Abstract
We propose deterministic schemes for controlledNOT (CNOT), Toffoli, and Fredkin gates between flying photon qubits and the collective spin wave (magnon) of an atomic ensemble inside doublesided optical microcavities. All the gates can be accomplished with 100% success probability in principle and no additional qubit is required. Atomic ensemble is employed so that lightmatter coupling is remarkably improved by collective enhancement. We qualified the performance of the gates and the results show that they can be faithfully constituted with current experimental techniques.
Introduction
Quantum logic gates usually lie at the heart of quantuminformation processing (QIP) tasks. As is well known, any nqubit quantum operation can be decomposed into combinations of twoqubit gates and singlequbit operations^{1}. So far, it has been well solved for the optimal synthesis of twoqubit gates, while it is more complex and still an open question for the case of multiqubit systems. So it is of significance to find a simpler way for directly implementing multiqubit gates. On the other hand, Toffoli and Fredkin gates are fundamental quantum gate for threequbit systems, and they have attracted much attention since they can form a universal quantum computation architecture together with singlequbit operations^{2,3,4,5,6,7}. Moreover, they play an important role in quantum algorithms^{8}, entanglement concentration and purification^{9,10,11}, error correction^{12}, and faulttolerant quantum circuits^{13}. Many proposals have been proposed to implement quantum logic gates with several physical systems theoretically and experimentally, such as the ion trap^{14}, nuclear magnetic resonance^{15,16}, quantum dot (QD)^{17,18,19}, superconducting qubits^{20,21}, nitrogenvacancy (NV) centers^{22,23}, and photon systems^{24,25}.
For scalable quantum computation and QIP, quantum gates between two separated quantum nodes are indispensable. So far, one convenient way to realize such gates is to use linked cavities, each of which contains single or several qubits in it. To constitute the critical twoqubit optical gate in a deterministic way, one can resort to Kerr nonlinearities. However, they are many orders of magnitude too small for efficient quantum computation for naturally occurring nonlinearities in the singlephoton level^{26}. Several proposals based on Kerr nonlinearities in fibers or crystals^{27}, electromagnetically induced transparency^{22,28,29,30}, and optical dipolecavity system^{31,32} are developed. In the past decades, cavity quantum electrodynamics (cavity QED) that studies the coherent interaction of matter with quantized fields has been a paradigm for QIP due to controllable interactions between dipole and photons^{31,33}. As for the cavitybased scheme, the dipole embedded in the optical cavity interacts strongly with the input single photons, and the interaction between the dipole and the successive photons provides strong Kerr nonlinearities^{17,18,31,34}.
In 2004, Duan et al.^{31} proposed a scheme for scalable photonic quantum computation based on cavityassisted interaction between singlephoton pulses. In 2005, Cho et al.^{32} proposed a scheme to implement a twoqubit controlledphase gate for single atomic qubits based on the cavity inputoutput process. Based on a singly charged QD inside an optical resonant cavity, several schemes for entanglement generation and implementing of quantum logic gates are proposed^{17,18,19}. Assisted with single photons, Zhou et al.^{35} provided the optimal approach to detect nonlocal atomic entanglement. On the other hand, based on the photonic Faraday rotation, they also described the complete logic Bellstate analysis^{36}. With the dipole induced transparency of a diamond NV center, universal hyperparallel hybrid photonic quantum logic gates were proposed in 2015^{22}. Recently, an magnoncavity unit, e.g., an atomic ensemble confined in a doublesided cavity, was proposed by Li et al.^{34}, in which the interaction between the collective spin wave (magnon) of an atomic ensemble and the successive photons provides strong Kerr nonlinearities.
In this paper, inspired by the above works, we investigate the possibility of achieving scalable photonic quantum computation assisted by an atomic ensemble in a doublesided cavity. Our schemes are different from the work by Li et al.^{34} in which they present a scheme for two CNOT gates with the photonic qubits both in the spatial degrees of freedom (DOF) and the polarization DOF of each photon. By the nonlinear interaction between the moving photon and the magnon of an atomic ensemble in a doublesided cavity, we first present a deterministic scheme for constructing a CNOT gate on a hybrid system with the flying photon as the control qubit and the atomic ensemble as the target qubit. Besides, we construct the Toffoli and Fredkin gates on a threequbit hybrid system in a deterministic way. In our work, the control qubit of our universal gates is encoded on the polarization states of the moving photon, while the target qubit is encoded on the state of atomic ensemble inside an optical microcavity. These three schemes for the universal gates require no additional qubit, and they only need some linear optical elements besides Kerr nonlinear interaction between the magnon and the photons. High fidelities and high efficiencies can be achieved in the strong coupling regime and are not sensitive to the frequency detuning and coupling imbalance.
Results
Inputoutput relation for a single photon with a magnoncavity coupling system
The configuration of the atomic ensemble cavity coupling system considered here is exhibited schematically in Fig. 1. We first denote a highly excited Rydberg state as r〉. Assisted by the Rydberg state r〉, one can prepare the atomic ensemble into the magnon state and perform the singlequbit operation on the magnon qubit. A qubit is encoded in collective spin wave state or magnon state with a single atom in the states g_{0}〉 and g_{1}〉 of the atomic ensemble. If we define (j = 0, 1), we have , where are the collective angular momentum operators with , and . The transitions and with frequency ω_{0} are driven by orthogonal polarizations (H and V) of a photon with frequency ω. Meanwhile the two transitions are nearly resonantly coupled to the two degenerate cavity modes and with the corresponding coupling rates are λ_{0} and λ_{1}, respectively. For the input photons with different polarizations, the transmission and reflection coefficients are determined by the state of the ensemble. If a polarized photon is injected into the cavity via either side of the cavity, it will pass through the cavity if it is decoupled from the driven cavity mode; otherwise it will interact with the atomic ensemble if it is coupled to the cavity mode and lead to the mode splitting. When the frequencies of the optical fields close to the cavity frequency ω_{a}, we can take the coupling rates between an asymmetrical cavity and modes and of ports B and C as real constant^{31}. Here, to insure the photon pulse shape remains unchanged, we need a single polarized photon pulse with a finite bandwidth ([, ]), which is satisfied when (the cavity decay rate)^{17,18}. If we take ω_{a} as the carrier frequency, then δ′ = ω − ω_{a} denotes the frequency detuning of the input photon with frequency ω. δ_{0} = ω_{0} − ω_{a} measures the frequency difference between the dipole transition and the cavity mode. This system exhibits similar features with the JaynesCummings model, and in the frame rotating with respect to ω_{a}, the dynamics of the system is governed by the following hamiltonian (ħ = 1)^{31,33,37}
here and λ_{j} denote the spontaneous emission rate of the single excited collective state and the coupling rate between the atomic ensemble and the corresponding resonant cavity mode, respectively. With the help of Rydberg state^{38,39} or coherent Raman process^{40,41}, one can pump the atomic ensemble to the magnon state , so that the input photon will drive the interaction between the atomic ensemble and the cavity mode. In the single excitation subspace, the system will evolve in the space spanned by the internal states of the atomic ensemble and the photon number states of the radiation modes (, , and ), respectively. Suppose the initial state of the system is , i.e., we choose the input photon in mode , then the state of the system, at time t, will evolve to
The Schrödinger equation for this system can be specified to be
Along with the standard inputoutput relation (y = b, c), we can see the birefringent character of the magnoncavity system. Here and are the input and output field operators, respectively. Under the condition that the incoming field is very weak, i.e., we take , the reflection and transmission coefficients of the system can be expressed as
In the case the input photons uncoupled to the cavity, i.e., λ_{j} = 0, we get the reflection and transmission coefficients for the system, then Eq. (4) reduces to
As the backscattering is low in the optical fibers, the asymmetry of the two coupling constants is mainly caused by cavity intrinsic loss^{42}. Suppose (), i.e., the difference of the coupling rates between the cavity and the modes and are small, one can replace the reflection and transmission coefficients above for the asymmetrical cavity system with those for the symmetrical one with identical coupling rates, i.e., we set κ = κ_{b} = κ_{c}. With the symmetrical cavity, the corresponding reflection and transmission coefficients can be respectively simplified and given by
for λ > 0 (hot cavity), and
for λ = 0 (cold cavity, described with the subscript 0). The reflection and transmission coefficients in Eqs (6) and (7) indicate that the output photon experiences a phase shift relying on the different states of the atomic ensemble in the doublesided cavity. When the Purcell factor λ^{2}/κγ = 1/2, the reflection and transmission coefficients are r(ω) → 1 and t(ω) → 0. However, in the decoupling case (λ = 0), the reflection and transmission coefficients of the bare cavity are r_{0}(ω) → 0 and t_{0}(ω) → −1. Specifically, if the atomic ensemble is in the state , when the photon in H〉 (V〉) state is directed into the cavity, it will be reflected and get no phase shift. Otherwise, the photon will transmit the cavity and get a π phase shift. This exactly demonstrates the effective Kerr nonlinearity which can be used to constitute the hybrid multiqubit gates in the following sections.
CNOT gate on a twoqubit hybrid system
The framework of our CNOT gate, which flips the target atomic ensemble qubit if the control photon polarization qubit is in the state V〉, is depicted in Fig. 2. The flying photon p and the atomic ensemble are prepared in arbitrary superposition states and (here ), respectively.
For conciseness, we define singlequbit Hadamard operations H_{p} and H_{s} for one photon and one magnon qubit respectively as:
First, the injected photon passes through a polarized beam splitter (PBS_{1}), which transmits the photon in the polarization state H〉 and reflects the photon in the state V〉. The part in the state H〉 transmits PBS_{1} and gets into a delay line (DL), does not interact with the cavity, while the part in the state V〉 passes a halfwave plate (HWP_{1}), which is used to perform a Hadamard operation (H_{p}) on the photon. Then the photon passes a beam splitter (BS) and be injected into the cavity from either path a_{1} or a_{2}. At the same time, we perform a Hadamard operation (H_{s}) on the atomic ensemble with the coherent Raman process or Rydbergstateassisted quantum rotation. Then the state of the whole system composed of a photon and an atomic ensemble is changed from to . Here
and
Considering the birefringent propagation of the input polarized photon, the output state of photon together with that of the atomic ensemble is
When the photon p passes through path a_{1}, it will be split by PBS_{2}, the Hpolarized component takes a phase shift π (i.e., H〉 → −H〉) after passing through the phase shifter P_{π}. Then the photon passes PBS_{3} will take an H_{p} operation by HWP_{3}. Meanwhile the photon passes through path a_{2} will take an H_{p} operation by HWP_{2}. After the photon passes through PBS_{4} and HWP_{4}, the state of the system becomes
Then we apply an H_{s} operation on the atomic ensemble, the state of the hybrid system becomes
One can see that the state of the atomic ensemble is flipped when the photon (the control qubit) is in the state V〉, while it does not change when the photon is in the state H〉, compared to the original state of the twoqubit hybrid system shown in Eq. (10). Therefore, the quantum circuit shown in Fig. 2 can be used to construct a deterministic CNOT gate with a success probability of 100% in principle by using the photon as the control qubit and the atomic ensemble as the target qubit.
Toffoli gate on a threequbit hybrid system
The schematic diagram for implementing a deterministic threequbit Toffoli gate is depicted in Fig. 3, which performs a NOT operation on the second atomic ensemble (the target qubit) if and only if the photon is in the state V〉 and the first atomic ensemble is in the state . Suppose that the flying photon qubit is prepared in an arbitrary superposition state, , and each of the two independent atomic ensembles in cavities 1 and 2 is prepared in an arbitrary state as and . Here .
First the photon reaches PBS_{1}, the photon in the state V〉 is injected into the cavity from path a_{2}, while the photon in the state H〉 does not interact with the atomic ensemble inside the cavity. With the same arguments as made for the CNOT gate above, we find that after the photon interacts with the atomic ensemble inside cavity 1, the state of the whole system evolves from to . And
Then the photon from path a_{1} goes into a DL, while the photon from path a_{2} passes HWP_{1} and BS, and then gets into cavity 2 from path a_{1} or a_{2}. Meanwhile we apply an H_{s} operation on the atomic ensemble in cavity 2. Considering the interaction between the photon and the atomic ensemble in cavity 2, we find the state of the system evolves from to , here
After the photon passes the channel combination module (CCM), we perform an H_{s} operation on the atomic ensemble in cavity 2 again, then the state of the combined system becomes
After the photon passes through the CCM, it is led back to cavity 1 from path , at the same time we lead the photon in path a_{1} into cavity 1 again (see the green lines), then the state of the system evolves into
After the photon reaches PBS_{2}, we can see that the state of the target magnon qubit in cavity 2 is flipped when the two control photonic qubit and the magnon qubit in cavity 1 are in the state V〉 and , respectively. Therefore the quantum circuit shown in Fig. 3 can be used to construct a Toffoli gate on a photonmagnon hybrid system in a deterministic way.
Fredkin gate on a threequbit hybrid system
The threequbit Fredkin gate implements a swap operation on two stationary atomic ensemble qubits in cavities 1 and 2 when the flying photon is in the state V〉. Suppose that the initial states of the flying photon and the two atomic ensembles confined in the two doublesided cavities are
And . As illustrated in Fig. 4, our scheme for a threequbit Fredkin gate can be achieved with three steps.
Step 1. The injected photon is split by PBS_{1} into two wavepackets, the photon in state H〉 dose not interact with the atomic ensemble in cavity 1, while the photon in state V〉 goes into path 2 and experiences the nonlinearities (see the green lines). After the photon in the state V〉 is injected into cavity 1, the state of the threequbit hybrid system changes to
After the photon interacts with the atomic ensemble inside cavity 1, it emits from path 3 or 4 and then be led into cavity 2. After the photon interacts with the atomic ensemble inside cavity 2, becomes
It can be seen that, when the photon in V〉 passes through the two cavities in succession, the output path of the photon is determined by the parity of the two magnon qubits.
Step 2. The photon at S will be led to path 8, while the photon emitting from path 6 be led into cavity 1 again. As discussed above, in this round, the photon in path 6 acts as the control qubit and performs NOT operations on the magnon qubits in cavities 1 and 2, respectively (see the grey lines, i.e., HWP_{1} → BS_{1} → H_{s1} → Cavity1 → CCM1 → H_{s1} → HWP_{2} → BS_{2} → H_{s2} → Cavity2 → CCM2 → H_{s2}). For this purpose, H_{s} operations on the atomic ensembles in cavities 1 and 2 before and after the photon interacts with the corresponding magnon qubit respectively are needed. When the photon emits from path 7, the output state of the system is
Step 3. In this round, the photon emitting from path 7 or 8 will be led into cavities 1 and 2 successively again. As discussed in step 1, after the photon interacts with cavity 2 again, the state of the system evolves into
After this round, the photon emitting from path 5 will pass through S and reach PBS_{2}. After the photon from path 1 or path 9 reaches PBS_{2}, evolves into ,
From Eq. (24), one can see that the states of the two solidstate target qubits (the two atomic ensembles in cavities 1 and 2) are swapped when the photon qubit is in the state V〉, while they do not swap when the photon qubit is in the state H〉. The quantum circuit shown in Fig. 4 can be used to construct the Fredkin gate on a threequbit hybrid system in a deterministic way.
Discussion
The key ingredient in our scheme is the combined magnoncavity unit, such a system is a promising candidate for QIP since the birefringent propagation of the successively input photons acts as the effective Kerr nonlinearity. In this section, We quantitatively characterize the fidelities and efficiencies of our hybrid gates, respectively.
The fidelity of our Fredkin gate with respect to normalized photon detuning Δ/κ and the coupling rate λ/κ are shown in Fig. 5 when γ = κ. In principle, the detuning Δ/κ can be arbitrarily reduced, if the input photon is tuned to be resonant to the cavity, and then one has F_{F} = 97.2% when γ = κ and λ/κ = 3; while when photon detuning and , one has . The fidelity F_{F} approaches a steady value limited by the frequency detuning . The efficiencies of our universal quantum gates are shown in Fig. 6 when setting γ = κ. For Δ = 0, γ = κ and , , , ; while when photon detuning and , one has , , . We can see that the performance of our universal quantum gates, to some extent, are not sensitive to the detuning Δ and get better when the coupling rate λ/κ increases.
In fact, there might be some difference in the coupling rates between the cavity and modes and () in practice. In experiment, the difference of the two coupling constants has been demonstrated, which yields approximately the same fidelity for both transmission and reflection directions^{42}. In the resonant case (ω_{c} = ω_{0} = ω), there will be an additional error probability in the singlephoton scattering process by . And this error can be improved for the cavity with almost identical mirrors^{43,44}, which will lead to the ideal photon blockade^{45}. To discuss the sensitivity of our schemes to κ_{Δ}, the fidelities and efficiencies of our gates are calculated with the similar procedure as those used in the symmetric case by using the reflection and transmission coefficients obtained with the asymmetrical cavity. The fidelities and efficiencies of our gates are shown in Fig. 7, here we choose , γ = κ_{b} and Δ = 0. When setting λ/κ = 3, one has with , with and with . Compared with those in the symmetric case, the little decreases of the fidelities and efficiencies in the asymmetric case prove that our universal quantum gates are robust to the cavity coupling imbalance.
As reported in refs 46, 47, the maximum coupling strength between a single atom and a single intracavity photon, along with the decay rate of the excited state and the cavity mode, are . Thereby we can see that our hybrid quantum gates are robust against the practical imperfections. Recently, there have been plenty of other methods to couple an atomic ensemble with an optical cavity^{48,49}, which might be another building block for our schemes. The fidelities of the spin wave rotation procedures of 99% have been reported^{50}, and the collective spin wave operations in atomic ensembles have been well developed^{51}. Besides, the atomic ensembles can store photons in a single atomic ensemble with several milliseconds^{52}, so this manoncavity unit is a good quantum memory system for photonic qubits, which is essential in scalable quantum networks. Therefore, our hybrid quantum gates may be achieved with the current QED setup. In addition, our hybrid quantum gates are quite different from the previous ones based on the quantum dot embedded in microcavities^{6,7} and those assisted by NV centers embedded in photonic crystal cavities coupled to two wave guides^{30}. We use the atomic ensemble approach, so that lightmatter coupling is largely improved by collective enhancement^{53}. The control qubit of our gates is encoded on the polarization of the moving single photon and the target qubits are encoded on the magnon states of the atomic ensembles inside optical microcavities. As discussed in Sec. III, when the photon in V〉 passes through the two cavities in succession, the output path of the photon is determined by the parity of the two magnon qubits, this makes the present schemes more succinct than the previous schemes^{6}. In addition, because they do not require that the transmission for the uncoupled cavity is balanceable with the reflectance for the coupled cavity, our schemes are robust, this is different from the hybrid gates which are encoded on the atom confined in a singlesided cavity^{18,31}.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we have designed the compact quantum circuits for implementing deterministic universal hybrid quantum gates, including the CNOT, Toffoli, and Fredkin gates, by means of the the effective Kerr nonlinearity induced by an atomic ensemble embedded in a doublesided cavity. The spontaneous emission and the cavity decay induce the different transmittance or reflectance coefficients between the hot cavity and the cold cavity in a magnoncavity system. We have shown the schemes are robust to the variation of coupling rate λ_{j} and the detuning Δ involved in the practical experiments. High fidelities and efficiencies can be achieved in the strong coupling regime in our schemes. We hope this work will be useful in quantum computation and quantum networks with single photons.
Methods
Under the ideal case, suppose that the optical elements, such as PBS, HWP, P_{π}, and optical switch, are perfect, both the success probability and the fidelity of the present schemes are 100% in principle. For a practical magnoncavity unit, the spontaneous emission of the collective states and cavity decay may leading to photon loss, which will reduce the performance of our hybrid gates.
The fidelities of the gates
We introduce the gate fidelity, which measures the distance for quantum information, is defined as^{54}
where is the input states, U is the ideal CONT (Toffoli or Fredkin) gate, and , with being the final state after the realistic CONT (Toffoli or Fredkin) operation in the present scheme. Considering the rules for optical transitions in a realistic cavity system, combing the arguments made in Sec. III, we find that the state of the system described by Eq. (12) becomes
The terms with underlines indicate the states which take the bitflip error. Then, the fidelity of the CNOT gate can be written as
Similarly, we can calculate the fidelities for the Toffoli (F_{T}) and the Fredkin (F_{F}) gates discussed in Sec. III, respectively:
Defining the efficiency of a quantum gate as the ratio of the number of the outputting photons to the inputting photons. The reflection and transmission coefficients of the magnoncavity system will modify the output states of the quantum gates. According to the discussions made in Sec. III, the efficiencies of our gates can be written as
with , , , and .
Experimental realization of an atomic ensemble cavity system
The physical configuration that we consider in the present schemes can employ ^{87}Rb^{55,56} atomic ensemble. In a real experiment, one can couple a BoseEinstein condensate of ^{87}Rb atomic ensemble to an optical FabryPerot cavity^{46,47}. We choose the two stable hyperfine ground states g_{0}〉 and g_{1}〉 as the (F = 1, M_{F} = −1) level and the (F = 1, M_{F} = 1) level of the 5S_{1/2} state, while two metastable hyperfine excited states are the (F = 2, M_{F} = −2) level and the (F = 2, M_{F} = 2) level of 5P_{1/2}. Meanwhile, a highly excited Rydberg state nS_{1/2} can be chosen as r〉.
Additional Information
How to cite this article: Liu, A.P. et al. Universal quantum gates for hybrid system assisted by atomic ensembles embedded in doublesided optical cavities. Sci. Rep. 7, 43675; doi: 10.1038/srep43675 (2017).
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
 1.
Barenco, A. et al. Elementary gates for quantum computation. Phys. Rev. A 52, 3457–3467 (1995).
 2.
Fredkin, E. & Toffoli, T. Conservative logic. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 219–253 (1982).
 3.
Shi, Y. Y. Both Toffoli and ControlledNOT need little help to do universal quantum computation. Quantum Inf. Comput. 3, 84 (2003).
 4.
Gasparoni, S., Pan, J. W., Walther, P., Rudolph, T. & Zeilinger, A. Realization of a photonic controlledNOT gate sufficient for quantum computation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 020504 (2004).
 5.
Fiurášek, J. Linearoptics quantum Toffoli and Fredkin gates. Phys. Rev. A 73, 062313 (2006).
 6.
Wei, H. R. & Deng, F. G. Universal quantum gates for hybrid systems assisted by quantum dots inside doublesided optical microcavities. Phys. Rev. A 87, 022305 (2013).
 7.
Wei, H. R. & Deng, F. G. Scalable photonic quantum computing assisted by quantumdot spin in doublesided optical microcavity. Opt. Express 21, 17671–17685 (2013).
 8.
Shor, P. W. Polynomialtime algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput. 26, 1484–1509 (1997).
 9.
Wang, C., Shen, W. W., Mi, S. C., Zhang, Y. & Wang, T. J. Concentration and distribution of entanglement based on valley qubits system in graphene. Sci. Bull. 60, 2016–2021 (2015).
 10.
Cao, C. et al. Concentrating partially entangled Wclass states on nonlocal atoms using lowQ optical cavity and linear optical elements. Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astro. 59, 100315 (2016).
 11.
Sheng, Y. B., Zhao, S. Y., Liu, J. & Zhou, L. Atomic entanglement purification using photonic Faraday rotation. Quantum Inf. Process. 13, 881–893 (2014).
 12.
Cory, D. G. et al. Experimental quantum error correction. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2152 (1998).
 13.
Dennis, E. Toward faulttolerant quantum computation without concatenation. Phys. Rev. A 63, 052314 (2001).
 14.
Liang, L. M. & Li, C. Z. Realization of quantum SWAP gate between flying and stationary qubits. Phys. Rev. A 72, 024303 (2005).
 15.
Chuang, I. L., Gershenfeld, N., Kubinec, M. G. & Leung, D. W. Bulk quantum computation with nuclear magnetic resonance: theory and experiment. Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 454, 447–467 (1998).
 16.
Feng, G. R., Xu, G. F. & Long, G. L. Experimental realization of nonadiabatic holonomic quantum computation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 190501 (2013).
 17.
Hu, C. Y., Young, A., O’Brien, J. L., Munro, W. J. & Rarity, J. G. Deterministic photon entangler using a charged quantum dot inside a microcavity. Phys. Rev. B 78, 085307 (2008).
 18.
Hu, C. Y., Munro, W. J., O’Brien, J. L. & Rarity, J. G. Proposed entanglement beam splitter using a quantumdot spin in a doublesided optical microcavity. Phys. Rev. B 80, 205326 (2009).
 19.
Bonato, C. et al. CNOT and Bellstate analysis in the weakcoupling cavity QED regime. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 160503 (2010).
 20.
Niskanen, A. O., Vartiainen, J. J. & Salomaa, M. M. Optimal multiqubit operations for Josephson charge qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 197901 (2003).
 21.
Hua, M., Tao, M. J., Deng, F. G. & Long, G. L. Onestep resonant controlledphase gate on distant transmon qutrits in different 1D superconducting resonators. Sci. Rep. 5, 14541 (2015).
 22.
Ren, B. C., Wang, G. Y. & Deng, F. G. Universal hyperparallel hybrid photonic quantum gates with dipoleinduced transparency in the weakcoupling regime. Phys. Rev. A 91, 032328 (2015).
 23.
Liu, A. P. et al. Deterministic controlledphase gate and SWAP gate with dipoleinduced transparency in the weakcoupling regime. Opt. Commun. 379, 19–24 (2016).
 24.
Kok, P. et al. Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits. Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 135 (2007).
 25.
Knill, E., Laflamme, R. & Milburn, G. J. A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics. Nature (London) 409, 46–52 (2001).
 26.
Kok, P., Lee, H. & Dowling, J. P. Singlephoton quantumnondemolition detectors constructed with linear optics and projective measurements. Phys. Rev. A 66, 063814 (2002).
 27.
Matsuda, N., Shimizu, R., Mitsumori, Y., Kosaka, H. & Edamatsu, K. Observation of opticalfibre Kerr nonlinearity at the singlephoton level. Nat. Photon. 3, 95–98 (2009).
 28.
Friedler, I., Petrosyan, D., Fleischhauer, M. & Kurizki, G. Longrange interactions and entanglement of slow singlephoton pulses. Phys. Rev. A 72, 043803 (2005).
 29.
Sevincli, S., Henkel, N., Ates, C. & Pohl, T. Nonlocal nonlinear optics in cold Rydberg gases. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 153001 (2011).
 30.
Wei, H. R. & Deng, F. G. Compact quantum gates on electronspin qubits assisted by diamond nitrogenvacancy centers inside cavities. Phys. Rev. A 88, 042323 (2013).
 31.
Duan, L. M. & Kimble, H. J. Scalable photonic quantum computation through cavityassisted interactions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 127902 (2004).
 32.
Cho, J. & Lee, H. W. Generation of atomic cluster states through the cavity inputoutput process. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 160501 (2005).
 33.
Chen, Q., Yang, W. L., Feng, M. & Du, J. F. Entangling separate nitrogenvacancy centers in a scalable fashion via coupling to microtoroidal resonators. Phys. Rev. A 83, 054305 (2011).
 34.
Li, T. & Long, G. L. Hyperparallel optical quantum computation assisted by atomic ensembles embedded in doublesided optical cavities. Phys. Rev. A 94, 022343 (2016).
 35.
Zhou, L. & Sheng, Y. B. Detection of nonlocal atomic entanglement assisted by single photons. Phys. Rev. A 90, 024301 (2014).
 36.
Zhou, L. & Sheng, Y. B. Complete logic Bellstate analysis assisted with photonic Faraday rotation. Phys. Rev. A 92, 042314 (2015).
 37.
An, J. H., Feng, M. & Oh, C. H. Quantuminformation processing with a single photon by an inputoutput process with respect to lowQ cavities. Phys. Rev. A 79, 032303 (2009).
 38.
Saffman, M., Walker, T. G. & Mølmer, K. Quantum information with Rydberg atoms. Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2313 (2010).
 39.
Mei, F., Feng, M., Yu, Y. F. & Zhang, Z. M. Scalable quantum information processing with atomic ensembles and flying photons. Phys. Rev. A 80, 042319 (2009).
 40.
Li, S. et al. Coherent manipulation of spinwave vector for polarization of photons in an atomic ensemble. Phys. Rev. A 84, 043430 (2011).
 41.
Böhi, P. et al. Coherent manipulation of BoseEinstein condensates with statedependent microwave potentials on an atom chip. Nat. Phys. 5, 592–597 (2009).
 42.
O’Shea, D., Junge, C., Volz, J. & Rauschenbeutel, A. Fiberoptical switch controlled by a single atom. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 193601 (2013).
 43.
Muller, A., Flagg, E. B., Lawall, J. R. & Solomon, G. S. Ultrahighfinesse, lowmodevolume FabryPerot microcavity. Opt. Lett. 35, 2293–2295 (2010).
 44.
Biedermann, G. et al. Ultrasmooth microfabricated mirrors for quantum information. Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 181110 (2010).
 45.
Birnbaum, K. M. et al. Photon blockade in an optical cavity with one trapped atom. Nature (London) 436, 87–90 (2005).
 46.
Brennecke, F. et al. Cavity QED with a BoseEinstein condensate. Nature (London) 450, 268–271 (2007).
 47.
Brennecke, F., Ritter, S., Donner, T. & Esslinger, T. Cavity optomechanics with a BoseEinstein condensate. Science 322, 235–238 (2008).
 48.
Ritsch, H., Domokos, P., Brennecke, F. & Esslinger, T. Cold atoms in cavitygenerated dynamical optical potentials. Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 553 (2013).
 49.
Chen, Q., Yang, W. L. & Feng, M. Controllable quantum state transfer and entanglement generation between distant nitrogenvacancycenter ensembles coupled to superconducting flux qubits. Phys. Rev. A 86, 022327 (2012).
 50.
Rui, J. et al. Operating spin echo in the quantum regime for an atomicensemble quantum memory. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 133002 (2015).
 51.
Xu, Z., Wu, Y., Liu, H., Li, S. & Wang, H. Fast manipulation of spinwave excitations in an atomic ensemble. Phys. Rev. A 88, 013423 (2013).
 52.
Lvovsky, A. I., Sanders, B. C. & Tittel, W. Optical quantum memory. Nat. Photon. 3, 706–714 (2009).
 53.
Gorshkov, A. V., André, A., Fleischhauer, M., Sørensen, A. S. & Lukin, M. D. Universal approach to optimal photon storage in atomic media. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 123601 (2007).
 54.
Poyatos, J. F., Cirac, J. I. & Zoller, P. Complete characterization of a quantum process: the twobit quantum gate. Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 390 (1997).
 55.
Steck, D. A. Rubidium 87 D Line Data, http://steck.us/alkalidata (revision 2.1.4, 23 December 2010).
 56.
Shih, C. Y. & Chapman, M. S. Nondestructive lightshift measurements of single atoms in optical dipole traps. Phys. Rev. A 87, 063408 (2013).
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the Doctoral Scientific Research Foundation of Shanxi Institute of Technology No. 201605002, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants No. 11604190 and No. 61465013.
Author information
Affiliations
Shanxi Institute of Technology, Yangquan, Shanxi 045000, China
 A.Peng Liu
 & MingXia Zhao
School of Physics and Information Engineering, Shanxi Normal University, Linfen, Shanxi 041004, China
 LiuYong Cheng
College of Physics and Electronics Engineering, Shanxi University, Taiyuan, Shanxi 030006, China
 Qi Guo
Department of Physics, College of Science, Yanbian University, Yanji, Jilin 133002, China
 Shou Zhang
Authors
Search for A.Peng Liu in:
Search for LiuYong Cheng in:
Search for Qi Guo in:
Search for Shou Zhang in:
Search for MingXia Zhao in:
Contributions
A.P.L. and Q.G. designed the schemes, L.Y.C., M.X.Z. and S.Z. carried out the theoretical analysis. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the work and the writing of the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Corresponding authors
Correspondence to A.Peng Liu or Shou Zhang.
Rights and permissions
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
About this article
Further reading

HighFidelity Hybrid Quantum Gates between a Flying Photon and Diamond NitrogenVacancy Centers Assisted by LowQ SingleSided Cavities
Annalen der Physik (2019)

CNOT gate on reverse photon modes in a ring cavity
Quantum Information Processing (2019)

Entanglement concentration for polarization–spatial–timebin hyperentangled Bell states
EPL (Europhysics Letters) (2018)

Robust Deterministic Controlled PhaseFlip Gate and ControlledNot Gate Based on Atomic Ensembles Embedded in DoubleSided Optical Cavities
International Journal of Theoretical Physics (2018)

Deterministic state analysis for polarizationspatialtimebin hyperentanglement with nonlinear optics
Laser Physics Letters (2018)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.