- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Applied

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Engineering propagating cat states with driven four-level systems inside a cavity

Seigo Kikura1,*, Hayato Goto2,3, and Takao Aoki1,2

  • *Contact author: seigokikura00@gmail.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. Applied 24, 024001 – Published 1 August, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/d9wz-b2ph

Abstract

We propose a method for generating optical cat states in propagating pulses based on cavity quantum electrodynamics (QED). This scheme uses multiple four-level systems (FLSs) inside an optical cavity as a light source. Time-modulating driving stimulates it to produce a superposition of coherent states entangled with the FLSs. The postselection of an appropriate state of the FLSs leads to a multicomponent cat state in a propagating pulse. Taking atomic decay and cavity loss into account, we optimize the cavity external coupling rate to maximize the fidelity. We find that its optimum value is formulated similarly to those of other generation methods for propagating states, suggesting a universal property of cavity-QED systems interacting with fields outside the cavity.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (53)

  1. M. Chen, N. C. Menicucci, and O. Pfister, Experimental realization of multipartite entanglement of 60 modes of a quantum optical frequency comb, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 120505 (2014).
  2. M. V. Larsen, X. Guo, C. R. Breum, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, Deterministic generation of a two-dimensional cluster state, Science 366, 369 (2019).
  3. W. Asavanant, Y. Shiozawa, S. Yokoyama, B. Charoensombutamon, H. Emura, R. N. Alexander, S. Takeda, J.-I. Yoshikawa, N. C. Menicucci, H. Yonezawa, and A. Furusawa, Generation of time-domain-multiplexed two-dimensional cluster state, Science 366, 373 (2019).
  4. H. J. Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature 453, 1023 (2008).
  5. A. Mari and J. Eisert, Positive wigner functions render classical simulation of quantum computation efficient, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 230503 (2012).
  6. C. K. Hong and L. Mandel, Experimental realization of a localized one-photon state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 58 (1986).
  7. M. Eaton, C. González-Arciniegas, R. N. Alexander, N. C. Menicucci, and O. Pfister, Measurement-based generation and preservation of cat and grid states within a continuous-variable cluster state, Quantum 6, 769 (2022).
  8. J. McKeever, A. Boca, A. D. Boozer, R. Miller, J. R. Buck, A. Kuzmich, and H. J. Kimble, Deterministic generation of single photons from one atom trapped in a cavity, Science 303, 1992 (2004).
  9. O. Morin, M. Körber, S. Langenfeld, and G. Rempe, Deterministic shaping and reshaping of single-photon temporal wave functions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 133602 (2019).
  10. M. Keller, B. Lange, K. Hayasaka, W. Lange, and H. Walther, Continuous generation of single photons with controlled waveform in an ion-trap cavity system, Nature 431, 1075 (2004).
  11. J. Schupp, V. Krcmarsky, V. Krutyanskiy, M. Meraner, T. Northup, and B. Lanyon, Interface between trapped-ion qubits and traveling photons with close-to-optimal efficiency, PRX Quantum 2, 020331 (2021).
  12. T. M. Sweeney, S. G. Carter, A. S. Bracker, M. Kim, C. S. Kim, L. Yang, P. M. Vora, P. G. Brereton, E. R. Cleveland, and D. Gammon, Cavity-stimulated Raman emission from a single quantum dot spin, Nat. Photonics 8, 442 (2014).
  13. E. N. Knall, C. M. Knaut, R. Bekenstein, D. R. Assumpcao, P. L. Stroganov, W. Gong, Y. Q. Huan, P.-J. Stas, B. Machielse, M. Chalupnik, D. Levonian, A. Suleymanzade, R. Riedinger, H. Park, M. Lončar, M. K. Bhaskar, and M. D. Lukin, Efficient source of shaped single photons based on an integrated diamond nanophotonic system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 053603 (2022).
  14. C. Groiseau, A. E. J. Elliott, S. J. Masson, and S. Parkins, Proposal for a deterministic single-atom source of quasisuperradiant n-photon pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 033602 (2021).
  15. D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Phys. Rev. A 64, 012310 (2001).
  16. B. Wang and L.-M. Duan, Engineering superpositions of coherent states in coherent optical pulses through cavity-assisted interaction, Phys. Rev. A 72, 022320 (2005).
  17. B. Hacker, S. Welte, S. Daiss, A. Shaukat, S. Ritter, L. Li, and G. Rempe, Deterministic creation of entangled atom–light Schrödinger-cat states, Nat. Photonics 13, 110 (2019).
  18. J. Hastrup and U. L. Andersen, Protocol for generating optical Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill states with cavity QED, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 170503 (2022).
  19. 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).
  20. A. L. Grimsmo, J. Combes, and B. Q. Baragiola, Quantum computing with rotation-symmetric bosonic codes, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011058 (2020).
  21. D. Su, I. Dhand, and T. C. Ralph, Universal quantum computation with optical four-component cat qubits, Phys. Rev. A 106, 042614 (2022).
  22. J. Hastrup and U. L. Andersen, All-optical cat-code quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043065 (2022).
  23. P.-Z. Li and P. van Loock, Memoryless quantum repeaters based on cavity-QED and coherent states, Adv. Quantum Technol. 6, 2200151 (2023).
  24. G. S. Vasilev, D. Ljunggren, and A. Kuhn, Single photons made-to-measure, New J. Phys. 12, 063024 (2010).
  25. B. Tissot and G. Burkard, Efficient high-fidelity flying qubit shaping, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013150 (2024).
  26. P. P. Rohde, T. C. Ralph, and M. A. Nielsen, Optimal photons for quantum-information processing, Phys. Rev. A 72, 052332 (2005).
  27. P. C. Humphreys, B. J. Metcalf, J. B. Spring, M. Moore, X.-M. Jin, M. Barbieri, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walmsley, Linear optical quantum computing in a single spatial mode, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 150501 (2013).
  28. H. Goto, S. Mizukami, Y. Tokunaga, and T. Aoki, Figure of merit for single-photon generation based on cavity quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. A 99, 053843 (2019).
  29. H. Takahashi, P. Nevado, and M. Keller, Mølmer–sørensen entangling gate for cavity QED systems, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 50, 195501 (2017).
  30. F. Dimer, B. Estienne, A. S. Parkins, and H. J. Carmichael, Proposed realization of the Dicke-model quantum phase transition in an optical cavity QED system, Phys. Rev. A 75, 013804 (2007).
  31. F. Reiter and A. S. Sørensen, Effective operator formalism for open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 85, 032111 (2012).
  32. Z. Zhiqiang, C. H. Lee, R. Kumar, K. J. Arnold, S. J. Masson, A. S. Parkins, and M. D. Barrett, Nonequilibrium phase transition in a spin-1 Dicke model, Optica 4, 424 (2017).
  33. C. W. Gardiner and M. J. Collett, Input and output in damped quantum systems: Quantum stochastic differential equations and the master equation, Phys. Rev. A 31, 3761 (1985).
  34. M. B. Plenio and P. L. Knight, The quantum-jump approach to dissipative dynamics in quantum optics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 101 (1998).
  35. H. Goto and K. Ichimura, Condition for fault-tolerant quantum computation with a cavity-QED scheme, Phys. Rev. A 82, 032311 (2010).
  36. H. Goto and K. Ichimura, Upper bound for the success probability of cavity-mediated adiabatic transfer in the presence of dissipation, Phys. Rev. A 77, 013816 (2008).
  37. J. Hastrup, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, Deterministic generation of a four-component optical cat state, Opt. Lett. 45, 640 (2020).
  38. G. S. Thekkadath, B. A. Bell, I. A. Walmsley, and A. I. Lvovsky, Engineering Schrödinger cat states with a photonic even-parity detector, Quantum 4, 239 (2020).
  39. W. Asavanant, K. Takase, K. Fukui, M. Endo, J.-i. Yoshikawa, and A. Furusawa, Wave-function engineering via conditional quantum teleportation with a non-Gaussian entanglement resource, Phys. Rev. A 103, 043701 (2021).
  40. W. H. Zurek, Sub-planck structure in phase space and its relevance for quantum decoherence, Nature 412, 712 (2001).
  41. K. Duivenvoorden, B. M. Terhal, and D. Weigand, Single-mode displacement sensor, Phys. Rev. A 95, 012305 (2017).
  42. P. van Loock, T. D. Ladd, K. Sanaka, F. Yamaguchi, K. Nemoto, W. J. Munro, and Y. Yamamoto, Hybrid quantum repeater using bright coherent light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 240501 (2006).
  43. K. Azuma, H. Takeda, M. Koashi, and N. Imoto, Quantum repeaters and computation by a single module: Remote nondestructive parity measurement, Phys. Rev. A 85, 062309 (2012).
  44. J. Lee, N. Kang, S.-H. Lee, H. Jeong, L. Jiang, and S.-W. Lee, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by hybrid qubits with bosonic cat code and single photons, PRX Quantum 5, 030322 (2024).
  45. D. Hunger, T. Steinmetz, Y. Colombe, C. Deutsch, T. W. Hänsch, and J. Reichel, A fiber Fabry–Perot cavity with high finesse, New J. Phys. 12, 065038 (2010).
  46. S. Al-Sumaidae, M. H. Bitarafan, C. A. Potts, J. P. Davis, and R. G. DeCorby, Cooperativity enhancement in buckled-dome microcavities with omnidirectional claddings, Opt. Express 26, 11201 (2018).
  47. S. K. Ruddell, K. E. Webb, M. Takahata, S. Kato, and T. Aoki, Ultra-low-loss nanofiber Fabry–Perot cavities optimized for cavity quantum electrodynamics, Opt. Lett. 45, 4875 (2020).
  48. S. Kikura, R. Asaoka, M. Koashi, and Y. Tokunaga, High-purity single-photon generation based on cavity QED, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 013251 (2025).
  49. N. Lambert, E. Giguère, P. Menczel, B. Li, P. Hopf, G. Suárez, M. Gali, J. Lishman, R. Gadhvi, R. Agarwal, A. Galicia, N. Shammah, P. Nation, J. R. Johansson, S. Ahmed, S. Cross, A. Pitchford, and F. Nori, QuTiP 5: The Quantum Toolbox in Python, arXiv:2412.04705 [quant-ph].
  50. S. Krämer, D. Plankensteiner, L. Ostermann, and H. Ritsch, QuantumOptics.jl: A Julia framework for simulating open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun. 227, 109 (2018).
  51. S. Goto and K. Koshino, Efficient numerical approach for the simulations of high-power dispersive readout with time-dependent unitary transformation, Phys. Rev. A 108, 033722 (2023).
  52. A. H. Kiilerich and K. Mølmer, Input-output theory with quantum pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 123604 (2019).
  53. A. H. Kiilerich and K. Mølmer, Quantum interactions with pulses of radiation, Phys. Rev. A 102, 023717 (2020).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Applied 24, 024001– Published 1 August, 2025
  • Received 17 December 2024
  • Revised 12 May 2025
  • Accepted 20 June 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation