Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Quantifying Pauli Errors in Single-Photon Resource-State Generation

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

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

Pith's one-line read First-order coherence measurements of a single photon suffice to reconstruct noisy emitter wavefunctions and compute their Pauli error rates.

desk verdict A solid, genuinely useful derivation connecting first-order coherence data to Pauli error rates for emitter-based photonic resource states; the main caveat is the load-bearing temporal-orthogonality assumption, which is physically motivated but defines the validity domain. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03005 v1 pith:RZ4AA2AW submitted 2026-08-04 quant-ph

Yuktee Gupta , Andrew C. Doherty , Sahand Mahmoodian This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords Paulierrorratessingle-photonsourcesfirst-ordercoherencetomographymatrixproductstatesfusion-basedquantumcomputingstabiliserexpectationvaluesemittersBell-statefusion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Quantum emitters can create single photons and entangled resource states deterministically, but their quality is usually reported as optical quantities such as coherence or visibility, whereas error-correcting codes consume Pauli error rates. The paper shows that first-order coherence measurements and first-order cross-correlations, both implementable with photon counting, contain enough information to reconstruct the full wavefunction of a noisy emitted photon. Inserting that wavefunction into a matrix-product-state description of GHZ, chain, and branched-chain resource states lets the authors compute every stabiliser expectation value analytically and then solve for the $X$, $Y$, $Z$ Pauli error probabilities as closed-form functions of measured noise parameters. It also derives the extra Pauli map that type-II fusion (Bell-state measurement) applies to noisy inputs. If correct, the scheme gives experimenters a direct route from lab characterisation of a single-photon source to the error budgets used in fusion-based photonic quantum error correction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the unnormalised first-order coherence function $G^{(1)}(x_1,x_2)=\eta f(x_1,x_2)+|\gamma|^2 c(x_1)c^*(x_2)$, measured with a Mach-Zehnder interferometer and photon counting. Diagonalising $f$ gives the temporal modes $v_n(x)$ and weights $|\alpha_n|^2$ of the emitted photon; a first-order cross-correlation with delay $\tau$ gives the environment-overlap parameters $\beta_n$, packaged as $\zeta=\sum_n |\alpha_n|^2|\beta_n|^2$. Those parameters enter a bond-dimension-two matrix-product-state representation of GHZ, chain, and caterpillar resource states, and stabiliser expectation values are computed by contracting the MPS with the corresponding matrix-product operator. The Pauli operators are constructed as isometries on the dual-rail photonic Hilbert space, summed over modes so that single-photon counting is mode-insensitive. Inverting the commutation matrix $A$, with $A_{ij}=\pm 1$ according to whether stabiliser $S_j$ and error $E_i$ commute, yields the error probabilities $\vec{p}=A^{-1}\langle\vec{S}\rangle$, with first-order closed forms in Table I.

What would settle it

On a three-level emitter, measure $G^{(1)}$ to extract $\eta$, $|\gamma|^2$, and $\zeta$, then predict $p_z=\bar{\eta}|\gamma|^2/2+\bar{\zeta}/2$; independently prepare many $N$-photon GHZ states and measure the parity stabiliser $\langle \hat{Z}_i\hat{Z}_j\rangle$ with number-resolving detectors. If the measured parity decay disagrees with the predicted $p_z$ by more than statistical uncertainty, the wavefunction-reconstruction route is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the complete wavefunction of the light emitted by a noisy single quantum emitter can be recovered from a first-order coherence measurement. For a single photon with efficiency $\eta$, coherent laser leakage $|\gamma|^2$, and mixed mode function $f(x,x')$, the measured coherence is $G^{(1)}(x_1,x_2)=\eta f(x_1,x_2)+|\gamma|^2 c(x_1)c^*(x_2)$, so diagonalising $f$ yields the temporal modes $v_n(x)$ and weights $|\alpha_n|^2$; a delayed cross-correlation on entangled emission yields the environment-overlap amplitudes $\beta_n$, packaged as $\zeta=\sum_n |\alpha_n|^2|\beta_n|^2$. The resulting noisy photon states are assembled into a bond-dimension-two matrix-product-state representation of $N$-photon GHZ states, chains, and branched (caterpillar) states, and the stabiliser expectation values of these states are evaluated as tensor-network contractions. Inverting the stabiliser-commutation matrix gives analytical first-order Pauli error probabilities: for three-level time-bin emitters $p_x=p_y=\bar{\eta}|\gamma|^2/2$ and $p_z=\bar{\eta}|\gamma|^2/2+\bar{\zeta}/2$ (a biased $Z$-error channel), while four-level polarisation emitters give $p_x=\bar{\eta}|\gamma|^2/4+\bar{D}$, $p_y=p_z=\bar{\eta}|\gamma|^2/4$, with an odd-$N$ even-odd site effect in chains. The paper further computes the additional Pauli map applied by fusion/Bell-state measurements, where the four-level map acquires a $\bar{V}/2$ contribution from single-photon visibility and the three-level map is independent of $\zeta$ to first order.

Load-bearing premise

The reconstruction assumes the leaked laser light reaches the collection channel in a time mode orthogonal to the emitted single photon, so its coherent contribution can be cleanly subtracted from the measured coherence; if the laser pulse temporally overlaps the photon, the extracted $\eta$, $f(x,x')$, and all downstream Pauli rates inherit a bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For large $N$, the per-qubit Pauli errors of chains, GHZ states, and branched chains coincide, so one small set of bulk and boundary parameters characterises an entire family of resource states.
  • Three-level emitters give $Z$-biased noise with a depolarising $\bar{\eta}|\gamma|^2$ floor, which existing biased-noise-tailored codes handle more easily, but require $\eta>0.967$ for a $<0.1\%$ per-error budget.
  • Four-level emitters relax the efficiency requirement to $\eta>0.933$, but demand $V>0.996$ and $D>0.999$, making their birefringence and indistinguishability the hardest experimental targets.
  • Fusion measurements add Pauli errors that a perfect-fusion model would miss; for four-level emitters the added $Z$ error includes a $\bar{V}/2$ term, so single-photon visibility matters for fusion even when it does not appear in state-preparation errors.
  • Combining the state and fusion tables yields a complete route from $G^{(1)}$ measurements to threshold-relevant per-qubit error budgets for fusion-based quantum error correction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper leaves implicit is to stretch the excitation pulse so it temporally overlaps the emitted photon; the extracted $\eta$ and $\zeta$ should drift in a predictable way, quantifying how much of the Pauli budget is protected by the pulse-width separation.
  • Because only the product $\bar{\eta}|\gamma|^2$ enters the first-order depolarising floor, suppressing either loss or laser leakage suffices to meet a fixed error budget; this points to leakage purity rather than bare efficiency as the controlling benchmark.
  • The analytic MPS contraction suggests an online diagnostic: continuously updated $G^{(1)}$ measurements would give real-time estimates of $p_x,p_y,p_z$ without full state tomography on the entangled resource itself.
  • An entanglement-swapping experiment on two noisy Bell states, comparing output stabiliser values with the fusion-map tables, would isolate fusion-induced errors from state-preparation errors and test the visibility-dependence claim directly.
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 proposes an end-to-end scheme that connects first-order coherence measurements of photons from quantum emitters to Pauli error probabilities in photonic resource states. It models a noisy single-photon emission as a mixed mode function f(x,x') together with coherent laser leakage |γ|² and loss η, and shows how G(1) can in principle recover these parameters. It then extends the model to three-level (time-bin) and four-level (polarization/direction) emitters, represents the resulting GHZ, cluster, and caterpillar states as bond-dimension-two matrix product states, computes stabilizer expectation values analytically, and inverts them to per-qubit Pauli error probabilities. First-order error rates are reported in Table I, fusion-induced error maps in Table II, and experimental parameter requirements in Table III.

Significance. If the central derivations hold, this work would provide a practical, observable-driven bridge between quantum-optical source characterization and the Pauli error models used in fusion-based quantum error correction. Its strengths are the MPS/MPO framework, the analytic expressions for stabilizer expectation values in terms of measurable parameters, the physically motivated normalization by ⟨Î...⟩, and the concrete falsifiable predictions in Tables I--III, including the prediction of biased noise (Z-biased for three-level, X-biased for four-level emitters). These are useful and timely contributions. However, as detailed below, a load-bearing part of the parameter-extraction protocol—the derivation of β_n from the early-late cross-correlation—is internally inconsistent as written, and the constructed Pauli operators are not precisely specified with respect to the coherent leakage mode. The central quantitative claims are therefore not yet fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II B 1, Eqs. (9)-(10), and Appendix E] Equations (9) and (10) are internally inconsistent. Integrating Eq. (9) against v_n(t1)v_n*(t2) and substituting into Eq. (10) gives |β_n|² = |β_n|² + (1−η)|γ|² [2/(η(1+|γ|²)²) − 1], which reduces to the claimed identity only when η(1+|γ|²)² = 2. Moreover, a direct calculation starting from the state in Eq. (E6), including loss and the coherent modes, indicates that the unequal-time cross-correlation G(1)(t1,t2) contains only the photon-photon interference term (η/2) Σ_{x,y} α_x* α_y β_x β_y* v_x*(t1) v_y(t2); the factors (1+|γ|²)² and 2(1−η)|γ|² in Eq. (9) do not appear because the orthogonal coherent modes and the loss modes do not contribute to the early-late cross-correlation. This affects the extraction of β_n and hence ζ, which enters Table I. The derivation and the reported formula need to be corrected and reconciled.
  2. [Sec. III, Eqs. (17)-(20) and (21)-(24)] The constructed Pauli operators in Eqs. (17)-(20) sum over the modes n obtained from the diagonalization of f(x,x'), which by construction excludes the coherent leakage mode c(x). However, the stabilizer expectation values in Eqs. (21)-(24) include factors such as (η+(1−η)|γ|²)² and e^{-4|γ|²} that require the identity operator Î to count single photons in the coherent leakage mode(s) as well. The text states that Î counts 'a single photon, emitted or leaked in from the excitation laser, in either rail,' so the intended operator is the physical projector onto the single-photon subspace of the rail, which includes the coherent mode. This should be made explicit: the mode sum in Eqs. (17)-(20) must run over a complete basis of the rail's single-photon subspace (as derived in Appendix B), not merely over the eigenmodes of f. As written, the definition is ambiguous and could lead to incorrect expectation values if read literally.
  3. [Sec. II A, Eq. (3)] The assumption that the coherent laser leakage occupies a temporal mode orthogonal to the single-photon mode is load-bearing: it justifies the additive form G(1) = η f(x,x') + |γ|² c(x)c*(x') and hence the extraction of η and f from Eqs. (3)-(4). If the leakage and the emitted photon partially overlap in time, cross terms appear and all downstream quantities—η, f, the mode functions, and the Pauli error rates in Tables I and II—are biased. The paper states this assumption but does not discuss its validity domain or quantify the sensitivity to partial overlap. The authors should state it as a limitation of the proposed tomography and ideally provide an estimate of the resulting bias when the overlap is small but nonzero.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. II C] The abstract's phrase 'any entangled state of noisy photons produced from a single quantum emitter' is broader than what is shown: the MPS representation is demonstrated for three- and four-level emitter protocols and relies on the assumptions stated in Sec. II C (full de-excitation each cycle, local noise). Please qualify the claim.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (25)] The summation index in Eq. (25) is written as '2N'; it should be 2^N, the number of cosets of the stabilizer group in the Pauli group.
  3. [Appendix E, Eq. (E12)] The final formula for |β_i|² in Eq. (E12) appears to be missing a factor of 2 relative to the main-text Eq. (10) even in the limit η=1, |γ|²=0; the factor 1/√2 in the postselected state (E6) is not carried through consistently into the expression for G(1). Please reconcile the appendix with the main text.
  4. [Table III and Sec. V] The derivation of the parameter bounds in Table III is not shown. For example, the bound η > 0.933 for four-level emitters appears more stringent than what follows from the first-order state-preparation errors in Table I alone; it would be helpful to state explicitly how the fusion-induced errors and the 0.1% error budget were combined.
  5. [Fig. 2(c) and Sec. IV] The description of the dual-rail fusion circuit and the detection patterns (e.g., |1100⟩, |1010⟩, |2000⟩) is terse; a clearer statement of which rails correspond to which photons, and which detection patterns herald success versus failure, would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Pauli error rates are outputs of an explicit analytic map from measured first-order coherence parameters; the stated assumptions (temporal orthogonality, Pauli noise, independent emissions) do not reduce the derivation to its inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Section II A inverts Eq. (3) to obtain eta and f(x,x') from the measured G^(1) via Eq. (4), then diagonalizes f to obtain alpha_n and v_n. Section II B 1 extracts |beta_n|^2 from cross-correlation via Eq. (10). Section III computes stabiliser expectation values by contracting the MPS/MPO and obtains Pauli error probabilities through the linear relation <S_j> = sum_i p_i A_ij (Eqs. (25)-(26), p = A^{-1} S). Nowhere are the Pauli error probabilities themselves used to fit eta, gamma, alpha_n, beta_n, zeta, or D. The result is a one-way mapping from measured single-photon observables to qubit error rates, not a fit renamed as a prediction. The temporal-orthogonality approximation for laser leakage restricts the validity domain of the inversion but is an explicit modeling assumption, not a circular input. The assumptions that errors are Pauli and that emission cycles are independent are also stated rather than disguised. The only self-citations are peripheral: Refs. [33,34] (chiral light-matter interaction for implementation) and Ref. [49] (loss thresholds for context). The MPS bond-dimension-two representation is imported from the external, non-overlapping Ref. [20]. No load-bearing step reduces, by the paper's own equations or by self-citation, to its own target.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not fit any data; it maps experimentally measurable parameters (η, γ, α_n, β_n, D) to Pauli error rates. These parameters are inputs to the model, not predictions. The central derivation uses standard quantum optics and stabilizer theory; the key modeling assumptions are listed as axioms. No new physical entities are postulated; the environmental states |φ_n> and |φ_s> are standard purification ancillas.

free parameters (5)
  • η (total efficiency)
    Measured via Eq (4) from the integrated first-order coherence minus coherent leakage. Enters directly into all Pauli error formulas (Tables I and II).
  • γ (coherent leakage amplitude)
    Determined by measuring the excitation field with no emitter photon. Appears as |γ|^2 in error rates.
  • α_n and mode functions v_n(x)
    Eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the single-photon mode function f(x,x'), reconstructed from G^(1). These define ζ and V.
  • β_n (environment overlaps)
    Obtained from first-order cross-correlation (Eq 10). Only |β_n|^2 enters via ζ.
  • D (directionality parameter, four-level emitter)
    Quantifies parasitic coupling between left/right modes; appears in four-level error rates.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Coherent laser leakage is in a temporal mode orthogonal to the emitted photon.
    Sec. II A; required to separate coherent and single-photon contributions in G^(1).
  • domain assumption No double-excitation events occur.
    Sec. II; justified by short laser pulses or Raman transitions.
  • domain assumption The emitter de-excites completely after each emission cycle, so errors on different photons are independent.
    Sec. III A; reduces the Pauli error model to independent per-qubit errors (bond dimension 2).
  • domain assumption Coherent errors can be converted to Pauli errors via twirling.
    Sec. III; standard QEC assumption, cited Refs [39,40].
  • domain assumption Detectors are number-resolving and cannot distinguish coherent leakage from emitted photons.
    Sec. IV; needed for the fusion error map calculation.
  • domain assumption For the four-level emitter, the environment couples equally to the two excited states.
    Sec. II B 2; allows |φ_n> to factor out equally for |L> and |R>.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantifying Pauli Errors in Single-Photon Resource-State Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RZ4AA2AW

@misc{pith2026260803005,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantifying Pauli Errors in Single-Photon Resource-State Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RZ4AA2AW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03005}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a scheme to compute Pauli error rates in photonics-based quantum error correction using experimental observables of single photons produced from quantum emitters. We show that first-order coherence measurements and first-order cross correlations, which can be implemented using photon counting, can extract single-photon and entangled single-photon wavefunctions in the presence of imperfections due to photon distinguishability, laser noise, and photon loss. Leveraging this, we show that the wavefunction of any entangled state of noisy photons produced from a single quantum emitter can be expressed in matrix-product-state form and can be used to analytically compute the expectation value of the stabilizer generators of the corresponding entangled state. From this we obtain analytic expressions for the Pauli error probabilities in terms of the photon noise parameters. Furthermore, we calculate Pauli error maps for entangled photons after undergoing Bell- state measurements in terms of these parameters. Our work provides a method to use experimental measurements to determine the required quality of photons produced from quantum emitters for fault-tolerant fusion-based photonics quantum computing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03005 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Modelling coherent state leakage and photon loss [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Level schemes of emitters and applied pulse sequences [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Representing emitted photons as an MPS, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Three-Level Emitter Consider a quantum emitter with an arrangement of three energy levels with a single optical transition, as proposed in [24], shown in Fig. 2(a). The photon is pro- duced when the emitter decays from the excited state |e⟩to ground state|g⟩. The third level is a degenerate ground state|s⟩only accessible from|g⟩by a separate laser or micr...

    work page

  2. [2]

    This level scheme can also be sequentially pulsed to produce entangled photons as previously re- ported [16, 18, 31]

    Four-Level Emitter The second level scheme we consider is a four- level emitter with optical transitions having orthogo- nal transition-dipole moments each linked to a different ground state. This level scheme can also be sequentially pulsed to produce entangled photons as previously re- ported [16, 18, 31]. This is shown in Fig. 2(b). Here the two degene...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Bartolucci, P

    S. Bartolucci, P. Birchall, H. Bombin, H. Cable, C. Daw- son, M. Gimeno-Segovia, E. Johnston, K. Kieling, N. Nickerson, M. Pant, F. Pastawski, T. Rudolph, and C. Sparrow, Fusion-based quantum computation (2021), arXiv:2101.09310 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Raussendorf and H

    R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A one-way quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5188 (2001)

    2001

  5. [6]

    Alexander, A

    K. Alexander, A. Benyamini, D. Black, D. Bonneau, S. Burgos, B. Burridge, H. Cable, G. Campbell, G. Cata- lano, A. Ceballos, C.-M. Chang, S. S. Choudhury, C. J. Chung, F. Danesh, T. Dauer, M. Davis, E. Dudley, P. Er-Xuan, J. Fargas, A. Farsi, C. Fenrich, J. Frazer, M. Fukami, Y. Ganesan, G. Gibson, M. Gimeno-Segovia, S. Goeldi, P. Goley, R. Haislmaier, S....

    work page 2025

  6. [7]

    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 en- tangled photonic states using linear optics (2021), arXiv:2106.13825 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [8]

    Maximum efficiency of a linear-optical Bell-state analyzer

    J. Calsamiglia and N. L¨ utkenhaus, Maximum efficiency of a linear-optical Bell-state analyzer, Applied Physics B 72, 67 (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0007058

    work page Pith review arXiv 2001

  8. [9]

    Sipahigil, K

    A. Sipahigil, K. D. Jahnke, L. J. Rogers, T. Teraji, J. Isoya, A. S. Zibrov, F. Jelezko, and M. D. Lukin, In- distinguishable photons from separated silicon-vacancy centers in diamond, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 113602 (2014)

    2014

Show all 50 references
  1. [10]

    A. Kuhn, M. Hennrich, and G. Rempe, Deterministic single-photon source for distributed quantum network- ing, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 067901 (2002)

    2002

  2. [11]

    N. Tomm, A. Javadi, N. O. Antoniadis, D. Najer, M. C. L¨ obl, A. R. Korsch, R. Schott, S. R. Valentin, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, and R. J. Warburton, A bright and fast source of coherent single photons, Nature Nanotech- nology16, 399 (2021)

    2021

  3. [12]

    Zhang, L.-T

    M. Zhang, L.-T. Feng, Z.-Y. Zhou, Y. Chen, H. Wu, M. Li, S.-M. Gao, G.-P. Guo, G.-C. Guo, D.-X. Dai, and X.-F. Ren, Generation of multiphoton quantum states on silicon, Light: Science & Applications8, 41 (2019)

    2019

  4. [13]

    Hauser, M

    N. Hauser, M. Bayerbach, J. Kaupp, Y. Reum, G. Peni- akov, J. Michl, M. Kamp, T. Huber-Loyola, A. T. Pfen- ning, S. H¨ ofling, and S. Barz, Deterministic and highly indistinguishable single photons in the telecom c-band, Nature Communications17, 10.1038/s41467-026-68336- 0 (2026)

    2026 doi

  5. [14]

    J. P. Lee, B. Villa, A. J. Bennett, R. M. Stevenson, D. J. P. Ellis, I. Farrer, D. A. Ritchie, and A. J. Shields, A quantum dot as a source of time-bin entangled multi-photon states, Quantum Science and Technology4, 025011 (2019)

    2019

  6. [15]

    L. Zhai, G. N. Nguyen, C. Spinnler, J. Ritzmann, M. C. L¨ obl, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, A. Javadi, and R. J. War- burton, Quantum interference of identical photons from remote gaas quantum dots, Nature Nanotechnology17, 829–833 (2022)

    2022

  7. [16]

    Ding, Y.-P

    X. Ding, Y.-P. Guo, M.-C. Xu, R.-Z. Liu, G.-Y. Zou, J.-Y. Zhao, Z.-X. Ge, Q.-H. Zhang, H.-L. Liu, L.-J. Wang, M.-C. Chen, H. Wang, Y.-M. He, Y.-H. Huo, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, High-efficiency single-photon source above the loss-tolerant threshold for efficient lin- ear optica...

    2023 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Schwartz, D

    I. Schwartz, D. Cogan, E. R. Schmidgall, Y. Don, L. Gantz, O. Kenneth, N. H. Lindner, and D. Ger- shoni, Deterministic generation of a cluster state of entangled photons, Science354, 434 (2016), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aah4758

    2016 doi

  9. [18]

    Cogan, Z.-E

    D. Cogan, Z.-E. Su, O. Kenneth, and D. Gershoni, De- terministic generation of indistinguishable photons in a cluster state, Nature Photonics17, 324 (2023)

    2023

  10. [19]

    Thomas, L

    P. Thomas, L. Ruscio, O. Morin, and G. Rempe, Efficient generation of entangled multiphoton graph states from a single atom, Nature608, 677–681 (2022)

    2022

  11. [20]

    N. H. Lindner and T. Rudolph, A photonic cluster state machine gun, Physical Review Letters103, 113602 (2009), 0810.2587

    2009 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Paesani and B

    S. Paesani and B. J. Brown, High-threshold quan- tum computing by fusing one-dimensional cluster states, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 120603 (2023)

    2023

  13. [22]

    B. Li, S. E. Economou, and E. Barnes, Photonic resource state generation from a minimal number of quantum emitters, npj Quantum Information8, 10.1038/s41534- 022-00522-6 (2022)

    2022 doi

  14. [23]

    M. C. L¨ obl, L. A. Pettersson, A. Jena, L. Dellantonio, S. Paesani, and A. S. Sørensen, Generating graph states with a single quantum emitter and the minimum number of fusions, Phys. Rev. A111, 052604 (2025)

    2025

  15. [24]

    C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by in- terference, Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 2044 (1987)

    1987

  16. [25]

    Kiraz, M

    A. Kiraz, M. Atat¨ ure, and A. Imamo˘ glu, Quantum-dot 12 single-photon sources: Prospects for applications in lin- ear optics quantum-information processing, Physical Re- view A69, 032305 (2004)

    2004

  17. [26]

    Tiurev, P

    K. Tiurev, P. L. Mirambell, M. B. Lauritzen, M. H. Ap- pel, A. Tiranov, P. Lodahl, and A. S. Sørensen, Fidelity of time-bin-entangled multiphoton states from a quan- tum emitter, Phys. Rev. A104, 052604 (2021)

    2021

  18. [27]

    Iles-Smith, D

    J. Iles-Smith, D. P. S. McCutcheon, A. Nazir, and J. Mørk, Phonon scattering inhibits simultaneous near- unity efficiency and indistinguishability in semiconduc- tor single-photon sources, Nature Photonics11, 521–526 (2017)

    2017

  19. [28]

    Sparrow,Quantum interference in universal linear op- tical devices for quantum computation and simulation, Ph.D

    C. Sparrow,Quantum interference in universal linear op- tical devices for quantum computation and simulation, Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College London (2018)

    2018

  20. [29]

    X.-J. Wang, G. Huang, M.-Y. Li, Y.-Z. Wang, L. Liu, B. Wu, H. Liu, H. Ni, Z. Niu, W. Ji, R. Jiao, H.-L. Yin, and Z. Yuan, Coherence in resonance fluorescence, Nature Communications16, 10.1038/s41467-025-61884- x (2025)

    2025 doi

  21. [30]

    Z. Qin, A. S. Prasad, T. Brannan, A. MacRae, A. Lezama, and A. I. Lvovsky, Complete temporal char- acterization of a single photon, Light: Science & Appli- cations4, e298 (2015)

    2015

  22. [31]

    D. B. West,Introduction to Graph Theory, 2nd ed. (Pren- tice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2001)

    2001

  23. [32]

    Buterakos, E

    D. Buterakos, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Determin- istic generation of all-photonic quantum repeaters from solid-state emitters, Phys. Rev. X7, 041023 (2017)

    2017

  24. [33]

    T. Wilk, S. C. Webster, A. Kuhn, and G. Rempe, Single- atom single-photon quantum interface, Science317, 488 (2007)

    2007

  25. [34]

    N. O. Antoniadis, N. Tomm, T. Jakubczyk, R. Schott, S. R. Valentin, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, R. J. Warbur- ton, and A. Javadi, A chiral one-dimensional atom using a quantum dot in an open microcavity, npj Quantum In- formation8, 10.1038/s41534-022-00545-z (2022)

    2022 doi

  26. [35]

    Lodahl, S

    P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, S. Stobbe, A. Rauschenbeu- tel, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, H. Pichler, and P. Zoller, Chiral quantum optics, Nature541, 473 (2017)

    2017

  27. [36]

    S¨ ollner, S

    I. S¨ ollner, S. Mahmoodian, S. L. Hansen, L. Midolo, G. Kirsanske, T. Pregnolato, H. El-Ella, E. H. Lee, J. D. Song, S. Stobbe, and P. Lodahl, Deterministic photon– emitter coupling in chiral photonic circuits, Nat. Nan- otechnol.10, 775 (2015)

    2015

  28. [37]

    M. Hein, J. Eisert, and H. J. Briegel, Multiparty entan- glement in graph states, Phys. Rev. A69, 062311 (2004)

    2004

  29. [38]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96–192 (2011)

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96–192 (2011)

    2011

  30. [39]

    Aliferis and J

    P. Aliferis and J. Preskill, Fault-tolerant quantum com- putation against biased noise, Phys. Rev. A78, 052331 (2008)

    2008

  31. [40]

    D. K. Tuckett, A. S. Darmawan, C. T. Chubb, S. Bravyi, S. D. Bartlett, and S. T. Flammia, Tailoring surface codes for highly biased noise, Phys. Rev. X9, 041031 (2019)

    2019

  32. [41]

    Knill, D

    E. Knill, D. Leibfried, R. Reichle, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, S. Sei- delin, and D. J. Wineland, Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates, Physical Review A77, 10.1103/phys- reva.77.012307 (2008)

    2008 doi

  33. [42]

    J. J. Wallman and J. Emerson, Noise tailoring for scalable quantum computation via randomized compiling, Phys. Rev. A94, 052325 (2016)

    2016

  34. [43]

    Gottesman,Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Cor- rection, Ph.D

    D. Gottesman,Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Cor- rection, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052 [quant-ph]

    1997 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Agresti,Categorical Data Analysis, 3rd ed

    A. Agresti,Categorical Data Analysis, 3rd ed. (John Wi- ley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2013)

    2013

  36. [45]

    D. E. Browne and T. Rudolph, Resource-efficient lin- ear optical quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 010501 (2005)

    2005

  37. [46]

    Bomb ´ ın, C

    H. Bomb ´ ın, C. Dawson, N. Nickerson, M. Pant, and J. Sullivan, Increasing error tolerance in quan- tum computers with dynamic bias arrangement (2023), arXiv:2303.16122 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Sahay, J

    K. Sahay, J. Claes, and S. Puri, Tailoring fusion-based error correction for high thresholds to biased fusion fail- ures, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 120604 (2023)

    2023

  39. [48]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A86, 032324 (2012)

    2012

  40. [49]

    Varnava, D

    M. Varnava, D. E. Browne, and T. Rudolph, How good must single photon sources and detectors be for efficient linear optical quantum computation?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 060502 (2008)

    2008

  41. [50]

    Bartolucci, T

    S. Bartolucci, T. Bell, H. Bombin, P. Birchall, J. Bul- mer, C. Dawson, T. Farrelly, S. Gartenstein, M. Gimeno- Segovia, D. Litinski, Y. Liu, R. Knegjens, N. Nickerson, A. Olivo, M. Pant, A. Patil, S. Roberts, T. Rudolph, C. Sparrow, D. Tuckett, and A. Veitia, Comparison of sc...

    2025 arXiv

  42. [51]

    discretised

    T. M. Stace, S. D. Barrett, and A. C. Doherty, Thresholds for topological codes in the presence of loss, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 200501 (2009). 13 Appendix A: Calculating F usion Mapping In this section we provide more details on the Pauli error map that is applied on the state a...

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.