Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 81 references

A vapor-cavity-QED system for quantum computation and communication

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A room-temperature vapor-cavity architecture can perform high-fidelity single-photon generation, detection, and atom-photon gates by making the interaction time much shorter than the atomic transit time.

desk verdict Solid design study with a real architectural idea, but the tables omit the paper's own estimate of room-temperature Doppler error, so the headline fidelities are not yet end-to-end predictions. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.19432 v1 pith:TQHODAKY submitted 2025-09-23 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Sharoon Austin , Dhruv Devulapalli , Khoi Hoang , Feng Zhou , Kartik Srinivasan , Alexey V. Gorshkov This is my paper
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords cavityquantumelectrodynamicswarmatomicvaporsingle-photonsourcedetectioncontrolled-phasegateintegratedphotonicsmultiplexingkeydistribution
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 proposes that cavity QED with room-temperature atomic vapors can support high-fidelity quantum operations if the cavities are small and high-quality enough that the single-photon Rabi frequency g is large and the interaction time τ is long relative to the photon pulse duration T. It derives exact control-pulse shapes for Raman-driven generation and absorption of single photons, and analyzes two regimes: resonant emission with large control pulses, and off-resonant emission that addresses one atom-cavity eigenstate with smaller control pulses. Using model parameters for integrated microresonators, it predicts single-photon fidelities as high as 0.996, detection inefficiencies as low as 0.011, and atom-photon entangling-gate infidelities as low as 0.026, all while T is several times smaller than τ. It then shows the same strong coupling implements an atom-photon controlled-phase gate that can be used for photon-photon gates, photonic cluster states, and quantum key distribution.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing quantity is the single-atom cooperativity C = g^2/κγ, where g is the single-photon Rabi frequency, κ = κ_ex + κ_i is the total cavity decay rate, and γ is the atomic coherence decay rate. In the adiabatic limit κ_ex T ≫ 1, the retrieval efficiency is η_max = (κ_ex/κ)[1 + C^{−1} + (γ/κ)(Δ_p/g)^2]^{−1}, and the atom-photon phase gate follows from the resonant transmission amplitude t = (C − 1 + κ_i/κ_ex)/(C + 1 + κ_i/κ_ex), which approaches −1 for large C. Exact control-pulse solutions (Appendix A) convert these rates into the time-dependent Rabi frequency Ω(t) that retrieves or absorbs a single photon with a chosen temporal mode. The paper's key move is to identify parameter

What would settle it

Measure the retrieval fidelity of a room-temperature 87Rb beam passing a silicon-nitride microdisk with g ≈ 2π×1.6 GHz, κ_ex ≈ 2π×5 GHz, κ_i ≈ 2π×0.01 GHz, using the derived control pulse for a sin^2(πt/T) target photon. If the measured single-photon fidelity is below the predicted 0.976 for cavity 1a (or the detection inefficiency exceeds 0.17), the claimed regime is not reached. A simpler precursor: demonstrate g ≈ 1.6 GHz and κ_i ≈ 0.01 GHz simultaneously in the same fabricated resonator; that alone would remove the main parametric uncertainty.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an atom crossing a high-Q, small-mode-volume microcavity can take part in many coherent photon operations before it leaves, because the strong-coupling condition C ≫ 1 and the adiabatic condition κ_ex T ≫ 1 can be met with T well below the transit time τ. For the model cavities tabulated, this means g between 1.6 and 17 GHz, κ_ex chosen for strong overcoupling, and κ_i between 0.01 and 0.15 GHz. With these parameters the paper predicts single-photon retrieval fidelities 1−F as low as 0.004, absorption/detection inefficiencies as low as 0.011, and atom-photon controlled-phase gate infidelities 1−F_entangling as low as 0.026. The physical content is that the c

Load-bearing premise

The tabulated fidelities depend on microcavities simultaneously achieving the assumed g (1.6–17 GHz), κ_i (0.01–0.15 GHz), and strong overcoupling κ_ex, parameters that have only been approached in separate experiments, together with Doppler compensation of room-temperature atomic velocities whose residual error is not computed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the tabulated parameters, a single atomic transit supports between 2 and 8 single-photon pulses (τ/T in Tables I and II), so multiple heralded operations can be attempted per atom.
  • The predicted single-photon fidelities (1−F = 0.004–0.032 for case 1, 0.014–0.027 for case 2) are in the same range as state-of-the-art quantum-dot and Rydberg-ensemble sources, and the detection efficiencies (1−η_d as low as 0.011) are comparable to superconducting nanowire detectors.
  • The atom-photon controlled-phase gate, with entangling-gate infidelities as low as 0.026, gives a direct route to photon-photon gates, photonic cluster states, and non-destructive single-photon detection.
  • Active multiplexing with on-chip modulators (switching times below 30 ps) can herald active cavities and route photons, making the source/detector near-deterministic despite random atom arrivals.
  • The same primitives implement quantum key distribution in both Fock-basis (single-rail) and polarization-basis (dual-rail) encodings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the useful per-transit throughput hinges on the reset time and fidelity of atomic-state reinitialization; a natural extension is to model the full reset-and-retrieve cycle including π-pulse errors.
  • The claimed room-temperature operation depends on residual Doppler error after the angle-compensation condition is applied; a direct experimental characterization of retrieval fidelity as a function of atomic velocity would quantify this residual.
  • For non-chiral cavities, the phase-free gate (Eq. B29) passes the photon through the cavity twice, doubling the effective loss; the paper does not include this doubled-loss penalty in its tabulated efficiencies, so an extension would recompute gate fidelity for that variant.
  • If the g and κ_i parameters can be reached in integrated resonators, the architecture becomes a natural building block for multiplexed quantum repeaters, since many cavities can share one atomic beam and the switching network is already on-chip; that system-level rate analysis is not in the paper.
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 manuscript proposes a room-temperature integrated cavity-QED architecture in which thermal atoms traverse an array of high-Q, small-mode-volume microcavities, with single-photon Rabi frequencies large enough that several coherent operations can be completed within the transit time. It derives closed-form expressions for retrieval/absorption control fields and efficiencies (Eqs. 4–18), a transmission-coefficient model for the atom-photon controlled-phase gate (Eq. 24), and uses these to tabulate predicted single-photon fidelities, detection efficiencies, and gate fidelities for several concrete cavity parameter sets (Tables I and II). It then sketches multiplexed sources/detectors, cluster-state generation, and a quantum-communication protocol. Numerical simulations for representative parameter sets support the analytic formulas.

Significance. If the predicted fidelities were end-to-end, the architecture would be a notable advance: it offers a path to single-photon sources, detectors, and gates without laser cooling or cryogenic detectors, in a nanophotonic platform. The analytic derivations are internally consistent and follow standard input-output theory; the control-pulse construction is nontrivial, and the closed-form efficiency formulas are useful. The numerical validation of the analytic approximations is a strength. The paper is also explicit about several limitations, including transit-time broadening, temporal variation of g, and the need for beam collimation. However, the headline tables are not end-to-end predictions for room-temperature operation because a warm-atom-specific error source quantified in the same paper—the common-mode Doppler shift—is omitted from the fidelities. This omission materially changes the conclusions for the smaller-g cavities and must be addressed before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV C; Tables I and II; Fig. 15] The tabulated fidelities omit the Doppler error that Sec. IV C itself quantifies. The angle-compensation scheme of Fig. 9 cancels only the two-photon detuning (for the ladder system, k_p·v + k_c·v ≈ 0); it does not remove the common single-photon detuning Δd. The paper then finds that for case 1 the infidelity contribution scales as a2(Δd/g)^2, with a2 = 2.5 for cavity 1a, and that room-temperature atoms give |Δd/g| ≈ 0.24. This yields a Doppler-induced infidelity of about 2.5 × 0.24^2 ≈ 0.14 for cavity 1a, whereas Table I reports 1−F = 0.024. The alternative proposal—measuring the atom's speed and actively tuning the control and cavity frequencies—is mentioned but not quantitatively analyzed, and no residual error is included. Thus Tables I and II are not end-to-end room-temperature predictions; for the smaller-g cavities the omitted error is an order of magnitude larger than the tabula
  2. [Sec. V.A, Eq. (24), Table I] The atom-photon gate fidelities Fen in Table I also assume zero Doppler shift. Equation (24) is derived for Δap = Δcp = 0, i.e., for an atom at rest relative to the cavity. For a moving atom, both detunings acquire shifts of order Δd; for cavity 1a this is |Δd/g| ≈ 0.24, not a small parameter. The statement in Sec. V.A that the lowest-order correction in Δg/g is third order in ϵi concerns the spatial variation of g, not the Doppler detuning, and does not apply here. The gate fidelities should be recomputed with the same Doppler model used in Sec. IV C, or explicitly labeled as zero-velocity limits.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV, after Eq. (9)] Typo: 'deviation deviation' is duplicated.
  2. [Eq. (1)] The notation α ≡ κT appears before κ is defined; define κ = κex + κi earlier in the section.
  3. [Fig. 9 caption] The phrase 'microcavity's length' is ambiguous; use 'interaction length' or 'longest dimension' for consistency with Fig. 2.
  4. [Sec. V, comparison paragraph] The comparison with the SiV spin-photon system quotes Fen = 0.944, while Table I gives 1−Fen. Make the comparison consistent so the reader can directly compare error rates.
  5. [Table II caption] The column 'Setup' seems redundant with the cavity numbers in the first column; also specify the geometry (microdisk vs. photonic crystal) for each row in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: efficiencies and fidelities are computed from standard input-output theory in terms of the cooperativity, not fitted to or defined by the target results.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are self-contained applications of standard cavity-QED input-output theory. The maximum retrieval efficiency in Eq. (7) is obtained in the adiabatic limit from the coupled amplitude equations (A1-A3), following the external method of Ref. [56]. Equations (4)-(11), (12)-(13), (15)-(19), and the gate transmission coefficient Eq. (B9) are analytic expressions in terms of g, κ, γ, and C. The fidelities in Tables I and II are evaluations of these formulas at stated model-cavity parameters taken from the cited resonator literature; they are not fitted to the predicted fidelities, nor are the target fidelities used to define the parameters. The numerics in Figs. 14-15 validate and parameterize error scalings (e.g., a2 = 2.5) but do not define the headline fidelities. The self-citations (Refs. 34, 57, 63) are motivational, numerical-optimization, or external-benchmark references and are not load-bearing in the derivation chain. The Doppler and time-varying-g analyses are separate error estimates; their omission from Tables I-II is a completeness/correctness concern about the room-temperature claim, not circularity. No step reduces by construction to its own input. The paper also explicitly leaves the fluctuating-phase gate as an open question, which is an honest limitation rather than a circular move.

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

The central results depend on standard cavity-QED input-output theory plus a set of device and noise assumptions. The model cavity parameters (g, κex, κi) are chosen by hand from theoretical predictions rather than measured, which is the main source of uncertainty. No parameters are fitted to data, and no invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • single-photon Rabi frequency g = 1.6 to 17 GHz across model cavities
    Choosing g between 1.6 and 17 GHz in Tables I and II sets cooperativity C = g²/(κγ) between roughly 170 and 7800; all fidelities and efficiencies are functions of C and these chosen rates. The values are taken from theoretical predictions for microdisks and photonic crystal cavities, not from measurement.
  • intrinsic cavity loss κi = 0.01 to 0.15 GHz
    Assumed consistent with theoretically predicted quality factors (some approached experimentally); appears directly in error terms such as κi/κ in ηmax and Eq. (24).
  • waveguide coupling rate κex = 0.9 to 27 GHz
    Chosen by hand to satisfy strong overcoupling (κex ≫ κi), the adiabatic condition κexT ≫ 1, and the transit constraint T ≪ τ.
  • atomic transit time τ = 1.3 to 13.7 ns (Table I)
    Set by beam collimation (Ref. 30) and cavity length; the paper relies on τ/T ≈ 3-8 for room-temperature atoms, which limits the number of operations per transit. Larger τ values for cooled atoms are in Appendix E.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Markovian input-output theory for a single cavity mode coupled to a waveguide, with intrinsic loss and atomic decay treated as Lindblad terms
    Used throughout to derive transmission coefficient (Eq. B9), gate phases (Eq. 24), and efficiency formulas (Eqs. 7, 12, 18).
  • domain assumption Three-level approximation for 87Rb ladder scheme: unwanted off-resonant transitions are far detuned compared to Rabi frequencies
    Sec. IV A states the three-level-atom approximation holds because off-resonant transitions have large detunings ((2π)2-7 THz) relative to g and Ω ≈ (2π)10 GHz.
  • domain assumption Radiatively limited decoherence: both optical coherences decay only at rate γ from spontaneous emission, no extra dephasing
    Sec. IV restricts analysis to the radiatively limited case; additional dephasing is left for future work and would reduce fidelities.
  • domain assumption At most one atom interacts with a given cavity at a time, with occupancy probability p independent across cavities
    Used in the passive multiplexing analysis (Sec. IV B 2) to compute the optimal cavity number N = -1/ln(1-p); no multiple-atom events are considered.
  • domain assumption Doppler shifts can be canceled to sufficient accuracy (angled control pulse and/or per-atom frequency adjustment)
    Sec. IV C: for the example, |∆d/g| ≈ 0.24 at room temperature, which would add about 14% infidelity for cavity 1a if uncompensated; the paper proposes compensation but does not quantify residual error.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A vapor-cavity-QED system for quantum computation and communication." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TQHODAKY

@misc{pith2026250919432,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A vapor-cavity-QED system for quantum computation and communication},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TQHODAKY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.19432}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we propose performing key operations in quantum computation and communication using room-temperature atoms moving across a grid of high-quality-factor, small-mode-volume cavities. These cavities enable high-cooperativity interactions with single atoms to be achieved with a characteristic timescale much shorter than the atomic transit time, allowing multiple coherent operations to take place. We study scenarios where we can drive a Raman transition to generate photons with specific temporal shapes and to absorb, and hence detect, single photons. The strong atom-cavity interaction can also be used to implement the atom-photon controlled-phase gate, which can then be used to construct photon-photon gates, create photonic cluster states, and perform non-demolition detection of single photons. We provide numerics validating our methods and discuss the implications of our results for several applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.19432 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A schematic of the envisioned vapor cavity QED architecture. (a) The atoms produced from a thermal source go through two stages [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. A racetrack microcavity, where an atom traverses the longest [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Before implementing any atom-photon interactions, classi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Atomic levels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Size of control pulse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Size of the control pulse to retrieve a single photon in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Scheme for dealing with the Doppler shift. Shown here is a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Proposed atomic level scheme for the chiral case (solid black) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Scheme for making a multiplexed single-photon source. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Scheme for making a multiplexed single-photon detector. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Passively multiplexed single-photon source in the chiral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Single-photon source in the non-chiral case. This requires [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. We plot here the correction to the fidelity of the retrieved [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Protocol for using the atom-photon controlled-phase gate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Protocol for the photon-photon controlled-phase gate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. In this figure, we show the steps used to implement the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Protocols for making (a) a GHZ state and (b) a 1D clus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Circuit for making the state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. Circuits for making 1D cluster states in the polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_21.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Active multiplexing For implementing an actively multiplexed single-photon source, several of our single-photon sources (which may be active or not active at any given time) are connected to a con- trol switch as shown in Fig. 10. Detection of an atom in the cavity before the protocol starts ensures that a heralded sin- gle photon is produced. It is also ...

  2. [2]

    12, we use an array of N cavities to max- imize the probability that exactly one of them is active for im- plementing a passively multiplexed source

    Passive multiplexing As shown in Fig. 12, we use an array of N cavities to max- imize the probability that exactly one of them is active for im- plementing a passively multiplexed source. For the retrieved single-photon wavefunction to be independent of which cavity is active, we can apply a different control pulse with a suitable time delay to each cavit...

  3. [3]

    Pan, Z.-B

    J.-W. Pan, Z.-B. Chen, C.-Y . Lu, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, and M. ˙Zukowski, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 777 (2012)

    2012

  4. [4]

    P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 135 (2007)

    2007

  5. [5]

    M. K. Bhaskar, R. Riedinger, B. Machielse, D. S. Levonian, C. T. Nguyen, E. N. Knall, H. Park, D. Englund, M. Lon ˇcar, D. D. Sukachev, and M. D. Lukin, Nature 580, 60 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    Friis, D

    N. Friis, D. Orsucci, M. Skotiniotis, P. Sekatski, V . Dunjko, H. J. Briegel, and W. Dür, New J. Phys.19, 063044 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A. 454, 365 (1998)

    1998

  8. [8]

    X. Ding, Y . He, Z.-C. Duan, N. Gregersen, M.-C. Chen, S. Un- sleber, S. Maier, C. Schneider, M. Kamp, S. Höfling, C.-Y . Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 020401 (2016)

    2016

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    A. Kuhn, M. Hennrich, and G. Rempe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 067901 (2002)

    2002

  2. [10]

    Keller, B

    M. Keller, B. Lange, K. Hayasaka, W. Lange, and H. Walther, Nature 431, 1075 (2004)

    2004

  3. [11]

    B. C. Pursley, S. G. Carter, M. K. Yakes, A. S. Bracker, and D. Gammon, Nat. Commun. 9, 115 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    T. Wilk, S. C. Webster, H. P. Specht, G. Rempe, and A. Kuhn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 063601 (2007)

    2007

  5. [13]

    Juska, V

    G. Juska, V . Dimastrodonato, L. O. Mereni, A. Gocalinska, and E. Pelucchi, Nat. Photon. 7, 527 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    McKeever, A

    J. McKeever, A. Boca, A. D. Boozer, R. Miller, J. R. Buck, A. Kuzmich, and H. J. Kimble, Science 303, 1992 (2004)

    1992

  7. [15]

    Hijlkema, B

    M. Hijlkema, B. Weber, H. P. Specht, S. C. Webster, A. Kuhn, and G. Rempe, Nat. Phys. 3, 253 (2007). 15

    2007

  8. [16]

    D. V . Reddy, N. Otrooshi, S. W. Nam, R. P. Mirin, and V . B. Verma, APL Photonics 7, 051302 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Y . Liu, M. Davanço, V . Aksyuk, and K. Srinivasan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 223603 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Bogaerts, P

    W. Bogaerts, P. De Heyn, T. Van Vaerenbergh, K. De V os, S. Kumar Selvaraja, T. Claes, P. Dumon, P. Bienstman, D. Van Thourhout, and R. Baets, Laser Photonics Rev. 6, 47 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Zhang, L

    L. Zhang, L. Jie, M. Zhang, Y . Wang, Y . Xie, Y . Shi, and D. Dai, Photon. Res. 8, 684 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    T. G. Tiecke, J. D. Thompson, N. P. De Leon, L. R. Liu, V . Vuleti´c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature 508, 241 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    A. Boca, R. Miller, K. M. Birnbaum, A. D. Boozer, J. McK- eever, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 233603 (2004)

    2004

  14. [22]

    Dayan, A

    B. Dayan, A. S. Parkins, T. Aoki, E. P. Ostby, K. J. Vahala, and H. J. Kimble, Science 319, 1062 (2008)

    2008

  15. [23]

    V olz, M

    J. V olz, M. Scheucher, C. Junge, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Nat. Photon. 8, 965 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Reiserer, N

    A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, G. Rempe, et al., Nature 508, 237 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Samutpraphoot, T

    P. Samutpraphoot, T. Ðor ¯devi´c, P. L. Ocola, H. Bernien, C. Senko, V . Vuleti´c, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 063602 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    R. J. Thompson, G. Rempe, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1132 (1992)

    1992

  19. [27]

    Q. A. Turchette, C. J. Hood, W. Lange, H. Mabuchi, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4710 (1995)

    1995

  20. [28]

    Alaeian, R

    H. Alaeian, R. Ritter, M. Basic, et al., Appl. Phys. B 126, 25 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    A. W. Elshaari, W. Pernice, K. Srinivasan, O. Benson, and V . Zwiller, Nat. Photon. 14, 285 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Chang, X

    T.-H. Chang, X. Zhou, M. Zhu, B. M. Fields, and C.-L. Hung, Appl. Phys. Lett. 117, 174001 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    X. Lu, A. McClung, and K. Srinivasan, Nat. Photon. 16, 66 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    C. Li, X. Chai, B. Wei, J. Yang, A. Daruwalla, F. Ayazi, and C. Raman, Nat. Commun. 10, 1831 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    G. D. Martinez, C. Li, A. Staron, J. Kitching, C. Raman, and W. R. McGehee, Nat. Commun. 14, 3501 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Stern, R

    L. Stern, R. Zektzer, N. Mazurski, and U. Levy, Laser Photonics Rev. 10, 1016 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Ritter, N

    R. Ritter, N. Gruhler, H. Dobbertin, H. Kübler, S. Scheel, W. Pernice, T. Pfau, and R. Löw, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021032 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Zektzer, X

    R. Zektzer, X. Lu, K. T. Hoang, R. Shrestha, S. Austin, F. Zhou, A. Chanana, G. Holland, D. Westly, P. Lett, A. V . Gorshkov, and K. Srinivasan, Optica 11, 1376 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    N. H. Lindner and T. Rudolph, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 113602 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    Pichler, S

    H. Pichler, S. Choi, P. Zoller, and M. D. Lukin, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 11362 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Pöllinger, D

    M. Pöllinger, D. O’Shea, F. Warken, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 053901 (2009)

    2009

  32. [40]

    J. D. Thompson, T. G. Tiecke, N. P. de Leon, J. Feist, A. V . Akimov, M. Gullans, A. S. Zibrov, V . Vuleti´c, and M. D. Lukin, Science 340, 1202 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    T. Aoki, B. Dayan, E. Wilcut, W. P. Bowen, A. S. Parkins, T. J. Kippenberg, K. J. Vahala, and H. J. Kimble, Nature 443, 671 (2006)

    2006

  34. [42]

    Shomroni, S

    I. Shomroni, S. Rosenblum, Y . Lovsky, O. Bechler, G. Guen- delman, and B. Dayan, Science 345, 903 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    Junge, D

    C. Junge, D. O’Shea, J. V olz, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 213604 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    O’Shea, C

    D. O’Shea, C. Junge, J. V olz, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 193601 (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    Espinosa-Soria and A

    A. Espinosa-Soria and A. Martinez, IEEE Photonics Tech- nol. Lett. 28, 1561 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    Zektzer, E

    R. Zektzer, E. Talker, Y . Barash, N. Mazurski, and U. Levy, Optica 6, 15 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    X. Zhou, H. Tamura, T.-H. Chang, and C.-L. Hung, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 103601 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Raussendorf, D

    R. Raussendorf, D. E. Browne, and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. A 68, 022312 (2003)

    2003

  41. [49]

    S. Xie, Y . Zhang, Y . Hu, S. Veilleux, and M. Dagenais, ACS Photonics 7, 1009 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Notomi, Rep

    M. Notomi, Rep. Prog. Phys. 73, 096501 (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    Meyer-Scott, C

    E. Meyer-Scott, C. Silberhorn, and A. Migdall, Rev. Sci. In- strum. 91, 041101 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Jiang, X

    Y . Jiang, X. Han, Y . Li, H. Xiao, H. Huang, P. Zhang, A. Dubey, M. Yuan, T. G. Nguyen, A. Boes, Y . Li, G. Ren, J. Xue, Q. Hao, Y . Su, A. Mitchell, and Y . Tian, ACS Photonics10, 2257 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    G. S. Vasilev, D. Ljunggren, and A. Kuhn, New J. Phys. 12, 063024 (2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    Parkins and T

    S. Parkins and T. Aoki, Phys. Rev. A 90, 053822 (2014)

    2014

  47. [55]

    A. Kuhn, M. Hennrich, T. Bondo, and G. Rempe, Appl. Phys. B 69, 373 (1999)

    1999

  48. [56]

    Hennrich, T

    M. Hennrich, T. Legero, A. Kuhn, and G. Rempe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4872 (2000)

    2000

  49. [57]

    G. W. Biedermann, X. Wu, L. Deslauriers, K. Takase, and M. A. Kasevich, Opt. Lett. 34, 347 (2009)

    2009

  50. [58]

    Utsugi, A

    T. Utsugi, A. Goban, Y . Tokunaga, H. Goto, and T. Aoki, Phys. Rev. A 106, 023712 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    A. V . Gorshkov, T. Calarco, M. D. Lukin, and A. S. Sørensen, Phys. Rev. A 77, 043806 (2008)

    2008

  52. [60]

    P. E. Barclay, K. Srinivasan, O. Painter, B. Lev, and H. Mabuchi, Appl. Phys. Lett 89, 131108 (2006)

    2006

  53. [61]

    Radulaski, T

    M. Radulaski, T. M. Babinec, K. Müller, K. G. Lagoudakis, J. L. Zhang, S. Buckley, Y . A. Kelaita, K. Alassaad, G. Ferro, and J. Vuˇckovi´c, ACS Photonics 2, 14 (2015)

    2015

  54. [62]

    Gomez, S

    E. Gomez, S. Aubin, L. A. Orozco, and G. D. Sprouse, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 21, 2058 (2004)

  55. [63]

    Zhong, Y

    H.-S. Zhong, Y . Li, W. Li, L.-C. Peng, Z.-E. Su, Y . Hu, Y .-M. He, X. Ding, W. Zhang, H. Li, L. Zhang, Z. Wang, L. You, X.- L. Wang, X. Jiang, L. Li, Y .-A. Chen, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y . Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 250505 (2018)

    2018

  56. [64]

    Wang, Y .-M

    H. Wang, Y .-M. He, T.-H. Chung, H. Hu, Y . Yu, S. Chen, X. Ding, M.-C. Chen, J. Qin, X. Yang, R.-Z. Liu, Z.-C. Duan, J.-P. Li, S. Gerhardt, K. Winkler, J. Jurkat, L.-J. Wang, N. Gregersen, Y .-H. Huo, Q. Dai, S. Yu, S. Höfling, C.-Y . Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Nat. Photon. 13, 770 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    D. P. Ornelas-Huerta, A. N. Craddock, E. A. Goldschmidt, A. J. Hachtel, Y . Wang, P. Bienias, A. V . Gorshkov, S. L. Rolston, and J. V . Porto, Optica7, 813 (2020)

    2020

  58. [66]

    Xiong, X

    C. Xiong, X. Zhang, Z. Liu, M. J. Collins, A. Mahendra, L. G. Helt, M. J. Steel, D.-Y . Choi, C. J. Chae, P. H. W. Leong, and B. J. Eggleton, Nat. Commun. 7, 10853

  59. [67]

    Moille, D

    G. Moille, D. Westly, E. F. Perez, M. Metzler, G. Simelgor, and K. Srinivasan, APL Photonics 7, 126104 (2022)

    2022

  60. [68]

    D. Zhu, L. Shao, M. Yu, R. Cheng, B. Desiatov, C. J. Xin, Y . Hu, J. Holzgrafe, S. Ghosh, A. Shams-Ansari, E. Puma, N. Sinclair, C. Reimer, M. Zhang, and M. Lon ˇcar, ACS Photonics 13, 242 (2021)

    2021

  61. [69]

    Reiserer, N

    A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, G. Rempe, and S. Ritter, Nature 508, 237 (2014)

    2014

  62. [70]

    Hacker, S

    B. Hacker, S. Welte, G. Rempe, and S. Ritter, Nature 536, 193 (2016)

    2016

  63. [71]

    Reiserer, S

    A. Reiserer, S. Ritter, and G. Rempe, Science342, 1349 (2013)

    2013

  64. [72]

    Duan and H

    L.-M. Duan and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 127902 (2004). 16

    2004

  65. [73]

    L.-M. Duan, A. Kuzmich, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. A 67, 032305 (2003)

    2003

  66. [74]

    M. Yu, D. Barton III, R. Cheng, C. Reimer, P. Kharel, L. He, L. Shao, D. Zhu, Y . Hu, H. R. Grant, L. Johansson, Y . Okawachi, A. L. Gaeta, M. Zhang, and M. Lon ˇcar, Nature 612, 252–258 (2022)

    2022

  67. [75]

    Shi and E

    Y . Shi and E. Waks, Phys. Rev. A104, 013703 (2021)

    2021

  68. [76]

    Bartolucci, P

    S. Bartolucci, P. M. Birchall, M. Gimeno-Segovia, E. Johnston, K. Kieling, M. Pant, T. Rudolph, J. Smith, C. Sparrow, and M. D. Vidrighin, Creation of Entangled Photonic States Using Linear Optics (2021), arXiv:2106.13825 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  69. [77]

    P. N. Melentiev, P. A. Borisov, and V . I. Balykin, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 98, 667 (2004)

    2004

  70. [78]

    E. Will, L. Masters, A. Rauschenbeutel, M. Scheucher, and J. V olz, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 233602 (2021). Appendix A: Derivation of the control pulse shapes for single-photon retrieval and absorption In this section, we continue our discussion from Sec. IV and provide details on...

    2021

  71. [79]

    The equations of motion can then be written as ˙cg,a = −(κ + i∆cp)cg,a − ihcg,b − ige−iϕce − √2κexain(t), (B19) ˙cg,b = −(κ + i∆cp)cg,b − ihcg,a − igeiϕce − √2κexbin(t), (B20) ˙ce = −(γ + i∆ap)ce − igeiϕcg,a − ige−iϕcg,b, (B21) where cg,a, cg,b, and ce are the amplitudes in th...

  72. [80]

    This protocol uses control pulses (for single- photon storage), atomic state rotations, and the atom-photon controlled-phase gate

    Fock-basis encoding We now outline the communication protocol for Fock ba- sis photons. This protocol uses control pulses (for single- photon storage), atomic state rotations, and the atom-photon controlled-phase gate. Alice sends her qubit |0⟩1 + eiϕ1 |1⟩1 to Charlie, whose a...

  73. [81]

    We use the definitions |0⟩ = |v⟩ and |1⟩ = |h⟩, where h couples to the atom-cavity system while v remains uncoupled

    Polarization-basis encoding We now outline the communication protocol for photons encoded in the polarization basis. We use the definitions |0⟩ = |v⟩ and |1⟩ = |h⟩, where h couples to the atom-cavity system while v remains uncoupled. In the first step, Alice sends her photon i...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.