pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.16152 · v2 · pith:UCAATFGXnew · submitted 2025-07-22 · 🪐 quant-ph

Practical blueprint for low-depth photonic quantum computing with quantum dots

Ming Lai Chan , Aliki Anna Capatos , Peter Lodahl , Anders S{\o}ndberg S{\o}rensen , Stefano Paesani This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 00:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords photonic quantum computingquantum dotsfusion-based quantum computingfault tolerancetime-bin encodingdeterministic photon sourceslinear opticserror thresholds
0
0 comments X

The pith

Quantum dots with adaptive fusions and low-connectivity architecture deliver a practical blueprint for fault-tolerant photonic quantum computing at low optical depth.

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

The paper establishes that deterministic photon emission from quantum dots, paired with adaptive repeat-until-success fusions and an optimised fusion-based architecture using low optical connectivity and time-bin encoding, produces a complete working design for a photonic quantum computer. This combination cuts the optical depth each photon must traverse and lowers overall resource overheads compared with probabilistic-source approaches. A sympathetic reader would care because earlier photonic schemes required massive multiplexing to overcome source randomness and loss, making large-scale fault tolerance seem distant, while this route uses realistic device imperfections to reach error-corrected operation. The authors supply hardware details, pulse sequences, resource counts for a logical qubit, and simulated thresholds that incorporate actual quantum-dot error sources. Logical error-correction cycles are projected to finish in microseconds and to scale linearly with code distance.

Core claim

By synergistically integrating deterministic photon emission from quantum dots, adaptive repeat-until-success fusions, and an optimised architectural design, we propose a complete blueprint for a photonic quantum computer using quantum dots and linear optics. It features time-bin qubit encoding, reconfigurable entangled-photon sources, and a fusion-based architecture with low optical connectivity, significantly reducing the required optical depth per photon and resource overheads. We present in detail the hardware required for resource-state generation and fusion networking, experimental pulse sequences, and exact resource estimates for preparing a logical qubit. We estimate that one logical

What carries the argument

The low-connectivity fusion-based architecture with time-bin encoding and adaptive repeat-until-success fusions from reconfigurable quantum-dot sources, which reduces optical depth per photon while preserving fault tolerance.

Load-bearing premise

The blueprint assumes that the full catalogue of real-world quantum-dot error sources accurately models all relevant imperfections and that the reconfigurable sources and adaptive fusion network can be realized at the stated performance without extra unmodeled decoherence or fabrication flaws.

What would settle it

A small-scale laboratory demonstration that measures the achieved optical loss, timing jitter, entanglement fidelity, and fusion success rates in a network of quantum-dot sources and shows that the resulting effective error rates lie below the simulated fault-tolerance threshold would confirm the claim; rates above the threshold would falsify it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16152 by Aliki Anna Capatos, Anders S{\o}ndberg S{\o}rensen, Ming Lai Chan, Peter Lodahl, Stefano Paesani.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows two types of physical {XX,ZZ} fusion for photons encoded in different degrees of freedom. In path-encoded (spatial) fusion, two photonic qubits (a and b) are sent through four optical paths in a fusion gate. A photon in the first (third) path represents the logical state |0ð and a photon in the second (fourth) represents |1ð. The fusion gate consists of linear-optic elements in￾cluding a SWAP gate, a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: b illustrates the time evolution of a time-bin encoded photon passing through a unitary gate that im￾plements either a Hadamard (for X/Y -basis measure￾ments) or identity (Z-basis) operation. For X-basis pro￾jection, the early time-bin is first swapped into a delay path by setting θ = 0. Prior to the interference of two time bins at the VBS, we set the phase to θ = −π/2 such that the |+ð = (|eð + |lð)/ √ 2… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: showcases an example of pulse sequence to per￾form a RUS encoded fusion between EPS3 and EPS4. From here, a set of inequalities is determined: τrep = τecho; (3) τd < τint; (4) τp < 2τrep − 2τint; (5) τπ < τint < τecho; (6) τTB < τEBF < τint − τπ; (7) τPS < min{τint, 2τrep − 2τint}, (8) encoded linear cluster state, in which fusions are performed on the encoded qubits. The resource-state generation sequence… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: shows excellent agreement between the two mod￾els when pZ < 1%, with deviation at higher error rates, especially visible at pZ = 3%. As the stochastic spin￾Z error approximation indeed suffices, we may refer to previous results [32] based on the polarisation-encoded Lindner-Rudolph protocol for a threshold that increases with the number of allowable physical fusions, saturating at 0.6% after N = 10 attempt… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: shows the optical depth per photon, defined by the total number of respective optical elements a pho￾ton traverses through from end to end [76]. Each photon emitted from an EPS unit travels through a free-space unitary gate, then couples into a single optical fibre, fol￾lowed by a three-way photon switch, and finally a fu￾sion gate, before reaching the detector. In terms of ac￾Elements Scaling with code d… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: a presents the simulated logical clock cycle time τlogical as a function of photon loss and lattice size L at N = 8. As seen in the figure, the logical clock time τlogical increases with the lattice size L as we also consider a larger lattice in the temporal dimension. Furthermore, as the loss rate increases, we see a slight reduction in τlogical since a photon loss is followed by a biased fusion, which h… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Fusion-based quantum computing is an attractive model for fault-tolerant computation based on photonics requiring only finite-sized entangled resource states followed by linear-optics operations and photon measurements. Large-scale implementations have so far been limited due to the access only to probabilistic photon sources, vulnerability to photon loss, and the need for massive multiplexing. Deterministic photon sources offer an alternative and resource-efficient route. By synergistically integrating deterministic photon emission, adaptive repeat-until-success fusions, and an optimised architectural design, we propose a complete blueprint for a photonic quantum computer using quantum dots and linear optics. It features time-bin qubit encoding, reconfigurable entangled-photon sources, and a fusion-based architecture with low optical connectivity, significantly reducing the required optical depth per photon and resource overheads. We present in detail the hardware required for resource-state generation and fusion networking, experimental pulse sequences, and exact resource estimates for preparing a logical qubit. We estimate that one logical clock cycle of error correction can be executed within microseconds, which scales linearly with the code distance. We also simulate error thresholds for fault-tolerance by accounting for a full catalogue of intrinsic error sources found in real-world quantum dot devices. Our work establishes a practical blueprint for a low-optical-depth, emitter-based fault-tolerant photonic quantum computer.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a complete blueprint for fault-tolerant photonic quantum computing using quantum dots as deterministic photon sources. It combines time-bin encoding, reconfigurable entangled-photon sources, adaptive repeat-until-success fusions, and a low-connectivity fusion-based architecture to reduce optical depth per photon and resource overheads. The manuscript details the required hardware, experimental pulse sequences, exact resource estimates for logical qubits, and error-threshold simulations that incorporate a full catalogue of real-world quantum-dot error sources, claiming microsecond-scale logical clock cycles that scale linearly with code distance.

Significance. If the derivations and simulations hold, the work provides a concrete, resource-efficient path to photonic fault tolerance that leverages deterministic emitters to bypass the multiplexing demands of probabilistic sources. The explicit integration of measured QD error parameters and the low-connectivity design are notable strengths that could lower experimental barriers relative to earlier photonic architectures.

major comments (1)
  1. [Error-threshold simulations] Error-threshold simulations section: the central fault-tolerance claim rests on the simulations correctly bounding all relevant errors (loss, timing jitter, entanglement infidelity, reconfigurability-induced decoherence). The manuscript does not include an independent validation or sensitivity analysis showing that the adopted catalogue fully captures fabrication-induced spectral diffusion or additional jitter arising from the proposed reconfigurable sources; any underestimation would compound across the repeat-until-success loops and time-bin encoding, directly affecting the reported thresholds.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Hardware and pulse-sequence figures] Figure captions for the resource-state generation and fusion-network diagrams should explicitly state the assumed loss and timing values used in the accompanying estimates.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the major comment regarding the error-threshold simulations below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Error-threshold simulations section: the central fault-tolerance claim rests on the simulations correctly bounding all relevant errors (loss, timing jitter, entanglement infidelity, reconfigurability-induced decoherence). The manuscript does not include an independent validation or sensitivity analysis showing that the adopted catalogue fully captures fabrication-induced spectral diffusion or additional jitter arising from the proposed reconfigurable sources; any underestimation would compound across the repeat-until-success loops and time-bin encoding, directly affecting the reported thresholds.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's emphasis on the robustness of our error model. The catalogue of error sources used in our simulations is derived from a comprehensive review of experimental characterizations of quantum dot devices, encompassing spectral diffusion, timing jitter, entanglement infidelity, and decoherence effects associated with reconfigurable sources as reported in the literature. However, we acknowledge that an explicit sensitivity analysis to variations in these parameters, particularly for fabrication-induced effects and additional jitter in the proposed architecture, was not included in the original manuscript. To strengthen the fault-tolerance claims, we have conducted additional simulations exploring a range of these error rates and included the results in a new appendix of the revised version. These analyses confirm that the reported thresholds are stable within experimentally observed ranges, with the thresholds degrading gracefully rather than abruptly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation uses external error catalogue and independent resource calculations

full rationale

The paper constructs its blueprint by combining deterministic quantum-dot photon emission, adaptive repeat-until-success fusions, time-bin encoding, and a low-connectivity fusion network, then derives resource estimates, pulse sequences, and optical-depth figures directly from the proposed hardware layout. Error thresholds are obtained by feeding a pre-existing catalogue of measured quantum-dot imperfections (loss, jitter, entanglement infidelity) into standard fusion-based error-correction simulations; the catalogue is taken from the broader experimental literature rather than being fitted or redefined to guarantee the reported thresholds. No equation reduces the final performance metric to the input assumptions by construction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work to force the architecture, and the central claims remain falsifiable against independent device characterization outside the present manuscript.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The blueprint rests on standard linear-optics assumptions and quantum-dot device parameters drawn from prior experiments; no new particles or forces are postulated, but several performance parameters (entanglement fidelity, loss rates, timing jitter) are taken as inputs from real devices.

free parameters (1)
  • quantum-dot error rates
    Catalogue of loss, jitter, and entanglement imperfection values taken from real-world devices and used to simulate thresholds.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Linear optics and photon measurements suffice for the fusion operations described.
    Invoked in the fusion-based architecture section of the abstract.
  • domain assumption Adaptive repeat-until-success can be implemented with the stated reconfigurable sources.
    Central to the low-depth claim but depends on hardware control not yet demonstrated at scale.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5771 in / 1602 out tokens · 33566 ms · 2026-05-22T00:27:25.409141+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Cavity-Enhanced Collective Quantum Processing with Polarization-Encoded Qubits

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A cavity-enhanced system encodes qubits in polarization of intracavity modes and uses polarization-selective nonlinearities to implement universal gates, with scaling analysis indicating feasible conditional phases in...

  2. Near-identical photons from distant quantum dot-cavity devices

    quant-ph 2026-04 conditional novelty 7.0

    Two distant quantum dot-cavity sources were tuned to produce photons with 88% two-photon indistinguishability, matching the intrinsic limit set by each source individually.

  3. PIQC: Scalable Distributed Quantum Computing via Photonic Integration of Designed Molecular Quantum Nodes

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    PIQC proposes a distributed FTQC architecture based on molecular quantum nodes with photonic integration, nuclear registers, loss-tolerant entanglement, and Floquetified qLDPC codes.

  4. Securing Elliptic Curve Cryptocurrencies against Quantum Vulnerabilities: Resource Estimates and Mitigations

    quant-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    Resource estimates show Shor's algorithm can break 256-bit ECDLP with fewer than 1450 logical qubits and 90 million Toffoli gates on fast-clock quantum hardware, enabling on-spend attacks on cryptocurrency mempools.

  5. Routing single photons with quantum emitters coupled to nanostructures

    quant-ph 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    A review summarizing input-output methods, theoretical proposals, and experimental demonstrations of emitter-based single-photon switches in nanophotonic structures.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

132 extracted references · 132 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    III A 3, the time-bin protocol re- quires repeated excitation and photon emission through the same optical transition

    Branching error due to finite cyclicity As covered in Sec. III A 3, the time-bin protocol re- quires repeated excitation and photon emission through the same optical transition. In practice, the excited state may decay through the diagonal transition with a small probability. This branching error not only results in the emission of a photon with an undesir...

    work page

  2. [2]

    This means that for a peak threshold of 0.174% observed at N = 6, the QD must cycle through at least C = 574 correct transitions before a branching error or photon loss occurs

    is valid when γc ≈ γnc j 1. This means that for a peak threshold of 0.174% observed at N = 6, the QD must cycle through at least C = 574 correct transitions before a branching error or photon loss occurs

    work page

  3. [3]

    dead-to-alive

    Finite T2 Finite spin coherence T2 originating from charge and nuclear noises was previously modelled as spin depolar- ising errors ( X, Y , Z) after each gate in the Lindner- Rudolph protocol [ 32]. Here, we include its effect in the time-bin protocol, where each Pauli error is sam- pled from the Pauli group {I, X, Y , Z} to occur after every step in the ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    For SiV centres, this is akin to heating-induced spin de- phasing from microwave rotation pulses in resistive gold coplanar waveguides [ 66]

    Laser-induced spin-flip errors during spin rotation The use of a red-detuned laser for driving spin rotation pulses in QDs has been shown to induce spin decoherence, as characterised by a linear increase in the spin-flip rate κ with spin Rabi frequency Ω R, corresponding to a non- zero normalised spin flip rate: ¯ κ = κ/Ωr [ 34, 46, 50, 61]. For SiV centres,...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Here we describe the dominant noise processes that limit photon indistinguishability, and present their respective fault-tolerant thresholds

    Photon distinguishability Successful type-II fusion gates rely on Hong-Ou- Mandel (HOM) interference [ 67], requiring highly indis- tinguishable photons emitted from different or the same emitter. Here we describe the dominant noise processes that limit photon indistinguishability, and present their respective fault-tolerant thresholds. Emitter-emitter pho...

    work page

  6. [6]

    The pulse duration and shape may be optimised in light of this trade-off, and spectral filtering may be used to remove the dephased and distinguishable photons respectively

    Optical excitation errors During optical excitation of the cycling |1ð ´ | 2ð tran- sition with a π-pulse, two errors could occur depending on the excitation pulse duration [ 51, 65]: a short pulse may excite the off-resonant cycling transition |0ð ´ | 3ð owing to partial spectral overlap, emitting a photon of unwanted frequency; a longer driving pulse may...

    work page

  7. [7]

    dead-to-alive

    Blinking A charged QD may intermittently stop emitting pho- tons ( blinking) due to slow tunnelling of carriers in and out of the QD [ 42, 71], effectively leading to photon loss that is correlated in time. This results in bursts of se- quentially lost photons in the photonic resource states. We model this non-Markovian blinking effect on the generation seq...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Ground-state dephasing The fluctuating nuclear spin environment in the QD vicinity induces decoherence of the spin qubit via the Overhauser effect [ 65, 72], limiting the intrinsic spin de- phasing time T ∗ 2 . Here, we model its effects for emitter- based architectures which rely on resource-state genera- tion protocols that do not have a built-in spin echo...

    work page

  9. [9]

    and ρZ(N ) to obtain: ∆2 OH = − 2 ln(1 − 2N pZ) τ 2 roundN 2 , (17) 18 FIG. 9. V erifying Markovianity in the low-error limit for ground-state dephasing. Average infidelity as a func- tion of the number of encoded qubits M , for encoded linear cluster states with maximum allowable fusion attempt N = 8. We observe good agreement between the simulated infidel...

    work page

  10. [10]

    ( 17), we can express T ∗ 2 in terms of τround

    and Eq. ( 17), we can express T ∗ 2 in terms of τround. For the peak threshold at N = 10, this cor- responds to T ∗ 2 = 56 τround. Initially, adding more pho- tons per encoded qubit increases the protection against dephasing and lowers the required T ∗ 2 , a benefit that is eventually outweighed by the increased wait time associ- ated with more physical fu...

    work page

  11. [11]

    III C 2, in the case of photon loss, the next physical fusion is biased in ZZ , which requires both the active phase shifters in the unitary and fusion gates to be modified

    Excitation-based feedback As discussed in Sec. III C 2, in the case of photon loss, the next physical fusion is biased in ZZ , which requires both the active phase shifters in the unitary and fusion gates to be modified. The phase shifter in the latter must be configured to set the VBS to fully reflect in order to perform single-qubit measurements instead of...

    work page

  12. [12]

    1a), photon switches (vertices), and unitary gates (vertices), whereas the numbers of beamsplitters and phase shifters per component are extracted from Fig

    Number of physical elements and optical depth We estimate the number of individual components of the fusion measurement circuit by counting the num- ber of fusion gates (corresponding to edges of the lat- tice in Fig. 1a), photon switches (vertices), and unitary gates (vertices), whereas the numbers of beamsplitters and phase shifters per component are ex...

    work page

  13. [13]

    all-in-one

    Comparing footprints with other photonic architectures Comparing photonic architectures solely by the aver- age number of photons per resource state or their loss thresholds can be misleading. A recent survey of existing FBQC proposals [ 26] suggests that the average number of photons per resource state is a limited footprint met- ric, since it depends he...

    work page

  14. [14]

    For a wider comparison, we benchmark our estima- tion of the logical clock cycle time with other quantum computing platforms, as shown in Table IV

    with ni max = N . For a wider comparison, we benchmark our estima- tion of the logical clock cycle time with other quantum computing platforms, as shown in Table IV. Assuming that the optimal spin-echo delay τecho ≈ 29 ns [ 34], τlogical ≈ 6 µs for L = 3, N = 8 and a photon loss of 8%. Our blueprint projection achieves a competitive, microsecond-fast logi...

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, S. J. Evered, J. P. B. Ataides, G. Baranes, A. Gu, T. Manovitz, M. Xu, M. Kalinowski, S. Majidy, C. Kokail, N. Maskara, E. C. Trapp, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, H. Zhou, M. J. Gullans, S. F. Yelin, M. Greiner, V. Vuletic, M. Cain, and M. D. Lukin, Architectural mechanisms of a universal fault-tolerant quantum computer ...

    work page arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    J. E. Bourassa, R. N. Alexander, M. Vasmer, A. Patil, I. Tzitrin, T. Matsuura, D. Su, B. Q. Baragiola, S. Guha, G. Dauphinais, K. K. Sabapathy, N. C. Menicucci, and I. Dhand, Blueprint for a scalable photonic fault-tolerant quantum computer, Quantum 5, 392 (2021)

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    H. Choi, M. Pant, S. Guha, and D. Englund, Percolation- based architecture for cluster state creation using photon-mediated entanglement between atomic memo- ries, npj Quantum Information 5, 104 (2019)

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Guti´ errez, J

    M. Guti´ errez, J. S. Rojas-Arias, D. Obando, and C.- Y. Chang, Comparison of spin-qubit architectures for quantum error-correcting codes (2025), arXiv:2506.17190 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    M. V. Larsen, X. Guo, C. R. Breum, J. S. Neergaard- Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, Deterministic multi-mode gates on a scalable photonic quantum computing plat- form, Nature Physics 17, 1018 (2021)

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    J. M. Auger, S. Bergamini, and D. E. Browne, Blueprint for fault-tolerant quantum computation with rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. A 96, 052320 (2017)

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    J. Kim, J. H. Han, and I. H. Kim, Fault-tolerant Quan- tum Error Correction Using a Linear Array of Emitters, Quantum 9, 1676 (2025)

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    J. M. Pino, J. M. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, J. P. Gaebler, S. A. Moses, M. S. Allman, C. H. Baldwin, M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, K. Mayer, C. Ryan-Anderson, and B. Neyen- huis, Demonstration of the trapped-ion quantum ccd computer architecture, Nature 592, 209–213 (2021)

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Chamberland, K

    C. Chamberland, K. Noh, P. Arrangoiz-Arriola, E. T. Campbell, C. T. Hann, J. Iverson, H. Putterman, T. C. Bohdanowicz, S. T. Flammia, A. Keller, G. Refael, J. Preskill, L. Jiang, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, O. Painter, and F. G. Brand˜ ao, Building a fault-tolerant quantum computer using concatenated cat codes, PRX Quantum 3, 010329 (2022) . 24

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    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)

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Bartolucci, P

    S. Bartolucci, P. Birchall, H. Bomb ´ ın, H. Cable, C. Daw- son, M. Gimeno-Segovia, E. Johnston, K. Kieling, N. Nickerson, M. Pant, F. Pastawski, T. Rudolph, and C. Sparrow, Fusion-based quantum computation, Nature Communications 14, 912 (2023)

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    A. P. Lund, T. C. Ralph, and H. L. Haselgrove, Fault- tolerant linear optical quantum computing with small- amplitude coherent states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 030503 (2008)

    work page 2008

  27. [27]

    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]

    work page arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Bartolucci, P

    S. Bartolucci, P. Birchall, D. Bonneau, H. Ca- ble, M. Gimeno-Segovia, K. Kieling, N. Nicker- son, T. Rudolph, and C. Sparrow, Switch networks for photonic fusion-based quantum computing (2021), arXiv:2109.13760 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Alexander, A

    K. Alexander, A. Bahgat, A. Benyamini, D. Black, D. Bonneau, S. Burgos, B. Burridge, G. Campbell, G. Catalano, A. Ceballos, C.-M. Chang, C. 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. Halimi, P. Hansen, S...

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Omkar, S.-H

    S. Omkar, S.-H. Lee, Y. S. Teo, S.-W. Lee, and H. Jeong, All-photonic architecture for scalable quantum comput- ing with greenberger-horne-zeilinger states, PRX Quan- tum 3, 030309 (2022)

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    T. J. Bell, L. A. Pettersson, and S. Paesani, Optimizing graph codes for measurement-based loss tolerance, PRX Quantum 4, 020328 (2023)

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    W. Song, N. Kang, Y.-S. Kim, and S.-W. Lee, Encoded- fusion-based quantum computation for high thresholds with linear optics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 050605 (2024)

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Pankovich, A

    B. Pankovich, A. Kan, K. H. Wan, M. Ostmann, A. Neville, S. Omkar, A. Sohbi, and K. Br´ adler, High photon-loss threshold quantum computing using GHZ- state measurements (2023), arXiv:2308.04192 [math-ph, physics:quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    M. C. L¨ obl, S. Paesani, and A. S. Sørensen, Loss-tolerant architecture for quantum computing with quantum emit- ters, Quantum 8, 1302 (2024)

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Thomas, L

    P. Thomas, L. Ruscio, O. Morin, and G. Rempe, Fusion of deterministically generated photonic graph states, Na- ture 629, 567 (2024)

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    Borregaard, H

    J. Borregaard, H. Pichler, T. Schr¨ oder, M. D. Lukin, P. Lodahl, and A. S. Sørensen, One-way quantum re- peater based on near-deterministic photon-emitter inter- faces, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021071 (2020)

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    Buterakos, E

    D. Buterakos, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Determin- istic generation of all-photonic quantum repeaters from solid-state emitters, Phys. Rev. X 7, 041023 (2017)

    work page 2017

  38. [38]

    de Gliniasty, P

    G. de Gliniasty, P. Hilaire, P.-E. Emeriau, S. C. Wein, A. Salavrakos, and S. Mansfield, A Spin-Optical Quan- tum Computing Architecture, Quantum 8, 1423 (2024)

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    J. M. Auger, H. Anwar, M. Gimeno-Segovia, T. M. Stace, and D. E. Browne, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with nondeterministic entangling gates, Phys. Rev. A 97, 030301 (2018)

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    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 schemes for highly loss tolerant photonic fusion based quantum computing (2025), a...

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Litinski, Blocklet concatenation: Low-overhead fault- tolerant protocols for fusion-based quantum computation (2025), arXiv:2506.13619 [quant-ph]

    D. Litinski, Blocklet concatenation: Low-overhead fault- tolerant protocols for fusion-based quantum computation (2025), arXiv:2506.13619 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    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)

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    L. A. Pettersson, A. S. Sørensen, and S. Paesani, De- terministic generation of concatenated graph codes from quantum emitters, PRX Quantum 6, 010305 (2025)

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    S. C. Wein, T. G. de Brugi` ere, L. Music, P. Senellart, B. Bourdoncle, and S. Mansfield, Minimizing resource overhead in fusion-based quantum computation using hybrid spin-photon devices (2024), arXiv:2412.08611 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Hilaire, T

    P. Hilaire, T. Dessertaine, B. Bourdoncle, A. Denys, G. de Gliniasty, G. Valent ´ ı-Rojas, and S. Mansfield, En- hanced fault-tolerance in photonic quantum computing: Floquet code outperforms surface code in tailored archi- tecture (2024), arXiv:2410.07065 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    M. L. Chan, T. J. Bell, L. A. Pettersson, S. X. Chen, P. Yard, A. S. Sørensen, and S. Paesani, Tailoring fusion- based photonic quantum computing schemes to quantum emitters, PRX Quantum 6, 020304 (2025)

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    Thomas, L

    P. Thomas, L. Ruscio, O. Morin, and G. Rempe, Efficient generation of entangled multiphoton graph states from a single atom, Nature 608, 677 (2022)

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    Y. Meng, M. L. Chan, R. B. Nielsen, M. H. Appel, Z. Liu, Y. Wang, N. Bart, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, L. Midolo, A. Tiranov, A. S. Sørensen, and P. Lodahl, Determinis- tic photon source of genuine three-qubit entanglement, Nature Communications 15, 7774 (2024)

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    H. Huet, P. R. Ramesh, S. C. Wein, N. Coste, P. Hilaire, N. Somaschi, M. Morassi, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, M. F. Doty, O. Krebs, L. Lanco, D. A. Fioretto, and P. Senel- lart, Deterministic and reconfigurable graph state gener- ation with a single solid-state quantum emitter, Nature Communications 16, 4337 (2025)

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    Cogan, Z.-E

    D. Cogan, Z.-E. Su, O. Kenneth, and D. Gershoni, De- terministic generation of indistinguishable photons in a 25 cluster state, Nature Photonics 17, 324 (2023)

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    Y. Meng, C. F. D. Faurby, M. L. Chan, P. I. Sund, Z. Liu, Y. Wang, N. Bart, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, L. Midolo, A. S. Sørensen, S. Paesani, and P. Lodahl, Photonic fu- sion of entangled resource states from a quantum emit- ter (2023), accepted in Nat. Comms., arXiv:2312.09070 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  52. [53]

    Raussendorf and H

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

    work page 2001

  53. [54]

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

    work page 2005

  54. [55]

    R. Uppu, L. Midolo, X. Zhou, J. Carolan, and P. Lodahl, Quantum-dot-based deterministic photon–emitter inter- faces for scalable photonic quantum technology, Nature Nanotechnology 16, 1308 (2021)

    work page 2021

  55. [56]

    Lodahl, S

    P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, and S. Stobbe, Interfacing single photons and single quantum dots with photonic nanostructures, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 347 (2015)

    work page 2015

  56. [57]

    Arcari, I

    M. Arcari, I. S¨ ollner, A. Javadi, S. Lindskov Hansen, S. Mahmoodian, J. Liu, H. Thyrrestrup, E. H. Lee, J. D. Song, S. Stobbe, and P. Lodahl, Near-unity coupling effi- ciency of a quantum emitter to a photonic crystal waveg- uide, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 093603 (2014)

    work page 2014

  57. [58]

    M. H. Appel, A. Tiranov, A. Javadi, M. C. L¨ obl, Y. Wang, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, R. J. War- burton, and P. Lodahl, Coherent spin-photon interface with waveguide induced cycling transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 013602 (2021)

    work page 2021

  58. [59]

    X. Zhou, I. Kulkova, T. Lund-Hansen, S. L. Hansen, P. Lodahl, and L. Midolo, High-efficiency shallow-etched grating on gaas membranes for quantum photonic appli- cations, Applied Physics Letters 113, 251103 (2018)

    work page 2018

  59. [60]

    J. H. Bodey, R. Stockill, E. V. Denning, D. A. Gangloff, G. ´Ethier-Majcher, D. M. Jackson, E. Clarke, M. Hugues, C. L. Gall, and M. Atat¨ ure, Optical spin locking of a solid-state qubit, npj Quantum Information 5, 95 (2019)

    work page 2019

  60. [61]

    D. M. Jackson, U. Haeusler, L. Zaporski, J. H. Bodey, N. Shofer, E. Clarke, M. Hugues, M. Atat¨ ure, C. Le Gall, and D. A. Gangloff, Optimal purification of a spin ensem- ble by quantum-algorithmic feedback, Phys. Rev. X 12, 031014 (2022)

    work page 2022

  61. [62]

    D. A. Gangloff, G. ´Ethier-Majcher, C. Lang, E. V. Den- ning, J. H. Bodey, D. M. Jackson, E. Clarke, M. Hugues, C. Le Gall, and M. Atat¨ ure, Quantum interface of an electron and a nuclear ensemble, Science 364, 62 (2019)

    work page 2019

  62. [63]

    N. H. Lindner and T. Rudolph, Proposal for Pulsed On- Demand Sources of Photonic Cluster State Strings, Phys- ical Review Letters 103, 113602 (2009)

    work page 2009

  63. [64]

    M. H. Appel, A. Tiranov, S. Pabst, M. L. Chan, C. Starup, Y. Wang, L. Midolo, K. Tiurev, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, A. S. Sørensen, and P. Lo- dahl, Entangling a Hole Spin with a Time-Bin Pho- ton: A Waveguide Approach for Quantum Dot Sources of Multi-Photon Entanglement, Physical Review Letters 128, 233602 (2022)

    work page 2022

  64. [65]

    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. A 104, 052604 (2021)

    work page 2021

  65. [66]

    M. S. Kesselring, J. C. Magdalena de la Fuente, F. Thom- sen, J. Eisert, S. D. Bartlett, and B. J. Brown, Anyon condensation and the color code, PRX Quantum 5, 010342 (2024)

    work page 2024

  66. [67]

    C. Wang, M. Zhang, X. Chen, M. Bertrand, A. Shams- Ansari, S. Chandrasekhar, P. Winzer, and M. Lonˇ car, Integrated lithium niobate electro-optic modulators op- erating at cmos-compatible voltages, Nature 562, 101 (2018)

    work page 2018

  67. [68]

    P. I. Sund, E. Lomonte, S. Paesani, Y. Wang, J. Car- olan, N. Bart, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, L. Midolo, W. H. Pernice, P. Lodahl, and F. Lenzini, High-speed thin-film lithium niobate quantum processor driven by a solid- state quantum emitter, Science Advances 9, eadg7268 (2023)

    work page 2023

  68. [69]

    Y. Wang, C. F. D. Faurby, F. Ruf, P. I. Sund, K. Nielsen, N. Volet, M. J. R. Heck, N. Bart, A. D. Wieck, A. Lud- wig, L. Midolo, S. Paesani, and P. Lodahl, Deterministic photon source interfaced with a programmable silicon- nitride integrated circuit, npj Quantum Information 9, 94 (2023)

    work page 2023

  69. [70]

    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 (2025), arXiv:2505.09695

    work page arXiv 2025

  70. [71]

    Laccotripes, J

    P. Laccotripes, J. Huang, G. Shooter, A. Barbiero, M. S. Winnel, D. A. Ritchie, A. J. Shields, T. Muller, and R. M. Stevenson, An entangled photon source for the telecom c-band based on a semiconductor-confined spin (2025), arXiv:2507.01648

    work page arXiv 2025

  71. [72]

    Pittaluga, Y

    M. Pittaluga, Y. S. Lo, A. Brzosko, R. I. Woodward, D. Scalcon, M. S. Winnel, T. Roger, J. F. Dynes, K. A. Owen, S. Ju´ arez, P. Rydlichowski, D. Vicinanza, G. Roberts, and A. J. Shields, Long-distance coherent quantum communications in deployed telecom networks, Nature 640, 911 (2025)

    work page 2025

  72. [73]

    Thiele, N

    F. Thiele, N. Lamberty, T. Hummel, N. A. Lange, L. M. Procopio, A. Barua, S. Lengeling, V. Quiring, C. Eigner, C. Silberhorn, and T. J. Bartley, Cryogenic feedforward of a photonic quantum state, Optica 12, 720 (2025)

    work page 2025

  73. [74]

    M. Hogg, N. Antoniadis, M. Marczak, G. Nguyen, T. Baltisberger, A. Javadi, R. Schott, S. Valentin, A. Wieck, A. Ludwig, and R. Warburton, Fast optical control of a coherent hole spin in a microcavity (2024), arXiv:2407.18876

    work page arXiv 2024

  74. [75]

    M. L. Chan, Spin-Photon Interface for Quantum Infor- mation Processing , Ph.D. thesis, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen (2023)

    work page 2023

  75. [76]

    N. H. Nickerson and B. J. Brown, Analysing correlated noise on the surface code using adaptive decoding algo- rithms, Quantum 3, 131 (2019)

    work page 2019

  76. [77]

    S. D. Barrett and T. M. Stace, Fault tolerant quantum computation with very high threshold for loss errors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 200502 (2010)

    work page 2010

  77. [78]

    Higgott and C

    O. Higgott and C. Gidney, Sparse blossom: correcting a million errors per core second with minimum-weight matching, Quantum 9, 1600 (2025)

    work page 2025

  78. [79]

    M. H. Appel, A Quantum Dot Source of Time-Bin Multi- Photon Entanglement, Ph.D. thesis, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen (2021)

    work page 2021

  79. [80]

    M. K. Bhaskar, R. Riedinger, B. Machielse, D. S. Lev- onian, C. T. Nguyen, E. N. Knall, H. Park, D. En- 26 glund, M. Lonˇ car, D. D. Sukachev, and M. D. Lukin, Experimental demonstration of memory-enhanced quan- tum communication, Nature 580, 60 (2020)

    work page 2020

  80. [81]

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

    work page 2044

Showing first 80 references.