dipole interaction formula for rare-earth ions applies to T centers.
    Adapted from Refs [14,40]; no direct measurement of J_z for T centers is cited.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the feasibility of probabilistic and deterministic quantum gates between T centers in silicon." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZBWAOD2B

@misc{pith2026250806474,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the feasibility of probabilistic and deterministic quantum gates between T centers in silicon},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZBWAOD2B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06474}
}
read the original abstract

T center defects in silicon provide an attractive platform for quantum technologies due to their unique spin properties and compatibility with mature silicon technologies. We investigate several gate protocols between single T centers, including two probabilistic photon interference-based schemes, a near-deterministic photon scattering gate, and a deterministic magnetic dipole-based scheme. In particular, we study a photon interference-based scheme with feedback which can achieve success probabilities above 50%, and use the photon-count decomposition method to perform the first analytical calculations of its entanglement fidelity and efficiency while accounting for imperfections. We also calculate the fidelity and efficiency of the other schemes. Finally, we compare the performance of all the schemes, considering current and near-future experimental capabilities. In particular, we find that the photon interference-based scheme with feedback has the potential to achieve competitive efficiency and fidelity, making it interesting to explore experimentally.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.06474 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. The figure compares the fidelity and efficiency of the IB and IBF schemes across different scenarios as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Fidelity of the SB scheme as a function of the optical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Fidelity of performing the magnetic dipole gate be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. A comparison of the fidelity of probabilistic and near [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. A comparison of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: figure 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Figure shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    Distributed quantum computing in sil- icon.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01704, 2024

    Francis Afzal, Mohsen Akhlaghi, Stefanie J Beale, Olinka Bedroya, Kristin Bell, Laurent Bergeron, Kent Bonsma- Fisher, Polina Bychkova, Zachary ME Chaisson, Camille Chartrand, et al. Distributed quantum computing in sil- icon.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01704, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Cambridge university press, 2010

    Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang.Quantum compu- tation and quantum information. Cambridge university press, 2010

    2010

  3. [2]

    The resulting emissions from both systems are interfered on a beam splitter, and thesystemislefttowaituntilthedetectiontimeT d tode- tect exactly one photon

    Then, an opticalπpulse is applied to each qubit, coherently driving the|↓⟩ ↔ |e⟩transition. The resulting emissions from both systems are interfered on a beam splitter, and thesystemislefttowaituntilthedetectiontimeT d tode- tect exactly one photon. Assuming the photons emitted by the two atoms are indistinguishable, the two atoms 3 will be projected onto...

  4. [3]

    pas- sive

    Then applying aπpulse between the ground states|↓⟩and |↑⟩, which takes a timeδtand is called feedback, results in the stateψ(τ pulse) = (|e↑⟩ ± |↑e⟩)/ √ 2for the sys- tem. Detection of the second photon atτ2 projects the state of the system into the maximally entangled Bell stateψ(τ 2) = (|↓↑⟩ ± |↑↓⟩)/ √ 2(see figure1in [37]). Ide- ally, this scheme can a...

  5. [4]

    Quantum repeaters based on atomic ensembles and linear optics.Reviews of Modern Physics, 83(1):33–80, 2011

    Nicolas Sangouard, Christoph Simon, Hugues De Ried- matten, and Nicolas Gisin. Quantum repeaters based on atomic ensembles and linear optics.Reviews of Modern Physics, 83(1):33–80, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [5]

    Quantum computational net- works.Proceedings of the royal society of London

    David Elieser Deutsch. Quantum computational net- works.Proceedings of the royal society of London. A. mathematical and physical sciences, 425(1868):73–90, 1989

    1989

  7. [6]

    Quantum computers.na- ture, 464(7285):45–53, 2010

    Thaddeus D Ladd, Fedor Jelezko, Raymond Laflamme, Yasunobu Nakamura, Christopher Monroe, and Jeremy Lloyd O’Brien. Quantum computers.na- ture, 464(7285):45–53, 2010

    work page 2010

  8. [7]

    The quantum internet.Nature, 453(7198):1023–1030, 2008

    H Jeff Kimble. The quantum internet.Nature, 453(7198):1023–1030, 2008

    2008

Show all 85 references
  1. [8]

    Long-distance quantum communication with atomic ensembles and linear optics.Nature, 414(6862):413–418, 2001

    L-M Duan, Mikhail D Lukin, J Ignacio Cirac, and Peter Zoller. Long-distance quantum communication with atomic ensembles and linear optics.Nature, 414(6862):413–418, 2001

    2001

  2. [9]

    Towards a global quantum network

    Christoph Simon. Towards a global quantum network. Nature Photonics, 11(11):678–680, 2017

    2017

  3. [10]

    Realization of a multinode quantum network of remote solid-state qubits.Science, 372(6539):259–264, 2021

    Matteo Pompili, Sophie LN Hermans, Simon Baier, Hans KC Beukers, Peter C Humphreys, Raymond N Schouten, Raymond FL Vermeulen, Marijn J Tiggelman, Laura dos Santos Martins, Bas Dirkse, et al. Realization of a multinode quantum network of remote solid-state qubits.Science, 372(6...

    2021

  4. [11]

    Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead.Science, 362(6412):eaam9288, 2018

    Stephanie Wehner, David Elkouss, and Ronald Hanson. Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead.Science, 362(6412):eaam9288, 2018

    2018

  5. [12]

    Quantum networks based on color centers in diamond.Journal of Applied Physics, 130(7), 2021

    Maximilian Ruf, Noel H Wan, Hyeongrak Choi, Dirk En- glund, and Ronald Hanson. Quantum networks based on color centers in diamond.Journal of Applied Physics, 130(7), 2021

    2021

  6. [13]

    Towards a realistic model for cavity-enhanced atomic frequency comb quantum memories.Quantum Science and Tech- nology, 9(3):035049, 2024

    Shahrzad Taherizadegan, Jacob H Davidson, Sourabh Kumar, Daniel Oblak, and Christoph Simon. Towards a realistic model for cavity-enhanced atomic frequency comb quantum memories.Quantum Science and Tech- nology, 9(3):035049, 2024

    2024

  7. [14]

    Entanglement of nanophotonic quantum memory nodes in a telecommunication network

    Can M Knaut, Aziza Suleymanzade, Yan-Cheng Wei, Daniel R Assumpcao, Pieter-Jan Stas, Yan Qi Huan, Bartholomeus Machielse, Erik N Knall, Madison Sutula, Gefen Baranes, et al. Entanglement of nanophotonic quantum memory nodes in a telecommunication network. arXiv preprint arXiv:...

    2023 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Quan- tum optical memory for entanglement distribution.Op- tica, 10(11):1511–1528, 2023

    Yisheng Lei, Faezeh Kimiaee Asadi, Tian Zhong, Alex Kuzmich, Christoph Simon, and Mahdi Hosseini. Quan- tum optical memory for entanglement distribution.Op- tica, 10(11):1511–1528, 2023

    2023

  9. [16]

    Protocols for long-distance quantum communication with single 167er ions.Quantum Science and Technology, 5(4):045015, 2020

    F Kimiaee Asadi, SC Wein, and C Simon. Protocols for long-distance quantum communication with single 167er ions.Quantum Science and Technology, 5(4):045015, 2020

    2020

  10. [17]

    Universal quantum computing using electronuclear wavefunctions of rare-earth ions.Prx Quantum, 2(1):010312, 2021

    Manuel Grimm, Adrian Beckert, Gabriel Aeppli, and Markus Müller. Universal quantum computing using electronuclear wavefunctions of rare-earth ions.Prx Quantum, 2(1):010312, 2021

    2021

  11. [18]

    Quantum computer hardware based on rare-earth-ion- doped inorganic crystals.Optics communications, 201(1- 3):71–77, 2002

    Nicklas Ohlsson, R Krishna Mohan, and Stefan Kröll. Quantum computer hardware based on rare-earth-ion- doped inorganic crystals.Optics communications, 201(1- 3):71–77, 2002

    2002

  12. [19]

    Coherent in- teractions between silicon-vacancy centers in diamond

    Matthew W Day, Kelsey M Bates, Christopher L Small- wood, Rachel C Owen, Tim Schröder, Edward Bielejec, Ronald Ulbricht, and Steven T Cundiff. Coherent in- teractions between silicon-vacancy centers in diamond. Physical Review Letters, 128(20):203603, 2022

    2022

  13. [20]

    Heralded entanglement between solid-state qubits separated by three metres.Nature, 497(7447):86–90, 2013

    Hannes Bernien, Bas Hensen, Wolfgang Pfaff, Ger- win Koolstra, Machiel S Blok, Lucio Robledo, Tim H Taminiau, Matthew Markham, Daniel J Twitchen, Lil- ian Childress, et al. Heralded entanglement between solid-state qubits separated by three metres.Nature, 497(7447):86–90, 2013

    2013

  14. [21]

    Photon-mediated interac- tions between quantum emitters in a diamond nanocav- ity.Science, 362(6415):662–665, 2018

    Ruffin E Evans, Mihir K Bhaskar, Denis D Sukachev, Christian T Nguyen, Alp Sipahigil, Michael J Burek, Bartholomeus Machielse, Grace H Zhang, Alexander S Zibrov, Edward Bielejec, et al. Photon-mediated interac- tions between quantum emitters in a diamond nanocav- ity.Science, ...

    2018

  15. [22]

    Thermally-induced defects in silicon containing oxygen and carbon.physica status solidi (a), 68(2):561–565, 1981

    NS Minaev and AV Mudryi. Thermally-induced defects in silicon containing oxygen and carbon.physica status solidi (a), 68(2):561–565, 1981

    1981

  16. [23]

    Interstitial-carbon hydrogen interactioninsilicon.Physical review letters, 77(23):4812, 1996

    AN Safonov, EC Lightowlers, Gordon Davies, P Leary, R Jones, and Sven Öberg. Interstitial-carbon hydrogen interactioninsilicon.Physical review letters, 77(23):4812, 1996

    1996

  17. [24]

    Photoluminescence characterisation of hydrogen-related centres in silicon

    AN Safonov and EC Lightowlers. Photoluminescence characterisation of hydrogen-related centres in silicon. Materials Science and Engineering: B, 58(1-2):39–47, 1999

    1999

  18. [25]

    Interaction of hydro- gen with substitutional and interstitial carbon defects in silicon.Physical Review B, 57(7):3887, 1998

    P Leary, R Jones, and Sven Öberg. Interaction of hydro- gen with substitutional and interstitial carbon defects in silicon.Physical Review B, 57(7):3887, 1998

    1998

  19. [26]

    The de- fect luminescence spectrum at 0.9351 ev in carbon-doped heat-treated or irradiated silicon.Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics, 18(26):5069, 1985

    E Irion, N Burger, K Thonke, and R Sauer. The de- fect luminescence spectrum at 0.9351 ev in carbon-doped heat-treated or irradiated silicon.Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics, 18(26):5069, 1985

    1985

  20. [27]

    Hydrogen re- lated optical centers in radiation damaged silicon

    AN Safonov and Edward C Lightowlers. Hydrogen re- lated optical centers in radiation damaged silicon. In Materials Science Forum, volume 143, pages 903–908. Trans Tech Publ, 1993

    1993

  21. [28]

    Generating t centres in photonic silicon-on- insulator material by ion implantation.New Journal of Physics, 23(10):103008, 2021

    ER MacQuarrie, Camille Chartrand, DB Higginbottom, KJ Morse, VA Karasyuk, Sjoerd Roorda, and Stephanie Simmons. Generating t centres in photonic silicon-on- insulator material by ion implantation.New Journal of Physics, 23(10):103008, 2021

    2021

  22. [29]

    Scalable fault-tolerant quantum technologies with silicon color centers.PRX Quantum, 5(1):010102, 2024

    Stephanie Simmons. Scalable fault-tolerant quantum technologies with silicon color centers.PRX Quantum, 5(1):010102, 2024

    2024

  23. [30]

    Silicon-integrated telecom- munications photon-spin interface.PRX Quantum, 1(2):020301, 2020

    L Bergeron, C Chartrand, ATK Kurkjian, KJ Morse, H Riemann, NV Abrosimov, P Becker, H-J Pohl, MLW Thewalt, and S Simmons. Silicon-integrated telecom- munications photon-spin interface.PRX Quantum, 1(2):020301, 2020

    2020

  24. [31]

    Multiplexed color cen- tersinasiliconphotoniccavityarray.Optica, 12(9):1400– 1405, 2025

    Lukasz Komza, Xueyue Zhang, Hanbin Song, Yu-Lung Tang, Xin Wei, and Alp Sipahigil. Multiplexed color cen- tersinasiliconphotoniccavityarray.Optica, 12(9):1400– 1405, 2025

    2025

  25. [32]

    Optical ob- servationofsinglespinsinsilicon.Nature, 607(7918):266– 270, 2022

    Daniel B Higginbottom, Alexander TK Kurkjian, Camille Chartrand, Moein Kazemi, Nicholas A Brunelle, Evan R MacQuarrie, James R Klein, Nicholas R Lee- Hone, Jakub Stacho, Myles Ruether, et al. Optical ob- servationofsinglespinsinsilicon.Nature, 607(7918):266– 270, 2022. 13

    2022

  26. [33]

    Waveguide-integrated silicon t centres

    Adam DeAbreu, Camille Bowness, Amirhossein Al- izadeh, Camille Chartrand, NA Brunelle, ER MacQuar- rie, NR Lee-Hone, Myles Ruether, Moein Kazemi, ATK Kurkjian, et al. Waveguide-integrated silicon t centres. Optics Express, 31(9):15045–15057, 2023

    2023

  27. [34]

    First-principles study of the t center in silicon.Physical Review Materials, 6(5):L053201, 2022

    Diana Dhaliah, Yihuang Xiong, Alp Sipahigil, Sinéad M Griffin, and Geoffroy Hautier. First-principles study of the t center in silicon.Physical Review Materials, 6(5):L053201, 2022

    2022

  28. [35]

    Memory and transduction prospects for silicon t center devices.PRX Quantum, 4(2):020308, 2023

    Daniel B Higginbottom, Faezeh Kimiaee Asadi, Camille Chartrand, Jia-Wei Ji, Laurent Bergeron, Michael LW Thewalt, Christoph Simon, and Stephanie Simmons. Memory and transduction prospects for silicon t center devices.PRX Quantum, 4(2):020308, 2023

    2023

  29. [36]

    A. N. Safonov, E. C. Lightowlers, Gordon Davies, P. Leary, R. Jones, and S. Öberg. Interstitial-carbon hy- drogen interaction in silicon.Phys. Rev. Lett., 77:4812– 4815, Dec 1996

    1996

  30. [37]

    Single-shot deterministic entanglement between non-interacting sys- temswithlinearoptics.arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.00067, 2019

    Leigh S Martin and K Birgitta Whaley. Single-shot deterministic entanglement between non-interacting sys- temswithlinearoptics.arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.00067, 2019

    1912 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Efficient high-fidelity quantum computation using matter qubits and linear op- tics.Physical Review A, 71(6):060310, 2005

    Sean D Barrett and Pieter Kok. Efficient high-fidelity quantum computation using matter qubits and linear op- tics.Physical Review A, 71(6):060310, 2005

    2005

  32. [40]

    Comparing the performance of practical two-qubit gates for individual171yb ions in yt- trium orthovanadate.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23613, 2024

    Mahsa Karimi, Faezeh Kimiaee Asadi, Stephen C Wein, and Christoph Simon. Comparing the performance of practical two-qubit gates for individual171yb ions in yt- trium orthovanadate.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23613, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Analyzing photon-count heralded entanglement gener- ation between solid-state spin qubits by decomposing the master-equation dynamics.Physical Review A, 102(3):033701, 2020

    Stephen C Wein, Jia-Wei Ji, Yu-Feng Wu, Faezeh Kimi- aee Asadi, Roohollah Ghobadi, and Christoph Simon. Analyzing photon-count heralded entanglement gener- ation between solid-state spin qubits by decomposing the master-equation dynamics.Physical Review A, 102(3):033701, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    Cavity-assisted controlled phase-flip gates.Physical Re- view A, 102(1):013703, 2020

    F Kimiaee Asadi, SC Wein, and Christoph Simon. Cavity-assisted controlled phase-flip gates.Physical Re- view A, 102(1):013703, 2020

    2020

  35. [43]

    Scal- able multipartite entanglement of remote rare-earth ion qubits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16224, 2024

    AndreiRuskuc, Chun-JuWu, EmanuelGreen, SophieLN Hermans, Joonhee Choi, and Andrei Faraon. Scal- able multipartite entanglement of remote rare-earth ion qubits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16224, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Repeat-until-success linear optics distributed quantum computing.Physical review letters, 95(3):030505, 2005

    Yuan Liang Lim, Almut Beige, and Leong Chuan Kwek. Repeat-until-success linear optics distributed quantum computing.Physical review letters, 95(3):030505, 2005

    2005

  37. [45]

    Entanglement of single-atom quantum bits at a distance.Nature, 449(7158):68–71, 2007

    David L Moehring, Peter Maunz, Steve Olmschenk, Kelly C Younge, Dzmitry N Matsukevich, L-M Duan, and Christopher Monroe. Entanglement of single-atom quantum bits at a distance.Nature, 449(7158):68–71, 2007

    2007

  38. [46]

    Efficiency of an enhanced linear opti- cal bell-state measurement scheme with realistic imper- fections.Physical Review A, 94(3):032332, 2016

    Stephen Wein, Khabat Heshami, Christopher A Fuchs, Hari Krovi, Zachary Dutton, Wolfgang Tittel, and Christoph Simon. Efficiency of an enhanced linear opti- cal bell-state measurement scheme with realistic imper- fections.Physical Review A, 94(3):032332, 2016

    2016

  39. [47]

    Arbitrarily complete bell-state mea- surement using only linear optical elements.Physi- cal Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 84(4):042331, 2011

    Warren P Grice. Arbitrarily complete bell-state mea- surement using only linear optical elements.Physi- cal Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 84(4):042331, 2011

    2011

  40. [48]

    3/4-efficient bell measurement with passive linear optics and unentangled ancillae.Physical review letters, 113(14):140403, 2014

    Fabian Ewert and Peter van Loock. 3/4-efficient bell measurement with passive linear optics and unentangled ancillae.Physical review letters, 113(14):140403, 2014

    2014

  41. [49]

    Cavity-funneled genera- tion of indistinguishable single photons from strongly dissipative quantum emitters.Physical review letters, 114(19):193601, 2015

    ThomasGrange, GastonHornecker, DavidHunger, Jean- Philippe Poizat, Jean-Michel Gérard, Pascale Senel- lart, and Alexia Auffèves. Cavity-funneled genera- tion of indistinguishable single photons from strongly dissipative quantum emitters.Physical review letters, 114(19):193601, 2015

    2015

  42. [50]

    Bell-state measurement ex- ceeding 50% success probability with linear optics.Sci- ence Advances, 9(32):eadf4080, 2023

    Matthias J Bayerbach, Simone E D’Aurelio, Peter van Loock, and Stefanie Barz. Bell-state measurement ex- ceeding 50% success probability with linear optics.Sci- ence Advances, 9(32):eadf4080, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Cavity-coupled telecom atomic source in silicon.Nature Communications, 15(1):2350, 2024

    Adam Johnston, Ulises Felix-Rendon, Yu-En Wong, and Songtao Chen. Cavity-coupled telecom atomic source in silicon.Nature Communications, 15(1):2350, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    High-efficiency single photon emission from a silicon t-center in a nanobeam.ACS Photonics, 10(11):3844–3849, 2023

    Chang-Min Lee, Fariba Islam, Samuel Harper, Mustafa Atabey Buyukkaya, Daniel Higginbottom, Stephanie Simmons, and Edo Waks. High-efficiency single photon emission from a silicon t-center in a nanobeam.ACS Photonics, 10(11):3844–3849, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    Cavity-enhanced emission from a silicon t center.Nano Letters, 24(1):319–325, 2023

    Fariba Islam, Chang-Min Lee, Samuel Harper, Moham- mad Habibur Rahaman, Yuqi Zhao, Neelesh Kumar Vij, and Edo Waks. Cavity-enhanced emission from a silicon t center.Nano Letters, 24(1):319–325, 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    Integrated silicon t centers for quantum technologies

    DB Higginbottom, A DeAbreu, C Bowness, A Alizadeh, C Chartrand, NA Brunelle, ER MacQuarrie, NR Lee- Hone, M Ruether, M Kazemi, et al. Integrated silicon t centers for quantum technologies. InQuantum Comput- ing, Communication, and Simulation III, volume 12446, pages 165–173. S...

    2023

  47. [55]

    Detecting single infrared photons to- ward optimal system detection efficiency.Optics Express, 28(24):36884–36891, 2020

    Peng Hu, Hao Li, Lixing You, Heqing Wang, You Xiao, Jia Huang, Xiaoyan Yang, Weijun Zhang, Zhen Wang, and Xiaoming Xie. Detecting single infrared photons to- ward optimal system detection efficiency.Optics Express, 28(24):36884–36891, 2020

    2020

  48. [56]

    Detecting telecom single pho- tons with 99.5- 2.07+ 0.5% system detection efficiency and high time resolution.APL Photonics, 6(3), 2021

    J Chang, JWN Los, JO Tenorio-Pearl, Niels Noordzij, R Gourgues, A Guardiani, JR Zichi, SF Pereira, HP Ur- bach, Val Zwiller, et al. Detecting telecom single pho- tons with 99.5- 2.07+ 0.5% system detection efficiency and high time resolution.APL Photonics, 6(3), 2021

    2021

  49. [57]

    Superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors with 98% system de- tection efficiency at 1550 nm.Optica, 7(12):1649–1653, 2020

    Dileep V Reddy, Robert R Nerem, Sae Woo Nam, Richard P Mirin, and Varun B Verma. Superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors with 98% system de- tection efficiency at 1550 nm.Optica, 7(12):1649–1653, 2020

    2020

  50. [58]

    Performance analysis of different photon-mediated entanglement generation schemes under optical dephasing and spectral diffusion

    Kinfung Ngan and Shuo Sun. Performance analysis of different photon-mediated entanglement generation schemes under optical dephasing and spectral diffusion. 14 arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.09976, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Ytterbium nuclear- spin qubits in an optical tweezer array.Physical Review X, 12(2):021027, 2022

    Alec Jenkins, Joanna W Lis, Aruku Senoo, William F McGrew, and Adam M Kaufman. Ytterbium nuclear- spin qubits in an optical tweezer array.Physical Review X, 12(2):021027, 2022

    2022

  52. [60]

    Laser-induced spectral diffusion and excited-state mixing of silicon t centres.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.09908, 2025

    Camille Bowness, Simon A Meynell, Michael Dobinson, Chloe Clear, Kais Jooya, Nicholas Brunelle, Mehdi Ke- shavarz, Katarina Boos, Melanie Gascoine, Shahrzad Taherizadegan, et al. Laser-induced spectral diffusion and excited-state mixing of silicon t centres.arXiv preprint arXi...

    2025

  53. [61]

    Robust quantum gates on neutral atoms with cavity-assisted photon scat- tering.Physical Review A, 72(3):032333, 2005

    L-M Duan, B Wang, and HJ Kimble. Robust quantum gates on neutral atoms with cavity-assisted photon scat- tering.Physical Review A, 72(3):032333, 2005

    2005

  54. [62]

    Erra- tum to cavity-assisted controlled phase-flip gates

    F Kimiaee Asadi, SC Wein, and Christoph Simon. Erra- tum to cavity-assisted controlled phase-flip gates. erra- tum in preparation, 2025

    2025

  55. [63]

    Scalable photonic quantum computation through cavity-assisted interactions.Phys- ical review letters, 92(12):127902, 2004

    L-M Duan and HJ Kimble. Scalable photonic quantum computation through cavity-assisted interactions.Phys- ical review letters, 92(12):127902, 2004

    2004

  56. [64]

    Quantum information

    DF Walls and Gerard J Milburn. Quantum information. InQuantum Optics, pages 307–346. Springer, 2008

    2008

  57. [65]

    Realizing quan- tum controlled phase flip through cavity qed.Physical Review A, 70(4):042314, 2004

    Yun-Feng Xiao, Xiu-Min Lin, Jie Gao, Yong Yang, Zheng-Fu Han, and Guang-Can Guo. Realizing quan- tum controlled phase flip through cavity qed.Physical Review A, 70(4):042314, 2004

    2004

  58. [66]

    Nondestructive photon detection us- ing a single rare-earth ion coupled to a photonic cavity

    Chris O’Brien, Tian Zhong, Andrei Faraon, and Christoph Simon. Nondestructive photon detection us- ing a single rare-earth ion coupled to a photonic cavity. Phys. Rev. A, 94:043807, Oct 2016

    2016

  59. [67]

    Optical-transition parameters of the silicon t center

    Chloe Clear, Sara Hosseini, Amirhossein Al- izadehKhaledi, Nicholas Brunelle, Austin Woolver- ton, Joshua Kanaganayagam, Moein Kazemi, Camille Chartrand, Mehdi Keshavarz, Yihuang Xiong, et al. Optical-transition parameters of the silicon t center. Physical Review Applied, 22(6...

    2024

  60. [68]

    Nmr tech- niques for quantum control and computation.Reviews of modern physics, 76(4):1037–1069, 2004

    Lieven MK Vandersypen and Isaac L Chuang. Nmr tech- niques for quantum control and computation.Reviews of modern physics, 76(4):1037–1069, 2004

    2004

  61. [69]

    andC= 4g2 κγ [16, 70] result inFp = C ηr ηzpl , andγ ′ is given byγ ′ =γ(1 +C). Following the discussion in section II, we evaluate the efficiency and fidelity of the IB and IBF schemes at two detection times:T d = 10 nsandT d = 500 ns, which cor- responds to the trade-off bet...

  62. [70]

    A surface code quantum computer in silicon.Science advances, 1(9):e1500707, 2015

    Charles D Hill, Eldad Peretz, Samuel J Hile, Matthew G House, Martin Fuechsle, Sven Rogge, Michelle Y Sim- mons, and Lloyd CL Hollenberg. A surface code quantum computer in silicon.Science advances, 1(9):e1500707, 2015

    2015

  63. [71]

    Optical and magnetic properties of the t radiation damage centre in 28si

    Laurent Bergeron. Optical and magnetic properties of the t radiation damage centre in 28si. Master’s thesis, Simon Fraser University, 2019

    2019

  64. [72]

    Cav- ity quantum electrodynamics with color centers in dia- mond.Optica, 7(10):1232–1252, 2020

    ErikaJanitz, MihirKBhaskar, andLilianChildress. Cav- ity quantum electrodynamics with color centers in dia- mond.Optica, 7(10):1232–1252, 2020

    2020

  65. [73]

    Nondestructive photon detection us- ing a single rare-earth ion coupled to a photonic cavity

    Chris O’Brien, Tian Zhong, Andrei Faraon, and Christoph Simon. Nondestructive photon detection us- ing a single rare-earth ion coupled to a photonic cavity. Physical Review A, 94(4):043807, 2016

    2016

  66. [74]

    Cryogenic feedforward of a pho- tonic quantum state.Optica, 12(5):720–727, 2025

    Frederik Thiele, Niklas Lamberty, Thomas Hummel, Nina A Lange, Lorenzo M Procopio, Aishi Barua, Sebas- tian Lengeling, Viktor Quiring, Christof Eigner, Chris- tine Silberhorn, et al. Cryogenic feedforward of a pho- tonic quantum state.Optica, 12(5):720–727, 2025

    2025

  67. [75]

    Effect of frequency-mismatched photons in quantum-information processing.Physi- cal Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 77(4):042323, 2008

    J Metz and SD Barrett. Effect of frequency-mismatched photons in quantum-information processing.Physi- cal Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 77(4):042323, 2008

    2008

  68. [76]

    Limitations on the indistinguishability of photons from remote solid state sources.New Journal of Physics, 20(11):115003, 2018

    Benjamin Kambs and Christoph Becher. Limitations on the indistinguishability of photons from remote solid state sources.New Journal of Physics, 20(11):115003, 2018

    2018

  69. [77]

    Rephasing spec- tral diffusion in time-bin spin-spin entanglement proto- cols.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06497, 2024

    Mehmet T Uysal and Jeff D Thompson. Rephasing spec- tral diffusion in time-bin spin-spin entanglement proto- cols.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06497, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Laser- induced spectral diffusion of t centers in silicon nanopho- tonic devices.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08898, 2025

    Xueyue Zhang, Niccolo Fiaschi, Lukasz Komza, Han- bin Song, Thomas Schenkel, and Alp Sipahigil. Laser- induced spectral diffusion of t centers in silicon nanopho- tonic devices.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08898, 2025

    2025

  71. [79]

    Telecom- heralded entanglement between multimode solid-state quantum memories.Nature, 594(7861):37–40, 2021

    Dario Lago-Rivera, Samuele Grandi, Jelena V Rakonjac, Alessandro Seri, and Hugues de Riedmatten. Telecom- heralded entanglement between multimode solid-state quantum memories.Nature, 594(7861):37–40, 2021

    2021

  72. [80]

    DL McAuslan, Jevon Joseph Longdell, and MJ Sell- ars. Strong-coupling cavity qed using rare-earth-metal- ion dopants in monolithic resonators: What you can do with a weak oscillator.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 80(6):062307, 2009

    2009

  73. [81]

    Quantum repeaters with individual rare- earth ions at telecommunication wavelengths.Quantum, 2:93, 2018

    F Kimiaee Asadi, N Lauk, S Wein, N Sinclair, C O’Brien, and C Simon. Quantum repeaters with individual rare- earth ions at telecommunication wavelengths.Quantum, 2:93, 2018

    2018

  74. [82]

    Proposal for room-temperature quantum repeaters with nitrogen-vacancy centers and optomechanics.Quantum, 6:669, 2022

    Jia-Wei Ji, Yu-Feng Wu, Stephen C Wein, Faezeh Kimi- aee Asadi, Roohollah Ghobadi, and Christoph Simon. Proposal for room-temperature quantum repeaters with nitrogen-vacancy centers and optomechanics.Quantum, 6:669, 2022

    2022

  75. [83]

    Near-term quantum-repeater experiments with nitrogen-vacancy centers: Overcoming the limitations of direct transmis- sion.Physical Review A, 99(5):052330, 2019

    Filip Rozpędek, Raja Yehia, Kenneth Goodenough, Maximilian Ruf, Peter C Humphreys, Ronald Han- son, Stephanie Wehner, and David Elkouss. Near-term quantum-repeater experiments with nitrogen-vacancy centers: Overcoming the limitations of direct transmis- sion.Physical Review A,...

    2019

  76. [84]

    Distributed quantum computing across an optical network link.Nature, pages 1–6, 2025

    D Main, P Drmota, DP Nadlinger, EM Ainley, A Agrawal, BC Nichol, R Srinivas, G Araneda, and DM Lucas. Distributed quantum computing across an optical network link.Nature, pages 1–6, 2025

    2025

  77. [85]

    passive" qubits and the hole spin states in the excited state as the

    David Barral, F Javier Cardama, Guillermo Díaz, Daniel Faílde, Iago F Llovo, Mariamo Mussa Juane, Jorge Vázquez-Pérez, Juan Villasuso, César Piñeiro, Natalia Costas, et al. Review of distributed quantum computing. from single qpu to high performance quantum comput- ing.arXiv p...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.