- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

PRX Quantum

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

Taming the Recoil Effect in Cavity-Assisted Quantum Interconnects

Seigo Kikura1,*, Ryotaro Inoue1, Hayata Yamasaki1,2,3, Akihisa Goban1,†, and Shinichi Sunami1,4,‡

  • *Contact author: seigo.kikura@nano-qt.com
  • †Contact author: akihisa.goban@nano-qt.com
  • ‡Contact author: shinichi.sunami@nano-qt.com
PDF

PRX Quantum 6, 040351 – Published 2 December, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/njh8-q7gb

Abstract

Photon recoil is one of the fundamental limitations for high-fidelity control of trapped-atom qubits such as neutral atoms and trapped ions. In this work, we derive an analytical model for efficiently evaluating the motion-induced infidelity in remote entanglement generation protocols. Our model is applicable for various photonic qubit encodings, such as polarization, time-bin, and frequency encodings, and with arbitrary initial motional states, thus providing a crucial theoretical tool for realizing high-fidelity quantum networking. For the case of tweezer-trapped neutral atoms, our results indicate that operation in the bad-cavity regime with cavity decay rate exceeding the atom-photon coupling rate and near-ground-state cooling with motional quanta below 1 are desired to suppress the motion-induced infidelity sufficiently below the 1% level required for efficient quantum networking. Finite-temperature effects can be mitigated efficiently by detection time filtering at the moderate cost of success probability and network speed. These results extend the understanding of infidelity sources in remote entanglement generation protocols, establishing a concrete path toward fault-tolerant quantum networking with scalable trapped-atom qubit systems.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Popular Summary

Building a large-scale quantum network requires reliably connecting distant quantum devices. A key step in this process is generating entanglement between remote stationary qubits mediated by flying photonic qubits. To ensure high-fidelity quantum networks, we propose a theoretical model that effectively quantifies the errors caused by atomic motion, as well as strategies to minimize and mitigate the errors.

The generation of remote entanglement relies on photons emitted from atoms. However, the photon emission can cause the atom to recoil, subtly shifting its position and momentum and introducing errors that diminish entanglement fidelity. By applying our theoretical framework to trapped atoms—such as neutral atoms and trapped ions—within a cavity, we have identified two main strategies for suppressing these errors: (1) operating in a regime where photons exit the cavity quickly and (2) use of a photon detection filtering technique that suppresses errors down to the 1% level with only a slight sacrifice in operational speed.

These insights are valuable for designing future quantum networks that utilize trapped atoms, which are one of the most scalable quantum information platforms. Our theoretical framework not only enhances the understanding of these dynamics but also paves the way for optimized experimental implementations, ultimately leading to high-rate, high-fidelity quantum networking.

Article Text

References (61)

  1. H. J. Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature 453, 1023 (2008).
  2. S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead, Science 362, eaam9288 (2018).
  3. K. Azuma, S. E. Economou, D. Elkouss, P. Hilaire, L. Jiang, H.-K. Lo, and I. Tzitrin, Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 045006 (2023).
  4. J. P. Covey, H. Weinfurter, and H. Bernien, Quantum networks with neutral atom processing nodes, npj Quantum Inf. 9, 1 (2023).
  5. C. B. Young, A. Safari, P. Huft, J. Zhang, E. Oh, R. Chinnarasu, and M. Saffman, An architecture for quantum networking of neutral atom processors, Appl. Phys. B: Lasers Opt. 128, 1 (2022).
  6. C. Monroe, R. Raussendorf, A. Ruthven, K. R. Brown, P. Maunz, L.-M. Duan, and J. Kim, Large-scale modular quantum-computer architecture with atomic memory and photonic interconnects, Phys. Rev. A 89, 022317 (2014).
  7. J. Sinclair, J. Ramette, B. Grinkemeyer, D. Bluvstein, M. D. Lukin, and V. Vuletić, Fault-tolerant optical interconnects for neutral-atom arrays, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 013313 (2025).
  8. S. Sunami, S. Tamiya, R. Inoue, H. Yamasaki, and A. Goban, Scalable networking of neutral-atom qubits: Nanofiber-based approach for multiprocessor fault-tolerant quantum computers, PRX Quantum 6, 010101 (2025).
  9. C. H. Bennett, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and A. V. Thapliyal, Entanglement-assisted classical capacity of noisy quantum channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3081 (1999).
  10. C. Panayi, M. Razavi, X. Ma, and N. Lütkenhaus, Memory-assisted measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution, New J. Phys. 16, 043005 (2014).
  11. D. Gottesman, T. Jennewein, and S. Croke, Longer-baseline telescopes using quantum repeaters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 070503 (2012).
  12. E. T. Khabiboulline, J. Borregaard, K. De Greve, and M. D. Lukin, Optical interferometry with quantum networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 070504 (2019).
  13. J. F. Fitzsimons, Private quantum computation: An introduction to blind quantum computing and related protocols, npj Quantum Inf. 3, 23 (2017).
  14. L.-M. Duan and H. J. Kimble, Efficient engineering of multiatom entanglement through single-photon detections, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 253601 (2003).
  15. S. D. Barrett and P. Kok, Efficient high-fidelity quantum computation using matter qubits and linear optics, Phys. Rev. A 71, 060310(R) (2005).
  16. H. K. C. Beukers, M. Pasini, H. Choi, D. Englund, R. Hanson, and J. Borregaard, Remote-entanglement protocols for stationary qubits with photonic interfaces, PRX Quantum 5, 010202 (2024).
  17. S. Ritter, C. Nölleke, C. Hahn, A. Reiserer, A. Neuzner, M. Uphoff, M. Mücke, E. Figueroa, J. Bochmann, and G. Rempe, An elementary quantum network of single atoms in optical cavities, Nature 484, 195 (2012).
  18. D. Main, P. Drmota, D. Nadlinger, E. Ainley, A. Agrawal, B. Nichol, R. Srinivas, G. Araneda, and D. Lucas, Distributed quantum computing across an optical network link, Nature 638, 383 (2025).
  19. S. Saha, M. Shalaev, J. O’Reilly, I. Goetting, G. Toh, A. Kalakuntla, Y. Yu, and C. Monroe, High-fidelity remote entanglement of trapped atoms mediated by time-bin photons, Nat. Commun. 16, 2533 (2025).
  20. J. O’Reilly, G. Toh, I. Goetting, S. Saha, M. Shalaev, A. L. Carter, A. Risinger, A. Kalakuntla, T. Li, A. Verma, and C. Monroe, Fast photon-mediated entanglement of continuously cooled trapped ions for quantum networking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 090802 (2024).
  21. A. Jenkins, J. W. Lis, A. Senoo, W. F. McGrew, and A. M. Kaufman, Ytterbium nuclear-spin qubits in an optical tweezer array, Phys. Rev. X 12, 021027 (2022).
  22. D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, A quantum processor based on coherent transport of entangled atom arrays, Nature 604, 451 (2022).
  23. S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, High-fidelity parallel entangling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature 622, 268 (2023).
  24. M. Peper, Y. Li, D. Y. Knapp, M. Bileska, S. Ma, G. Liu, P. Peng, B. Zhang, S. P. Horvath, A. P. Burgers, and J. D. Thompson, Spectroscopy and modeling of 171Yb Rydberg states for high-fidelity two-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. X 15, 011009 (2025).
  25. D. Bluvstein, et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature 626, 58 (2024).
  26. T. M. Graham, et al., Multi-qubit entanglement and algorithms on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature 604, 457 (2022).
  27. J. Ramette, J. Sinclair, N. P. Breuckmann, and V. Vuletić, Fault-tolerant connection of error-corrected qubits with noisy links, npj Quantum Inf. 10, 58 (2024).
  28. C. A. Pattison, G. Baranes, J. P. B. Ataides, M. D. Lukin, and H. Zhou, Fast quantum interconnects via constant-rate entanglement distillation, ArXiv:2408.15936.
  29. Y. Li and J. D. Thompson, High-rate and high-fidelity modular interconnects between neutral atom quantum processors, PRX Quantum 5, 020363 (2024).
  30. V. Krutyanskiy, M. Galli, V. Krcmarsky, S. Baier, D. A. Fioretto, Y. Pu, A. Mazloom, P. Sekatski, M. Canteri, M. Teller, J. Schupp, J. Bate, M. Meraner, N. Sangouard, B. P. Lanyon, and T. E. Northup, Entanglement of trapped-ion qubits separated by 230 m, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 050803 (2023).
  31. L. Hartung, M. Seubert, S. Welte, E. Distante, and G. Rempe, A quantum-network register assembled with optical tweezers in an optical cavity, Science 385, 179 (2024).
  32. W. Huie, S. G. Menon, H. Bernien, and J. P. Covey, Multiplexed telecommunication-band quantum networking with atom arrays in optical cavities, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 043154 (2021).
  33. J. W. Lis, A. Senoo, W. F. McGrew, F. Rönchen, A. Jenkins, and A. M. Kaufman, Midcircuit operations using the omg architecture in neutral atom arrays, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041035 (2023).
  34. Z. Zhang, L. V. Damme, M. Rossignolo, L. Festa, M. Melchner, R. Eberhard, D. Tsevas, K. Mours, E. Reches, J. Zeiher, S. Blatt, I. Bloch, S. J. Glaser, and A. Alberti, Recoil-free quantum gates with optical qubits, ArXiv:2408.04622.
  35. L. Van Damme, Z. Zhang, A. Devra, S. J. Glaser, and A. Alberti, Motion-insensitive time-optimal control of optical qubits, Quantum Sci. Technol. 10, 035025 (2025).
  36. J. Apolín and D. P. Nadlinger, Recoil-induced errors and their correction in photon-mediated entanglement between atom qubits, ArXiv:2503.16837.
  37. A. Reiserer and G. Rempe, Cavity-based quantum networks with single atoms and optical photons, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 1379 (2015).
  38. C. Simon and W. T. M. Irvine, Robust long-distance entanglement and a loophole-free Bell test with ions and photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 110405 (2003).
  39. We analyze the case of differing system parameters between Alice and Bob in Appendix pp5.
  40. K. Tanji, H. Takahashi, W. Roga, and M. Takeoka, Rate-fidelity tradeoff in cavity-based remote entanglement generation, Phys. Rev. A 110, 042405 (2024).
  41. S. Kikura, R. Asaoka, M. Koashi, and Y. Tokunaga, High-purity single-photon generation based on cavity QED, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 013251 (2025).
  42. J. F. Poyatos, J. I. Cirac, R. Blatt, and P. Zoller, Trapped ions in the strong-excitation regime: Ion interferometry and nonclassical states, Phys. Rev. A 54, 1532 (1996).
  43. For several types of optical cavity implementation with limited spatial uniformity of the cavity mode electric field (e.g., microcavities), particularly at higher temperature of the atoms, other trap axes become relevant in spin-motion-photon coupling and lead to additional complexity in this model; such an effect can still be treated as a straightforward extension of the present model.
  44. Cavity parameters (g,κin,γ)/2π on the order of megahertz are typical for neutral-atom cavity-QED implementations [8, 31, 37], where small cavity mode volumes can be chosen for larger atom-photon coupling than for ions, thanks to the absence of charges. The radial trap frequencies of optical tweezers are typically on the order of 100kHz [22].
  45. 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).
  46. For example, in Ref. [30] for trapped-ion experiments, the trap frequencies are ∼2π×1MHz and the cavity output coupling rate κ is ∼2π×70kHz.
  47. C. M. Knaut, A. Suleymanzade, Y.-C. Wei, D. R. Assumpcao, P.-J. Stas, Y. Q. Huan, B. Machielse, E. N. Knall, M. Sutula, G. Baranes, N. Sinclair, C. De-Eknamkul, D. S. Levonian, M. K. Bhaskar, H. Park, M. Lončar, and M. D. Lukin, Entanglement of nanophotonic quantum memory nodes in a telecom network, Nature 629, 573 (2024).
  48. S. Kato and T. Aoki, Strong coupling between a trapped single atom and an all-fiber cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 093603 (2015).
  49. T. Dordević, P. Samutpraphoot, P. L. Ocola, H. Bernien, B. Grinkemeyer, I. Dimitrova, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Entanglement transport and a nanophotonic interface for atoms in optical tweezers, Science 373, 1511 (2021).
  50. A. González-Tudela, A. Reiserer, J. J. García-Ripoll, and F. J. García-Vidal, Light–matter interactions in quantum nanophotonic devices, Nat. Rev. Phys. 6, 166 (2024).
  51. Y. Zheng, H. Sharma, and J. Borregaard, Entanglement distribution with minimal memory requirements using time-bin photonic qudits, PRX Quantum 3, 040319 (2022).
  52. We consider the state swap pulses are applied in a recoil-free manner either by two-photon Raman coupling [21] or with composite pulses [33, 34]; thus, we safely ignore their effect on the motional states of the atoms. The incorporation of the recoil effect from state swaps into the model is straightforward.
  53. M. Canteri, Z. X. Koong, J. Bate, A. Winkler, V. Krutyanskiy, and B. P. Lanyon, Photon-interfaced ten-qubit register of trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 080801 (2025).
  54. Y. Yu, S. Saha, M. Shalaev, G. Toh, J. OReilly, I. Goetting, A. Kalakuntla, and C. Monroe, Entanglement fidelity limits of photonically-networked atomic qubits from recoil and timing, ArXiv:2503.19818.
  55. C. K. Law and H. J. Kimble, Deterministic generation of a bit-stream of single-photon pulses, J. Mod. Opt. 44, 2067 (1997).
  56. M. B. Plenio and P. L. Knight, The quantum-jump approach to dissipative dynamics in quantum optics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 101 (1998).
  57. J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP 2: A Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1234 (2013).
  58. N. Schine, A. Ryou, A. Gromov, A. Sommer, and J. Simon, Synthetic Landau levels for photons, Nature 534, 671 (2016).
  59. N. Jia, N. Schine, A. Georgakopoulos, A. Ryou, A. Sommer, and J. Simon, Photons and polaritons in a broken-time-reversal nonplanar resonator, Phys. Rev. A 97, 013802 (2018).
  60. T. Utsugi, A. Goban, Y. Tokunaga, H. Goto, and T. Aoki, Gaussian-wave-packet model for single-photon generation based on cavity quantum electrodynamics under adiabatic and nonadiabatic conditions, Phys. Rev. A 106, 023712 (2022).
  61. R. J. Glauber, Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation field, Phys. Rev. 131, 2766 (1963).

Outline

Information

PRX Quantum 6, 040351– Published 2 December, 2025
  • Received 21 March 2025
  • Revised 10 July 2025
  • Accepted 23 October 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