ANL-22/83

About Argonne National Laboratory

Argonne is a U.S. Department of Energy laboratory managed by UChicago Argonne,
LLC under contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. The Laboratory’s main facility is outside
Chicago, at 9700 South Cass Avenue, Lemont, Illinois 60439. For information about
Argonne and its pioneering science and technology programs, see www.anl.gov.

DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY
Online Access: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reports produced after 1991
and a growing number of pre-1991 documents are available free at OSTI.GOV
(http://www.osti.gov/), a service of the US Dept. of Energy’s Office of Scientific and
Technical Information.

Reports not in digital format may be purchased by the public from

the National Technical Information Service (NTIS):
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical Information
Service 5301 Shawnee Rd
Alexandria, VA 22312
www.ntis.gov
Phone: (800) 553-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000
Fax: (703) 605-6900
Email: [email protected]

Reports not in digital format are available to DOE and DOE contractors from
the Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI):
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062
www.osti.gov
Phone: (865) 576-8401
Fax: (865) 576-5728
Email: [email protected]

DOI: 10.2172/1900586

Cite as:
A Roadmap for Quantum Interconnects (ANL-22/83). Argonne National Laboratory, 2022. https://doi.org/10.2172/1900586.

Disclaimer
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United
States Government nor any agency thereof, nor UChicago Argonne, LLC, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any
warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any
information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference
herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not
necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency
thereof. The views and opinions of document authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
Government or any agency thereof, Argonne National Laboratory, or UChicago Argonne, LLC.
 ANL-22/83

A Roadmap for Quantum Interconnects

prepared by
David D. Awschalom1, 2, Hannes Bernien2, Rex Brown3, Aashish Clerk2, Eric Chitambar4, Alan
Dibos1, Jennifer Dionne5, Mark Eriksson6, Bill Fefferman2, Greg David Fuchs7, Jay Gambetta8,
Elizabeth Goldschmidt4, Supratik Guha1, 2, F. Joseph Heremans1, Kent David Irwin5, Ania
Bleszynski Jayich9, Liang Jiang2, Jonathan Karsch2, Mark Kasevich5, Shimon Kolkowitz6, Paul
G. Kwiat4, Thaddeus Ladd3, Jay Lowell10, Dmitri Maslov8, Nadya Mason4, Anne Y. Matsuura11,
Robert McDermott6, Rod van Meter12, Aaron Miller13, Jason Orcutt8, Mark Saffman6, Monika
Schleier-Smith5, Manish Kumar Singh2, Phil Smith1, Martin Suchara1, Farzam Toudeh-
Fallah14, Matt Turlington15, Benjamin Woods6, Tian Zhong2

Q-NEXT, Argonne National Laboratory

July 2022

1 9
Argonne National Laboratory University of California, Santa Barbara
2 10
University of Chicago Boeing
3 11
HRL Laboratories Intel
4 12
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Keio University
5 13
Stanford University Quantum Opus
6 14
University of Wisconsin–Madison JPMorgan Chase
7 15
Cornell University Verizon
8
IBM
 Contents
Contributors ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Preface ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... 3
A. Introduction to the Roadmap .................................................................................................................. 5
B. Roadmap for Quantum Computing ......................................................................................................... 8
I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8
II. Science and Technology Imperatives over the Next 10 Years ............................................................. 9
III. Materials, Components and Systems Used for Quantum Computing .............................................. 10
IV. Relevant Questions and Issues for Quantum Computing ................................................................. 11
V. Research Needs and Developments Necessary ................................................................................. 12
C. Roadmap for Quantum Communication ............................................................................................... 15
I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 15
II. Science and Technology Imperatives over the Next 10 Years ........................................................... 17
III. Materials, Components and Systems used for Quantum Communication ....................................... 19
IV Relevant Questions and Issues for Quantum Communications ....................................................... 24
V. Research Needs and Developments Necessary ................................................................................. 27
VI. Outlook ............................................................................................................................................. 30
D. Roadmap for Quantum Sensing ............................................................................................................ 31
I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 31
II. Science and Technology Imperatives over the Next 10 Years ........................................................... 32
III. Materials, Components and Systems Used for Quantum Sensing.................................................... 33
IV. Relevant Questions and Issues for Quantum Sensing ...................................................................... 34
V. Research Needs and Developments Necessary ................................................................................. 35
E. References ............................................................................................................................................. 40
 Contributors

NAME AFFILIATION NAME AFFILIATION

David D. Awschalom Argonne, UChicago Paul G. Kwiat UIUC
Hannes Bernien UChicago Thaddeus Ladd HRL Laboratories
Rex Brown HRL Laboratories Jay Lowell Boeing
Aashish Clerk UChicago Dmitri Maslov IBM
Eric Chitambar UIUC Nadya Mason UIUC
Alan Dibos Argonne Anne Y. Matsuura Intel
Jennifer Dionne Stanford University Robert McDermott UWisconsin
Mark Eriksson UWisconsin Rod van Meter Keio University
Bill Fefferman UChicago Aaron Miller Quantum Opus
Greg David Fuchs Cornell University Jason Orcutt IBM
Jay Gambetta IBM Mark Saffman UWisconsin
Elizabeth Goldschmidt UIUC Monika Schleier-Smith Stanford University
Supratik Guha Argonne, UChicago Manish Kumar Singh University of Chicago
F. Joseph Heremans Argonne Phil Smith Argonne
Kent David Irwin Stanford University Martin Suchara Argonne
Ania Bleszynski Jayich UCSB Farzam Toudeh-Fallah JPMorgan Chase
Liang Jiang UChicago Matt Turlington Verizon
Jonathan Karsch UChicago Benjamin Woods UWisconsin
Mark Kasevich Stanford University Tian Zhong UChicago
Shimon Kolkowitz UWisconsin
UChicago: University of Chicago UIUC: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
UCSB: University of California, Santa Barbara UWisconsin: University of Wisconsin–Madison

Team Leads

Supratik Guha: Overall roadmap lead

Mark Eriksson: Lead for quantum interconnects for computing
Ania Bleszynski Jayich: Lead for quantum interconnects for sensing
Thaddeus Ladd: Lead for quantum interconnects for communication

Editorial contributors: Mary Fitzpatrick, Leah Hesla, Mike Holik (Argonne National Laboratory)

1
 Preface

Created by Q-NEXT, a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Quantum Information Science Research
Center, this document is a roadmap for quantum interconnects research and its impact for quantum
information science and technology. It is the outcome of the collective work of a large team of Q-NEXT
members and participants from academia, industry and DOE national laboratories. The roadmap
addresses the role of quantum interconnects in three emerging areas of quantum information:
computing, communication and sensing. It reviews the materials, components and systems used for
these purposes; summarizes relevant scientific questions and issues; and addresses the most pressing
research needs. The document then distills these considerations into recommendations for strategic
science and technology research imperatives for the next decade. In addition to informing Q-NEXT’s
internal activities, the roadmap has also been created with a broader objective of developing a guide for
key issues and research needed over the next decade for the worldwide scientific and engineering
community interested in quantum information.

2
 Acronyms and Abbreviations
1G, 2G, 3G First, Second, and Third Generation of Quantum Repeaters

API Application Programming Interface

BSA Bell State Analyzer

COMP Full Computational Node

CV Continuous Variable

DCN Data Center Network

DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DOF Degrees of Freedom
DOS Denial of Service
DV Discrete Variable
DWDM Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing

EPPS Entangled Photon Pair Source

GPS Global Positioning System

HHL Harrow Hassidim Lloyd algorithm

I/O Input/Output
ILA In-Line Am
IR Infrared

KMS Key Management System

LAN Local Area Network

LIGO Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory

MAN Metropolitan Area Network

MEAS Measurement-Only End Node
MEM Memory-Based End Node
MOB Mobile Network

NMR Nuclear Magnetic Resonance

NSA National Security Agency
NV Center Nitrogen Vacancy Center in Diamond

OSW Optical Switch Node

3
PDL Polarization Dependent Loss
PMD Polarization Modal Dispersion

QAOA Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

QC Quantum Computing
QCD Quantum Chromodynamics
QEC Quantum Error Correction
QKD Quantum Key Distribution
QND Quantum Non-Demolition
Q-NEXT Next-Generation Quantum Science and Engineering

R&D Research and Development

REP1 Memory-Based Repeater
REP2 QEC-Enabled Repeater
RF Radio Frequency
RTR Router (most advanced memory-based repeater)

SAT Satellite Network

SMF Single-Mode Fiber
SNSPD Superconducting Nanowire Single Photon Detector
SNSR Sensor End Node
SOP State of Polarization
SPAD Semiconductor Single Photon Avalanche Photodiode
SQL Standard Quantum Limit
SQUID Superconducting Quantum Interference Device
SWaP Size, Weight, and Power
SWaP-C Size, Weight, and Power, and Cost

UHV Ultra-High Vacuum

VLBI Very Long Baseline Interferometry

WAN Wide Area Network

XFEL X-Ray Free-Electron Laser Facility (European)

ZBLAN 53% ZrF4, 20% BaF2, 4% LaF3, 3% AlF3 and 20% NaF

4
 A. Introduction to the Roadmap
Purpose: Created by the DOE Q-NEXT Quantum Information Science Center, this document seeks to
provide a roadmap for the main directions of quantum information science and technology employing
quantum interconnects. The roadmap is the outcome of the collective work of a large team of Q-NEXT
members and participants. The activities were carried out via a comprehensive set of discussions over
several months and a virtual workshop held on May 5, 2021. Participants included members of
academia, national laboratories, and industry representatives from the major sectors where quantum
information is expected to have an impact (e.g., computing, communications, sensing). The document,
in addition to informing Q-NEXT’s internal activities, has also been created with a broader objective of
developing a guide for key issues and research needed over the next decade for the worldwide scientific
and engineering community interested in quantum information.

Why a Roadmap? Roadmaps are an important component of the hardware technology world; their
purpose and design have been well described by Robert Galvin.1 Successful examples of the use of
roadmaps may be found, for example, in the semiconductors,2 batteries,3 photovoltaics,4 and
aerospace5 sectors. As quantum information moves from a science-driven field to one that now has pre-
competitive and competitive technology elements, it is appropriate to consider a roadmapping process
that may expedite the progress from science to technology. The roadmap serves a few important
purposes in this regard. It brings together stakeholders with multidisciplinary backgrounds who
collectively benefit from the roadmap’s integrated view. It acts as a guiding document and informs and
aids the strategies and policies of different stakeholders (e.g., academia, national program agencies,
industry) with respect to the field. Our roadmap is driven by technology needs, but considering the early
stages of the field, a significant focus has been on the needs of enabling science. These scientific
directions emerge from the “identification of linkages”6 and “discontinuities and knowledge voids”6 (as
noted by Galvin) that will be required to build quantum technologies of the future. As examples,
“demonstration of homogeneous quantum network at inter-city scale” is a technology imperative and
“high-fidelity entanglement swapping” is a science imperative to meet this objective.

What Are Quantum Interconnects and Why Do We Need Them? Quantum interconnects link and
distribute coherent quantum information between systems and across different length scales to enable
quantum sensing, communications, and computing. Entangling networks of sensors, they may enable
the practical measurement of physical properties with sensitivities below classical noise limits.
Interconnects will enable the construction of powerful quantum computers to execute quantum
algorithms by connecting elements within a quantum subsystem, between quantum processors, and
between quantum and classical computers. Quantum interconnects may also allow the movement of
quantum information over distances much larger than the systems being interconnected, for a variety of
applications. This type of connection is generally known as quantum communication, and a set of
interconnected quantum systems with appreciable physical distance between those systems is a
quantum network. Across all of these scales and applications, such interconnects may need to connect
homogeneous systems (where qubits are of the same kind) and heterogeneous qubit systems. In this
document, we focus on the scientific and technical needs for the distribution of such entanglement from
the perspectives of computing, sensing, and communications.

5
Unique Challenges: Unique challenges arise in the development of a roadmap for a high-risk, high-
reward, emerging field such as quantum information. The timespan for widespread impact in the public
good is likely long; getting there will require the fusion of both science and technology imperatives.
Unlike an established technology (such as microelectronics), there is no existing technology substantial
enough to use as a clear and definite launch point. And unlike other established engineering roadmaps,
there are few evolutionary component; most needs are revolutionary. As a result, our roadmap is
deliberately less prescriptive than other engineering roadmaps.

At the current level of our understanding, predictions on even the few-year timescale are challenging,
and for that reason, we focus statements of potential impact here on broad categories, avoiding
specific, metric-driven predictions (with some exceptions) where uncertainly makes such predictions
unreasonable. We are certain to miss important areas, and some of the areas we do list will turn out to
be more challenging than expected.

Purpose and Methodology: Our larger objective is to develop a unifying vision for the field of quantum
interconnects and inform U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) directions, as well as global quantum science
and technology research and development (R&D) in the area of quantum interconnects. It is also the
objective of this roadmap to help guide and frame Q-NEXT’s specific milestones.
Three teams were created from a group of Q-NEXT team members (identified on p. 1) to explore
opportunities and needs associated with quantum interconnects for computing, communications, and
sensing. A series of meetings by these teams was followed by a joint workshop during which the findings
from each team were used as a basis for discussion and identification of key imperatives and challenges
for quantum interconnects over the next 10–15 years. The roadmap team comprised members from
academia, industry, and national laboratories. Participants’ backgrounds (as well as partner industry
focal points) extended across the co-design and application space of quantum science and technology.
Specific charges that the teams addressed during development of the roadmap are as follows:

i. What do we expect will be the key impacts in quantum sensing, computing, and
communications for the public good in 15 years? These impacts can be both technology and
fundamental science.
ii. Identify the range of proposed systems and scientific discoveries that deliver these key impacts.
What is your definition of a quantum interconnect in the context of these systems (relevant to
the application of your Focus Group)? What are its characteristics?
iii. What are major developments and metrics that need to be achieved for quantum interconnects
to achieve the impacts described in (i) for your focus group? Please try to be as quantitative as
possible (within reason). Include technology and science milestones.
iv. What are the major specific impediments (e.g., basic knowledge, technology developments,
supply-chain-related issues, materials)? What is missing?

Figure 1 summarizes the key research imperatives over the next 10–15 years for quantum interconnect
science and technology that will be usable for the public good. Additional details are provided in the
three sections into which the roadmap document is divided: one each for quantum computing,
communications, and sensing. While there is significant commonality among these three areas, leading
to overlap in imperatives and directions, we adopted this approach with the view that these three

6
engineering fields will diverge over time and that readers may be specifically focused on one over the
other.

Figure 1: A summary of key quantum interconnect and related research imperatives required for quantum
computing, communications, and sensing over the next 10 years.

7
 B. Roadmap for Quantum Computing
I. Introduction
While quantum computers are currently limited in terms of computational performance, they are rapidly
increasing in performance capability. There has been increased investment in building quantum
processors with considerable involvement of industry7–9 and with public announcements of quantum
computing goals by companies such as IBM. It is likely that impacts for quantum computers in the
coming 10–15 years will be in the following areas:

• Quantum simulation,10,11 particularly in chemistry, physics, and materials science. Among these,
particularly early impacts are expected in:
§ Specific, specialized, “model” Hamiltonians of particular interest in physics, such as
Hubbard models.12–14
§ Quantum chemistry, with orbital numbers beyond what is possible on classical machines
(>100). This area can have significant impacts on computational materials and molecular
design,15 including drug discovery,16 materials manufacturing, and materials for
sustainability.17
• Certified random number generators.18
• Quantum cryptography. We note here that there are emerging developments, such as lattice-
based cryptography, that are resistant to current quantum approaches. Code-breaking
applications for quantum computing would be affected by such approaches, if successful.
• Optimization algorithms such as Monte Carlo algorithms and Quantum Approximate
Optimization Algorithm (QAOA),19,20 which can be applied to optimization problems on graphs.
• The deployment of quantum algorithms (for instance, the Harrow Hassidim Lloyd [HHL]
algorithm21) for efficient computational solutions in linear algebra, with applications in machine
learning for data analytics.
In the coming years, some of the most significant impacts of quantum computers will be on quantum
computation itself:22
• Algorithms are likely to evolve and become better optimized once quantum computers with
many hundreds, and even thousands, of qubits become available. This evolution will be enabled
by a clearer understanding of the architecture, design, and performance modeling of quantum
processors with >1,000 qubits.
• An anticipated and essential advance is error-corrected logical qubits with performance superior
to that of its component parts. Current work is beginning to demonstrate logical qubits with
fidelities that surpass the physical qubits from which they are formed.23–25
At a component and device level, the impacts listed above will be enabled by qubits with higher-fidelity
one- and especially two-qubit gates and by the availability of those higher-fidelity qubits in increasing
numbers. Higher-fidelity qubits will enable algorithms to run with greater gate depth, even with current
numbers (on the order of 100) of qubits, opening up important new opportunities to test algorithms.

8
All of these advances will be enabled by the creation and processing of entanglement with high fidelity.
The very definition of a high-fidelity, two-qubit gate assumes the entangling of two qubits. If one or more
of those qubits are themselves already entangled, a two-qubit gate further distributes that entanglement.
Note also that the distribution of entanglement requires the maintenance of coherence across the
distributed network; a key challenge, therefore, is the control of coherence in complex and heterogeneous
materials systems networked over large length scales. Unlike classical semiconductor technologies,
where a key opportunity is the density scaling of devices, the challenge in quantum processors is the
processing of entanglement at scale.

Figure 2: Application of quantum computing. Left (quantum simulation): A target quantum system (blue box)
evolves in time according to U(t), while the quantum processor (red box) evolves according to US(t). The quantum
processor is designed such that there is a mapping between the two systems. Measurements of the quantum
processor then yield information about the target quantum system. For example, the difficult electronic structure
problem of a target molecule can be mapped onto the qubits of the quantum processor. Center (solving
optimization problems): The solution of an optimization problem can be encoded into the ground state of a
Hamiltonian, H. This ground state can be found using an iterative, quantum-classical algorithm illustrated at
bottom. A state |Ψ> of the quantum processor is prepared. The energy of the state is measured and fed into the
classical computer. A classical optimization algorithm then suggests a new quantum state, which is then prepared.
The algorithm iterates until the ground state is found. Right (solving linear system): Linear systems of the form
Ax=b, where A is an NxN sparse matrix, are ubiquitous in science, engineering, finance, etc. A classical computer
can find the solution in O(N) operations, while a quantum computer yields the solution in O(log N) operations, an
exponential speedup. This quantum speedup is possible by being able to encode the N component vector b in the
state of only log N qubits.

In the context of computing, we conclude that distributing entanglement requires advances across a
broad swath of quantum science and technology. Q-NEXT will contribute to many (but not all) of these
areas.

II. Science and Technology Imperatives over the Next 10 Years

It is clear that the array of scientific exploration is already quite wide in terms of material systems,
device design, and control mechanisms. However, within this diversity, there are common imperatives
that we have identified that should be part of a serious effort in quantum interconnects for computing.
Each of these imperatives is addressed below.

9
Improve the input/output, addressability, and connectivity of qubits at low temperatures:
• Connections to and between qubits at cryogenic temperatures is challenging and, at present,
restricts progress by requiring qubits to be located on one chip and requiring the use of
physically large electronic components like isolators. Establishing the ability to interconnect
between quantum chips (e.g., a 2-qubit gate over a cable) and perform qubit readout without
bulky components (e.g., microwave isolators) will enable researchers to increase the number of
qubits and the size of quantum processors.
Coherently control and address optically active spin/lattice defects located at <20 nm lateral precision,
possibly in three-dimensions, using non-deterministic atomic-scale placement and fabrication
approaches.
• Optically active spin and lattice defects have superb properties for sensing, communications,
and computing. The ability to coherently control these defects, when placed with high spatial
resolution, would be transformatative for all such applications, especially computing. These
defects may either be native (i.e., crystalline defects such as lattice vacancies) or extrinsic (e.g.,
dopants).
Develop networked architectures
• Networked architectures for two heterogeneous qubits. It is widely recognized that different
qubits have different advantages. The most widely cited example is the tradeoff between qubit
operation rate and qubit decoherence rate (e.g., neutral atoms and ions have especially long
coherence times, whereas superconducting qubits have faster quantum gate speeds and also
shorter coherence times).26
• Interconnect architectures for large (>1000 qubit) systems and metrics for benchmarking their
performance.
Demonstrate conversion from a matter qubit to a telecom optical photon with 99% fidelity.
• Conversion from matter qubits to optical photons is a relevant, mission-critical goal for quantum
communications in the near term, including for networking between distributed processors
beyond meter-scale distances. For quantum computing, high-fidelity conversion would enable
fiber coupling of qubits housed in different cryostats or different ultra-high vacuum (UHV)
chambers. The fidelity requirement for such coupling to be useful is likely set by error correction
thresholds. However, it is possible that lower fidelity could still be useful as an entanglement
resource, depending on advances in algorithms and architectures to make effective use of such
resources.
III. Materials, Components and Systems Used for Quantum Computing
For quantum computing, we anticipate a focus on the following six key qubit systems and the
distribution of entanglement related to each:

i. Optically addressable defect center qubits in semiconductors (e.g., diamond,27 silicon

carbide28,29). Such defects can be intrinsic (e.g., native defects) or extrinsic (e.g., added dopants).
ii. Superconducting qubits (involving, for example, aluminum, niobium, tantalum).30
iii. Neutral atom qubits (optically addressable in atom traps in vacuum).31
iv. Electrically addressable spin qubits (e.g., gate-defined quantum dots in silicon [S], germanium
[Ge], or their alloys).32,33

10
 v. Ion trap qubits (optically addressable in ion traps in vacuum).34
vi. Optical qubits for all-photonic quantum processing, both discrete variable and continuous
variable approaches.
The following section identifies the critical advances required to interconnect entanglement for
quantum computing.

IV. Relevant Questions and Issues for Quantum Computing

Based on the imperatives and the key qubit systems discussed above, we established three
foundational principles that will guide R&D roadmap needs, helping to ensure that the quantum
computing research ecosystem will have impact. These principles coincide with Q-NEXT’s objectives.

First, we will roadmap for the interconnection of entanglement in its broadest sense, including all
challenges listed above, which range from materials developments to signal control to architectures
and, of course, advances in the fundamental operations – the quantum physics – of the qubits
themselves. Second, we recognize that interconnecting entanglement within a quantum computer
means interconnection of coherent and entangled qubits with classical control, logic, and
communication.
Third, we will roadmap for activities that are specifically relevant to Q-NEXT, with the understanding
that our motivation includes the entire quantum computing ecosystem.

In this context, it is useful to discuss the idea of a quantum interconnect as it applies to quantum
computing and quantum processors. As outlined in the introduction, a quantum interconnect makes
use of interactions to transfer information into, out of, and between qubits. In this respect, two classes
of interconnects are important in computation. First, quantum-to-quantum interconnects use
interactions to transfer quantum information between qubits. Within quantum-to-quantum
interconnects, it is further useful to consider homogenous interconnects – which connect qubits of the
same type – and heterogeneous interconnects – which connect qubits of different types. The second
class of interconnect essential to quantum computing is quantum-to-classical interconnects, which
transfer information between qubits and classical information elements. This information flow can (and
must) occur in two directions, from classical control to qubit control and from the qubits to classical
readout, including partial classical readout.

The science and technology for both types of quantum interconnects are at an early stage, yet the
diversity of possibilities is already large and arises from several key factors described below. First, as
noted earlier, we consider six distinct physical qubit implementations, each of which can have further
subcategories. For instance, quantum-dot-based qubits can be Si/SiGe gate-defined or metal-oxide-
semiconductor gate-defined; defect-based qubits can be embedded in different hosts, such as diamond
and silicon carbide; and atom qubits can be based on different elements (e.g., rubidium and holmium).35
Each of these sub-categories can involve different technical approaches. Furthermore, within each
subcategory, a variety of qubit architectures are under active study (e.g., there are at least four spin
qubits in gate-defined quantum dots: single-spin qubits, singlet-triplet qubits, exchange-only qubits, and
quantum dot hybrid qubits).33 From a devices design point of view, the native gates for each qubit type

11
(many have more than five) are different, and the classical-to-quantum control signals are different,
ranging from optical to microwave to baseband electrical pulses.

Figure 3. Key qubit systems along with some of their strengths and challenges36 that need to be overcome

Finally, we note here that a focus on “quantum interconnects” in isolation is too narrow; an assessment
of its impact and the relevant research tasks often requires consideration of the research required
across an entire sub-system. We retain the phrase “quantum interconnect” in all those cases (and only
those cases) where it offers value, i.e., where the intuitive sense in the community for what an
interconnect is fits the technical challenge to be addressed.

V. Research Needs and Developments Necessary

In light of the issues described above, the following summarize the major and central developments
required for quantum computing over the next several years.

(i) Improved fidelity and coherence of qubit gates

The gate fidelity and the qubit coherence time are key metrics for quantum computing. Infidelity limits
the depth of gate operations that can be performed in any quantum algorithm. Coherence sets the
fidelity for idle gates (waiting). Error correction thresholds set the minimum fidelity beyond which such
codes can lead to improvement and that today are at least 99%.34 Furthermore, details of an
implementation are important in this context, and therefore, practical thresholds may be higher.

(ii) Improved classical control of qubits and efficient and scalable driving of gates
Expensive gate control may be tolerable for small and medium numbers of qubits; however, for large
numbers of qubits, the scalability and cost of gate control become important and can be prohibitive.
Cost and scalability limits arise in several ways.
• Thermal engineering considerations for low-temperature processor systems: The heat load for
dozens, and even hundreds, of coax cables in a dilution refrigerator is tolerable. The heat load
for many thousands is likely not.37

12
 • Integration of optics: We anticipate growing needs for integrated routing of optical laser pulses
on an integrated photonic chip. Such approaches may build on developments in silicon
photonics and optical packaging over the past 15 years and may further require the integration
of new materials relevant to qubit-based processing.
• Control signals: The generation of control signals – optical, microwave, and electrical – likewise
involves costs associated with space, heat load, and system/component costs that will become
particularly relevant for larger systems. Cryogenic classical control is being explored to help
address this problem.38

Figure 4. Components of an interconnect. Top: Quantum interconnects have both homogeneous interconnects
(information transfer between qubits of the same type) and heterogeneous interconnects (information transfer
between qubits of different types). For example, a mechanical resonator can be used to couple superconducting
qubits to a cavity harboring neutral atom qubits, which serve as a quantum memory for long-time quantum
information storage. Both short- and long-range interconnects are needed. Here, a long-range photon coupling (L
>> LQubit, where LQubit is the length scale of a single qubit) between superconducting qubits is shown. Bottom:
Information transfer between quantum and classical components occurs through the quantum-classical
interface. These components include control signals, readout, input/output (I/O) management, and more. Image
of neutral-atom qubit in upper left from S. Welte, et al, “Photon-Mediated Quantum Gate Between Two Neutral
Atoms in an Optical Cavity,” Phys Rev X 8, 011018 (2018).

(iii) Research and demonstration of full-stack quantum computation for larger systems
As quantum computers scale, the topics of software automation, scaling of machine architectures, and
system integration become increasingly important. Low-level control signals cannot be generated by
hand beyond very small numbers of qubits. Consequently, compilers, firmware, abstraction of the
physical platform, and automation are critical. Importantly, the architecture for large (>1000 qubit)
systems (including their interconnect architecture) and the metrics for benchmarking their performance
today are largely unknown. Research in this direction is crucial to allow development and construction
of large and useful systems. Such research will be aimed at determining to what extent progress can be
made on systems integration in ways that are consistent with all (or at least more than one) of the six
physical qubit platforms considered here.

13
(iv) Interconversion of quantum information between physical qubits

If high-fidelity interconversion can be achieved, there would be speed advantages in moving from long-
lived (but slow) qubits to shorter lived (but faster) qubits. The faster qubits must themselves have high-
fidelity operations. The interconversion presumably needs to be performed twice: once to enter the fast
domain and again to return to the slower, but more coherent, domain. Algorithms and architectures will
need to be designed to adapt to such a hybrid processor.26,39 Converting matter-based qubits into
photon ‘data bus’ qubits may facilitate more efficient architectures, e.g., approaching all-to-all coupling
instead of the nearest-neighbor coupling constraint of many qubit platforms.

Figure 5. Center: The quantum computing stack involves multiple levels, including qubit and interconnect
technology, control engineering, software, and finally quantum algorithms. Two aspects of qubit and
interconnect technology are illustrated in the left and right panels. Left (physical-to-logical qubit ratio): Many
physical qubits (red circles) make up a single logical qubit (outlined by black blocks). These two logical qubits are
composed of physical qubits with different error probabilities for every gate operation, 10-3 and 10-4,
respectively. The logical qubit composed of fewer physical qubits performs equally well compared with the logical
qubit with more physical qubits because of the different error probabilities. Right (interconversion of information
between qubits): Information in a fast quantum processor (e.g., superconducting qubits) is transferred to a
quantum memory (e.g., defect qubits) for long-time quantum information storage. The two qubit types are
coupled through a data bus (e.g., a waveguide resonator).

14
 C. Roadmap for Quantum Communication
I. Introduction
Quantum communication refers to the interchange of single and entangled photons through a network
of devices (a quantum network), in which information is encoded on and measured from those photons.
Such an interchange enables a range of potential applications in distributed quantum computing,
distributed quantum sensing, and quantum-secured communication. A quantum network’s optimal
construction will depend on its application. Building a point-to-point quantum cryptography system, for
example, using fiber and commercial high-speed optical modulation and multiplexing electronics, would
be a very different task than building a long-distance internet of quantum computers using memory-
enabled quantum repeaters based on fiber-connected, rare-earth crystals. Complicating the road
toward optimizing a design is the present reality that both target applications and architectures for
implementation of quantum networks remain at an early stage of technological maturity. A highly
concrete roadmap to construction would therefore be premature. But developing aspects of a roadmap
is not only possible but valuable because there are identifiable commonalities in imperatives and critical
components across many applications and implementations. This document attempts to identify these
imperatives and critical components, but not to downselect either an application or a particular set of
hardware components. As such, our roadmap includes considerable uncertainty.

A roadmap’s destination is in applications, and we identified a number of applications of quantum

communication systems (referred to in this document as quantum networks) with likely technological
impact over the next 10–15 years. These are listed with descriptions below.

Quantum Key Distribution (QKD)

QKD remains the most well-studied application of quantum communication. Government impact is
considered low because of the published statements of the National Security Agency (NSA) indicating
key gaps in QKD utility in its present form (in particular, vulnerability to denial-of-service [DOS] attacks
and potential irrelevance in light of “post-quantum” security protocols). QKD’s impact in private
commerce may be stronger than in government, however, with enterprise/carrier-level network
components offering additional protection against DOS attacks. Point-to-point short-haul (<200 km)
QKD maturity is high, while repeater-enabled approaches that extend the “quantum-secure” distance
are in their infancy.

Quantum-Enhanced Classical Communication

Researchers are aware that sharing of entanglement can enhance the transmission rates in many
communication tasks such as channel simulation,40 point-to-point zero-error communication,41 and
multi-user communication.42 Future classical-quantum hybrid networks might take advantage of the
nonlocal coordination provided by the sharing of entanglement for sending and processing classical
messages. High-fidelity interconnects between classical and quantum hardware will be crucial for
realizing this advantage.

Authentication and Security beyond QKD

Protocols related to QKD have spurred the development of reliable processes for authentication, which
may address problems of eavesdroppers storing cyphertext and decrypting later. The presence of
adversaries may be more readily detectable using QKD-like methods than classical methods through

15
channel tomography techniques and device-independent processing.43 A large variety of cryptographic
concepts and quantum secret-sharing approaches (for a review, see Broadbent and Schaffner44) may
offer value if implemented in a quantum network, ranging from private database queries45 to Quantum
Digital Signatures, a verifiable randomness beacon, and Quantum Byzantine authentication protocols.46
Quantum Secure Voting47 could have a major impact on government/public voting, as well as on bidding
in commercial contexts. This area is ready for early-stage pilots. All of these applications will greatly
benefit from the development of a usable quantum memory and high-rate, high-fidelity entanglement
distribution capability.

Repeater-Enabled Fundamental Science

Long-distance entanglement distribution provides a setting to study fundamental questions of nature
such as nonlocality, decoherence, and quantum gravity. For example, the closing of loopholes in Bell
inequality experiments has been a key scientific endeavor for validating the foundations of quantum
mechanics, and similar tests may be imagined (e.g., teleporting complex quantum states between
matter-based systems) if repeaters extend the distance and speed of entanglement generation. We do
not expect “surprises” in the development of faster and longer-distance entangled states as quantum
communication systems scale, but if surprises do occur, perhaps because of unknown interactions with
gravity or other corrections to standard descriptions of quantum mechanics, such an event would herald
significant new advancements in fundamental science.

Quantum Sensing Aided by Repeater-Enabled Quantum Networks

To coordinate with other roadmapping efforts, we refrain from entering details of “entangled sensors”;
this topic includes magnetometers, gravimeters, and sensors. Two potential connections for which
sensing is integral to a communication task are as follows:
• Improvements in secure clock synchronization48 may have great potential in applications such as
transportation networks and global positioning systems (GPS), as well as science applications
such as in assisting gravitational experiments.
• Quantum position verification offers a scheme for securely confirming the location of users in a
network. The demands for classical and quantum time synchronization are high.

Networked Quantum Computing

If not for the complication of the low maturity of quantum computers themselves, this application
would offer the clearest advantage. Quantum networks, unlike classical alternatives, may enable
computing capability that is provably impossible for even very large networks of very large classical
computers. This application can therefore provide (to the network carrier) the ultimate use case
analogous to the classical Internet. Quantum networking across scales ranging from meters to
kilometers needs extensive development for implementation over the next 15 years, including the need
for efficient quantum transduction and for quantum repeaters. The enumeration of the many
applications of quantum computers is provided elsewhere in this document, but we do highlight three
applications that emerge specifically when long-distance communication is added to their functionality:

• In Blind Quantum Computing, a secure cloud quantum computing platform is possible with
clients having only prepare-and-measure technology and the ability to hide computations and
data from the server; realistic benchmarks are presently unknown, however.

16
 • In Distributed Quantum Computing, multiple quantum processors are connected coherently so
that they behave as a single larger quantum computer. Assuming that sufficient levels/rates of
connectivity can be maintained, such a system is exponentially more powerful than the
individual quantum processors acting independently.
• Edge Quantum Computing merges with quantum sensing and refers to the use of entangled
resources to compute data from sensors or data streams. Entangled sensing is discussed in the
quantum sensing section; networking adds performance scaling unattainable using classical
computers.

The impact on society of these identified applications is unclear because they all depend on an adjunct
technology: compromises to existing cryptosystems are needed to give QKD significant impact, effective
entanglement-driven sensors are needed to impact sensor networks, and better quantum computers are
needed to warrant networks of quantum computers. However, the impact of these future technology
advances will be amplified by the technology readiness of the accompanying quantum network system.

Figure 6. Quantum communication networks are expected to disrupt applications in the areas of secure
communication, entanglement distribution, sensing and distributed quantum computing.

II. Science and Technology Imperatives over the Next 10 Years

What are the key imperatives to drive quantum networking technology toward the applications
addressed in the previous section? Here we identify seven, which we will elaborate on in later sections,
listed in approximate order of chronological importance; however, parallel pursuit would be required to
drive impact on a 10-year timescale.
1. Provide precise and near-term application of clear need for commerce, government, and/or science
The applications listed in the previous section depend on adjunct technologies whose immaturity may
limit relevance for quantum communication on a 10-year timescale. Parallel development of quantum
networks therefore needs a clearer purpose to maintain commercial and/or government interest in the
<10-year timescale. Using existing technology, the cost of a scaled quantum network is not justified for

17
any of the applications listed because there are classical alternatives for all applications; if a clearer
application space with <10-year impact is identified, more industrial investment will drive the
technology advancement to allow practical implementation of the presently known, longer-term
applications.

2. Develop critical quantum components that are compatible with photon-based qubits in the visible,
near-infrared (IR), and telecom wavelengths
This imperative refers to components that require >10x improvement in key metrics. The most
prominent example is the quantum memory, which requires order-of-magnitudes improvement in
coherent storage time and/or optical coupling fidelity or rate, depending on type (see Section IV). Other
examples include quantum light sources and quantum transducers, also discussed in Section IV, and
quantum-compatible multiplexing and routing capabilities. Many other telecommunication components
(e.g., couplers) are nearly mature but still need engineering improvement for use in the quantum
communication context.

3. Demonstrate quantum repeater-enabled quantum communication, with success probabilities

exceeding that possible via direct transmission
The essential promise of quantum repeaters* is that entanglement may be distributed at rates
exceeding the rate when using direct transmission. One critical aspect is that the success probability
should be higher when the repeater is used. This “proof-of-principle” demonstration has not yet
occurred, although preliminary results with quantum memories are encouraging,49 and a working
prototype would be highly informative because it requires the combination of multiple interworking
components that have not been made to work before.

4. Demonstrate long-range (intercity) entanglement distribution using repeaters

The benefit of higher success probability is lost if the attempt rates must be reduced due to component
limitations (e.g., if the memories or processing nodes introduce long latencies). Thus, a key milestone is
to demonstrate long-distance entanglement distribution at rates that exceed those possible without the
inclusion of repeaters. For example, in the recent experiments from T.U. Delft,50 the quantum
communication rates were actually much lower than would be possible using repeaterless methods
(which could use shorter photon wavepackets and therefore higher repetition rates); the actual
traversal of physical distance at speeds indicating the practical advantage of repeaters remains an
outstanding goal to prove the quantum repeater-enabled network concept. Achieving a true advantage
in the rate of entanglement distribution (and not just the efficiency per attempt) will require large
amounts of multiplexing on the source, repeater, and detector side.

*
QRs can be classified into three generations: 1G and 2G QRs both rely on heralded entanglement generation
between neighboring repeater stations to overcome loss errors. 1G QRs use entanglement purification between
neighboring and remote repeater stations to correct operation errors; the two-way classical communication
needed between remote stations slows down the key generation rates and requires long-lived quantum memories
at repeater stations. 2G QRs use quantum error correction to overcome operation errors; this needs two-way
classical communication only between neighboring stations, which can be achieved in parallel. Using a completely
one-way protocol (analogous to classical repeaters), 3G QRs use only quantum error correction to overcome both
loss and operation errors, so their communication rate depends solely on the time to perform local operations,
with the potential of reaching ultrafast communication rates; however, the maximum tolerable channel loss
between nodes is 50%.

18
5. Develop (optimize and standardize) a true multi-node quantum network architecture
Metrics for components are unclear without an actual architecture. Resource requirements are needed
for effective planning, targets are needed by which to benchmark competing component technologies,
and standards must be established with future scaling in mind. While protocols and hardware design
continue to mature, architecture-in-earnest is conceptual at best. Success in developing an architecture
is multi-tiered, as architectures at different scales are inherently different; in fact, for imperatives 6 and
7, we would need multiple network architectures and a “single” internetwork architecture.

6. Demonstrate homogeneous multi-node quantum network at intercity scale

This imperative is similar to the DOE Quantum Internet Milestone 3: “Intercity Quantum Communication
Using Entanglement Swapping.” Reaching the intercity scale for a quantum network requires
meaningfully extending distance with full system links, thereby demonstrating the potential for a
“Quantum Internet.” “Intercity scale” is a label, but not the key characteristic, for this imperative; its key
characteristic is network complexity. The network could be a metropolitan network or single city-to-city
link with multiple repeaters; the critical characteristic is that it should prove the principle of
entanglement-enabled, repeater-based communication for many nodes across a significant
distance/area.

7. Demonstrate inhomogeneous quantum internetwork at interstate scale

This final imperative is similar to the DOE Quantum Internet Milestone 4: “Interstate Quantum
Communication using Entanglement Swapping.” We cannot expect a future quantum internet to be
“homogenous” at interstate scales because different institutions will build different components for
different purposes, likely with commercial competition. When reaching a state-to-state scale, a
quantum network system will certainly require working repeaters, an inhomogeneity-tolerant scalable
architecture, standards, and national infrastructure. Such an “internetwork” may also include the use of
satellites (while imperative 5 might not.) A true “system” demo, like the Internet, would include a
“network of networks.”

III. Materials, Components and Systems used for Quantum Communication

The high-level imperatives of the previous section are significant undertakings, and all of them hinge on
improvements in the systems to be developed and their components; a roadmap to such high-level
destinations must include sub-roadmaps of relevant systems and of the components within each
system. To assist, we identify and classify the different types of subsystems that must be architected and
engineered to reach those imperatives.

Types of Networks
A “quantum network” may have different architecture and different requirements at different scales or
applications. To be more precise, we describe the key types of networks relevant to quantum
communication below.

Modular interconnects51 (also known as system area networks52,53) address the connectivity within a
single laboratory or machine room, with inter-node distances of centimeters to tens of meters. Such a
network is a single technology, and the traffic patterns tend to be regular and may be tightly
coordinated. Networked quantum computers are likely to employ a modular interconnect system.

19
Data Center Networks (DCNs) involve connectivity within a large machine room with inter-node
distances of up to 100 meters. Generally, DCNs provide outward-facing computing services demanding
scalability, flexibility in resource allocation, and connectivity for specialized devices. Point-to-point QKD
applications are often envisioned to integrate with DCNs.

Local Area Networks (LANs) are campus-size networks with inter-node distances of up to several
hundred meters and with homogeneous technology. LANs will provide access to local quantum
computers and a gateway to wide-area networks (WANs). Applications such as coherent sensor data
from an entangled sensor network may employ a LAN for quantum resource access.

Metropolitan Area Networks (MANs) will have inter-node distances of tens of kilometers and network
diameters of ∼100 kilometers. A MAN, primarily a single technology administered by a single
company/carrier, is the scale at which repeater-less quantum communication is expected to have the
highest impact.

Mobile Networks (MOBs) are wireless quantum communication channels for connecting to ships,
aircraft, or other mobile platforms or distributed quantum sensors. MOBs may also include wireless
free-space links between stationary nodes (e.g., buildings) where dedicated fiber links are impractical or
undesirable (e.g., because of physical or financial considerations).

Transcontinental Network (or WANs) encompass inter-node distances of thousands of kilometers linking
cities, national laboratories, etc. A WAN could be a single administrative domain and homogeneous
technology, but such networks are expected to bridge to other networks, implying heterogeneity across
technology. Its purpose is the sharing of national resources, similar to the original ARPANET and NSFNET
vision for classical computing. Quantum-protected e-commerce and communication will have the
highest impact on a WAN scale.

Transoceanic Networks (e.g., Satellite Network [SAT]) have inter-node distances of thousands of
kilometers, similar to WANs. Their purpose includes global-scale science projects, quantum protected e-
commerce and communication, and distributed quantum processing and sensing.

Classification of Node Hardware

A network is composed of nodes performing different functions. Nodes may be constructed of different
hardware components. Network nodes may be one of ten types, roughly grouped into end nodes (the
first four types), repeaters (the next three), and support (the last three).54

Full computational nodes (COMPs): The long-term vision for the Quantum Internet involves universal
quantum computers as end nodes, analogous to today’s classical Internet.

Memory-based end nodes (MEMs): Along the road to development of full computational end nodes,
MEMs are single-interface repeaters usable for many of the applications under consideration.

Sensor end nodes (SNSRs): May involve specialized hardware (e.g., additional high-precision clocks or
multi-mode quantum memories).

20
Measurement-only end nodes (MEASs): QKD and blind computation can be achieved using MEASs that
dynamically select a measurement basis when receiving individual photons.

Memory-based repeaters (REP1s): The “standard” two-interface repeater node for networks employing
two-way state and information transfer (classified as 1G networks55; see footnote on page 18). REP1s
support limited error mitigation protocols such as entanglement purification.

QEC-enabled repeaters (REP2s): Networks employing quantum error correction (QEC), classified as 2G or
3G networks.55

Routers (RTRs): The most advanced form of memory-based repeater, able to interface with three or
more optical channels, including synchronization. Routers may be used in all generations of error
management.

Bell State Analyzers (BSAs) consist of two or more detectors and are used for entanglement swapping to
generate entangled links between nodes.

Entangled photon pair sources (EPPSs): Based on nonlinear optical processes or direct emission from
quantum sources, including quantum dots or atomic cascades. Other sources may be generation of
single photons entangled to a memory, a form of memory node already discussed. Finally, some
applications benefit from higher-dimensional encoding and hyperentanglement in multiple degrees of
freedom simultaneously.56

Optical switch nodes (OSW): All implementations of quantum networks require routing, which requires
switching for single photons (as well as “classical” electrical or optical signals). Single-photon switching is
particularly critical because highly lossy switches for quantum signals cannot be compensated for with
re-amplification, as often happens in classical systems. Switches may be considered part of other types
of the nodes described above, as stand-alone nodes in a reroutable network (optical switch nodes), or
both, as will most likely be the case in a realistic network implementation.

Assuming ready availability of hardware, the different node types may be either common (C) or rare (R)
in different types of networks, as listed in Table 1. For more details on the relationship between
applications and end-node capabilities, see Wehner et al.57

Classification of Components
Each network node is constructed from a set of hardware components. Equipment vendors will use
these components to build the boxes the network operators will buy. While many common components
(e.g., waveguides, couplers, switches, lasers) are mature and already deployed in classical
telecommunication networks, many of these still require significant improvements for quantum
applications (e.g., reducing photonic integrated circuit insertion loss). Other components (e.g., quantum
memories, photon sources and detectors, qubit processors) remain under active R&D. Tables 2 and 3
attempt to summarize components for building a variety of quantum communication systems. We
assess which node type each component may be used in, referring to Table 1.

21
 Table 1: Networks and Node Types (R: rare; C: common)

Figure 7. The components that make up a quantum network are at different levels of perceived complexity. As
more components see improved performance (represented by the color gradient), the capabilities and maturity
of the network also grows.

Classification of Architecture, Protocols, and Software

Protocols and architecture can take years to get “right.” Thus, work on these intangibles must proceed
in parallel with hardware development.

22
The connection architecture is defined by the choice of service (for instance, via end-to-end Bell pairs,
qubit transport, or multi-party states).58 This choice of service then interacts with the generations of
repeater technology (1G, 2G, 3G) used and their interoperability.55 In addition, the Internetworking
architecture – which defines how operations proceed across boundaries between separate networks – is
key, and negotiation of fidelity management will be critical here. To achieve a true global Quantum
Internet, a single internetwork architecture will have to be chosen.

Protocols: One-hop entanglement creation across a link requires exchanging classical messages including
the heralding of success or failure. These messages are governed by link layer protocols. Network-layer
protocols are responsible for delivering the end-to-end service (e.g., achieving multi-hop entanglement
for 1G or 2G networks). For 1G networks, for instance, this protocol is responsible for managing
purification and entanglement swapping. Application protocols couple with Application Programming
Interfaces (APIs) and accomplish integration with classical computing services – an area with, to date, no
serious work.

Quantum error correction and related techniques: As noted above, purification and quantum error
correction can appear in on-the-wire behavior in 1G, 2G, and 3G networks.

Routing and multiplexing:59 Connections will require some knowledge of how to find partners across a
complex network and circuit switching, and “packet” switching (statistical multiplexing) and related
concepts will need evaluation and adaptation for quantum information.

Security of network operations: Requires a security architecture, but instantiation will be diffuse,
affecting numerous components.

23
 Table 2: Quantum Optical Components

IV Relevant Questions and Issues for Quantum Communications

Relevant questions and issues for quantum communications revolve around system requirements for
networks. It will be most practical to house quantum network systems in the same or similar
infrastructure as existing telecommunications systems. This practical systems approach, especially
desirable for fiber-based quantum communication systems, raises a number of technological and basic
scientific issues. Operations would need to be on existing, commercially deployed, single-mode fiber
(e.g., SMF-28). Room-temperature operation systems would largely be preferred, even if some
components inside the system incorporate cryogenic requirements. Maintaining these requirements
imposes challenging conditions on quantum repeaters likely to be installed in the inline amplifier (ILA)
sites/fiber huts because of their harsh environments. Reasonably sized cryogenic systems operable at
ranges (4 to 80K) common to widely available commercial cryocompressor technologies (as opposed to
milli-Kelvin range temperatures), may be sufficiently practical, but engineering considerations for

24
acceptable footprint and power consumption need to be evaluated for any approach. This requirement
depends on the environment. For example, in the case of quantum repeaters, 2 RU footprint on a 19”
rack and 100-W power consumption might be needed to satisfy the tight requirements of an ILA station.

Metropolitan, transcontinental, and transoceanic networks will use the vast geospatial optical data
networks already deployed by carriers, enterprises, and other entities. Some of the key system-level
issues and considerations for these networks are as follows:
• There should be a minimum reach of ~ 100 km for repeater-less operation.
• Quantum channels should ideally be multiplexed on the O-band (1260–1360 nm) and the
DWDM (dense wavelength division multiplexing) data channels on the C-band (1530–1565 nm)
and L-band (1565–1625 nm). With no special station dedicated to quantum channels, quantum
repeaters should be placed in the same ILA stations that house the regular DWDM data channel
equipment.
• Resilience against channel degradation factors in scaled systems is an important consideration
and includes the effects of polarization modal dispersion (PMD); polarization-dependent loss
(PDL); fluctuations in the state of polarization (SOP); and dispersion, Raman scattering, and non-
linear optical effects.
The above requirements must be met to make quantum communication systems adaptable to the
optical data networks already deployed by carriers, enterprises, and other entities.

Among the first design choices in a network will be the quantum information encoding used in the
channels. The encoding may use various degrees of freedom (DOF) (e.g., polarization, time-bin or
frequency), including more than one DOF simultaneously (“hyperentanglement”); the latter of these
DOFs permit higher dimensional encoding, which may be beneficial in some applications. Some
protocols also employ “continuous variable” (CV) encoding (e.g., using modified squeezed states) or
hybrids using both CV and discrete variable (DV) encoding.60 The interaction of CV with end systems that
are assumed to work with qubits is an open research area. Simultaneous, correlated success or failure of
the arrival of multiple qubits will affect the robustness and efficiency of protocols. Hardware and
protocols can be optimized to leverage higher-dimensional encoding schemes, permitting more efficient
quantum error correction via cross-layer engineering.56

Space-based systems for quantum networks present an attractive alternative to existing fiber networks
for a number of reasons, but deployment here will require improvements in synchronization for moving
platforms (true teleportation or entanglement swapping has not been demonstrated between moving
platforms) and significant reduction in the size, weight, and power (SWaP) of the optical components
traditionally employed.

25
Figure 8. The different types of quantum networks that can be or have been realized. At smaller length scales,
these include mobile networks that connect mobile platforms, interconnects that connect single machines, and
DCNs that connect many machines. Moving to longer distances brings the LANs, MANs, WANs, and SATs. With
repeaterless networking, we only expect to build a network over relatively short distances; ground-based
repeaters are needed for longer distances and satellite-based repeaters for even longer ones.

Figure 9: A fully realized quantum network will consist of a network of quantum networks, including SATs, WANs,
MANs, and LANs. These will have multiple active components, such as the repeaters with different capabilities
(RTR, REP1, REP2) and nodes such as COMP and SNSR.

26
V. Research Needs and Developments Necessary
With applications, imperatives, and classification of systems identified, we are in a position to look
somewhat more closely at components and the research needed to advance them for insertion into
architected systems. Below we list some of the critical status points and developments for the
elements/components of a quantum network.

Cryogenic single-photon detectors: Superconducting nanowire single photon detectors (SNSPDs)

already have demonstrated high performance in efficiency and dark counts (current specifications
include critical temperatures Tc, ∼ 1-4K; critical current, Ic, > 1 µA; < 100 dark counts per second; timing
jitter ∼ 10 ps). Some photon-number-resolving capability is present in these detectors, which is
beneficial for some protocols. Lower detector dead times than presently available would simplify
hardware by requiring fewer detectors and less switching. Performance improvements depend on
additional nanoscale superconducting materials research. Widespread adoption will be gated by
improved and cost-competitive cryogenic engineering.

Semiconductor single photon avalanche photodiodes (SPADs): Demonstrated Si-based SPAD

performance efficiencies have exceeded 40–70% (550–800 nm) with timing jitter below 50 ps, dark
counts <100 cps, and saturation rates above 150 Mcps, all at room temperature. The challenge (and
research needs) for SPADs is in efficient detection in the IR O- and C-band telecom wavelengths, where
silicon devices meeting the specifications above are completely ineffective. Maturity of SPADs into
telecom could include new materials research, research on electronic drivers to reduce jitter and
afterpulsing, as well as research on high-efficiency wavelength transduction. A target of net efficiency
t>80% and timing jitter <50 ps is reasonable.

Entangled/hyper-entangled photon pair sources: Entangled photon sources based on nonlinear optical
processes are now a commercial product. However, demonstration of highly multiplexed sources is still
needed; improved rates (> 107s−1, with > 95% fidelity/spectral purity and < 5% multi-pair events, or truly
non-probabilistic generation) would significantly accelerate adoption. Also, existing sources and
memories are largely incompatible because of the different wavelengths and bandwidths, requiring
quantum transduction. Needs also include scaling and integrated packaging; these require advances in
nonlinear materials and integration of active lasers. Optimized sources of higher-dimensional
entanglement or hyperentanglement across multiple degrees of freedom are also needed.

Ultra-low loss optical channel research has been largely static on the fiber side as a result of the success
of fused silica fiber at telecom wavelengths (with some exceptions such as the development of ultralow
loss fiber [0.142 dB/km]61 and ZBLAN fluoride ultra-low loss fibers for repeater-free communications).62
In many systems, loss is limited by interconnects and the insertion loss of optical couplers. Significant
development would be gated by an affordable, high-yield pathway to lower insertion loss (~ 10x), which
would extend repeater spacing requirements.

Space-to-ground connections: Research needs include improvements in low-SWaP robust sources and
detectors, as well as improved time-synchronization systems, quantum memories, and free-space
adaptive optics methods (to improve success rates of teleportation and entanglement swapping). Needs
may also require flight-ready cryogenics (e.g., for superconducting nanowire detectors). A clear

27
indication of practicality will be gated by the success of pilot studies, such as true teleportation/
entanglement swapping between mobile platforms and through space-to-ground channels.

Integration with classical networking, synchronization, and complete cybersecurity protocols: The
quantum Internet will be a hybrid network (both classical and quantum channels). Commercial adoption
depends on the clear interplay of quantum communication with classical protocols (e.g., routing is likely
to be handled over the classical channels). An enterprise or carrier will require that all components of
the quantum network meet current norms for manageability (e.g., performance monitoring, alarming,
telemetry, fault management).

Transducers: Optical-to-optical transduction (wavelength transduction) research is relevant for linking

matter qubits to telecom wavelengths. Adoption into a network requires a manufacturable system with
decent performance specifications (> 80% efficiency, > 90% fidelity) compatible with wavelength division
multiplexing systems. Photon bandwidth conversion, so that sources and memories are compatible, is
also likely to be necessary. Microwave-to-optical telecom wavelength transduction is important given
the relevance of superconducting qubit-based computing. The gateway to significant development
requires passing an efficiency threshold to enable transduction of quantum states at >90% fidelity and
bandwidth of >1 kHz,63 while maintaining low noise to permit operation at the single-photon level.

Quantum memories: There is a significant need for quantum memories that are scalable (e.g, on chip).
Typical targets are a quantum-memory retention time of >10/100 ms (target/stretch) and memory
efficiency of >80/90% (target/stretch) at 3 K, integrated with silicon photonics. Given the importance to
quantum computing, quantum science, and quantum communication, many avenues for improved
memories for quantum networks are under active research (see Table 3). Research needs include
exploring defect- and dopant-based semiconductor and insulator host memories; materials
development including growth, processing, etching and polishing; and device integration that includes
fiber coupling, on-chip photonics, and packaging.

Further development of key quantum network components, such as high-speed, low-loss quantum
switches and multiplexing technologies, will be needed. These components may depend on cryogenic
electronics developments for utilizing fast feedback from low-jitter superconducting detectors.
Hardware for switching (inside multiplexing units) must be shown to be compatible with single photons
(insertion losses < 0.5 dB).

28
Table 3: Quantum Memory Components

Network protocol optimization is a must in moving from links to networks. Implementing multi-hop
networks will require both a means of routing information along selected paths through the network
and of incorporating quantum repeaters to compensate for the signal loss in the channel. This requires
the evaluation and development of detailed switching/routing protocols.

Network architecture: While connection architectures (1G-3G) have been proposed, there are no true
complete network architectures. Proposals to design an architecture provide a key demonstration
gateway; however, this step will hinge significantly on emerging theoretical work in quantum error
mitigation techniques, as well as reliable models of quantum network components.

Integration with classical computing and communication services: The services provided by quantum
networks and computers are specialized, and architecturally are best viewed as one type of processor
within a more complete, more general system. Consequently, programming tools, as well as hardware,

29
will need to incorporate into classical systems as seamless components. As an example, cryptographic
services will have to integrate into a classical key management system (KMS) or into a complex e-
commerce system.

Error-corrected quantum networking functions: All feasible applications on realistic hardware will
depend on error correction. Realistic theoretical error thresholds with performance guarantees gate
more significant hardware development. Substantial research has already begun in this area, such as
development of models for three generations of repeaters and establishment of thresholds for
purification- and QEC-based systems. This topic may be coordinated with the quantum computation
effort.

Monitoring and management of links, nodes and networks: Quantum networks will introduce new
challenges in network management, as we learn to test and describe the condition of entangling links
and other hardware at relevant timescales. This work will require both low-level hardware control and
operations at the qubit or entangled state level. Active research in certification of quantum computers
focuses on the challenges of scaling as the number of qubits increases, but for networks a bigger
challenge may be the large constant factors for statistical accuracy of bipartite entangled states and the
need to perform validation (e.g., a Bell inequality violation experiment) continuously for operational
purposes, rather than in batch after a long run.

Application programming model and interfaces: Only QKD has been addressed to date. APIs and
libraries will require linkage to high-precision clocks and will also have to carry some notion of statistical
certainty as part of the programming model for many purposes, including eavesdropper detection.
Classical Internet applications use an intermediate-level software structure known as a socket, or
higher-level tools for remote data queries or processing requests. Quantum equivalents that support
portable, easy-to-write and easy-to-debug code will have to be developed.

To date, all of the above items have received only modest amounts of attention from researchers. In
particular, programming APIs and interfacing with classical computing and communication systems, with
the exception of QKD, have been the focus of almost no work. Finally, development of software and
architectural concepts is best done with the support of simulators.

VI. Outlook
With the networking of quantum computers, a likely target application for a quantum network, the
development of a quantum network may be imagined to follow a course significantly similar to the
development of the Internet. Some factors may accelerate development — in particular, the lessons
learned from the scaling of the classical Internet in the past 50 years — but other factors may render it
slower, in particular, the additional technology challenges inherent to single-photon systems and (likely)
cryogenic memories. However, if attention is paid early to the overarching system needs, uses, and
architectural considerations, the technology of quantum communication is far more likely to reach a
stage of genuine impact to society in security, awareness, or computational capability.

30
 D. Roadmap for Quantum Sensing

I. Introduction
Quantum sensors can play an important role within many technologies. For example, quantum sensing
principles are already being used in applications such as GPS64,65 and the Laser Interferometer
Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO),66 impacting everyday technologies and fundamental scientific
discovery. In the term “quantum sensors,” we include sensing architectures that require entanglement,
as well as those that do not need quantum entanglement but make optical use of quantum mechanical
principles in their design. Practical quantum sensors will need to possess the properties of high
sensitivity (enabled by long quantum coherence and high-fidelity quantum state readout); high spatial
resolution (enabled by controlled positioning and proximity);67 and in many cases, interconnectivity, so
that sensors can communicate with each other and with detectors.68 The sensors will also need to be
quantitative and robustly coherent upon deployment in the field. Quantum sensors promise
transformative impact spanning fundamental physics, biology, and materials science. Such promise can
be realized with focused developments over the next 15 years as described in this section.

A quantum sensing roadmap for the next 15 years features dramatic improvements to the figures of
merit for existing quantum sensing technologies, such as precision, accuracy, bandwidth, dynamic range,
and spatial and temporal resolution. Such a roadmap will also enable the interconnection of sensors
across frequency and space and the discovery of altogether new sensing modalities that harness these
interconnects. Provided progress is made in these areas, some of the anticipated key areas of impact
and commercial deployment for quantum sensing are noted below.
• Biochemical applications
§ Image real-time molecular structure and dynamics on the atomic scale.69
§ Probe in-vivo metabolic processes and function on the cellular scale.70
• Fundamental physics
§ Detect gravitational waves over a wide frequency range (at low frequencies outside
bandwidth of LIGO) and with greater sensitivity and therefore astronomical reach.71,72
§ Make possible, for the first time, a search for quantum chromodynamics (QCD) axion
dark matter over its full mass range.73,74
§ Search for new particles and interactions beyond the Standard Model of physics.75
§ Improve the performance of optical very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) for high-
resolution astronomical imaging (e.g., of exoplanets).76,77
• Navigation/time keeping
§ Keep time at higher levels of precision and accuracy for network synchronization and
unit definitions.
§ Enable more precise inertial navigation and dead reckoning in GPS-denied
environments.78
• Condensed matter physics/materials science/quantum technologies

31
 § Provide a fundamental understanding of exotic phases in condensed matter systems
that will enable the control and harnessing of these materials for developing classical
and quantum technologies.79,80
§ Probe decoherence in quantum systems to improve quantum interfaces and
interconnects.

Figure 10: Quantum sensing impact areas. We present examples of current advances in quantum sensing. (a) Left:
Spin-based microscopy for chemically sensitive nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and scan-probe magnetometry.
Ensemble measurements of NV centers at ambient conditions have achieved 10 Hz sensitivity in picoliter volumes.81
Right: Single nitrogen vacancy (NV) center-containing diamond cantilevers probe sub-diffraction limited magnetic
textures.80 (b) Sensitive detectors of dark-matter/light interactions. Superconducting cavity-qubit systems with 40%
photon detection efficiency and 15.7dB advantage over the standard quantum limit (SQL) hold promise for axion
detection82 (figure courtesy of Akash Dixit). (c) Matter wave gyroscope in cSWaP devices. Atom interferometers can
be scaled down for integration into practical devices, with 1 cm2 atom trap areas83. (d) Larger-volume gravitational
wave detection. Non-classical, squeezed photons reduce noise in km-scale interferometers, increasing detection
rate by 50%.66 (e) Distributed quantum states (via a quantum network) can enable shot-noise-free very long
baseline interferometric telescope arrays in the optical spectrum, whose angular resolution varies as the reciprocal
separation of the telescopes84. Credit for image 4b: A. Dixit/University of Chicago

II. Science and Technology Imperatives over the Next 10 Years

Q-NEXT aims to address the scientific and engineering challenges laid out in this roadmap. Activities,
presented below, span theoretical developments to materials scalability, tackling the interconnected
roadblocks to developing high-performance quantum sensors.

1. Achieve entangled multi-qubit sensing (over local scales) with a demonstrated improvement
over non-entangled sensors on a real sensing target (10 years). Interconnected sensors could
improve any of these figures of merit: sensitivity, dynamic range, bandwidth, spatial resolution,
access to correlations, and non-invasiveness of the measurement.
2. Develop a rigorous theory of quantum metrology using remote entanglement to identify the
kinds of distributed sensing tasks that can benefit from a quantum advantage, assess the scaling

32
 nature of this advantage, and evaluate the performance metrics of the interconnected sensing
system needed to accomplish this quantum advantage.
3. Develop new sensing modalities that leverage correlations and entanglement between multiple
sensors to measure observables that are inaccessible with individual sensors (10 years). Such
modalities would provide access to new physics (e.g., quantum correlations in a material,
nonlocal phase transitions).
4. Understand and reduce interface-induced decoherence in solid-state sensors (10 years).
Interfaces will be unavoidable in interconnected sensors, and these are known sources of
decoherence.
5. Deterministically position addressable active spin/lattice defects/impurities with < 5-nm
precision and predict their properties in materials (10 years).This work will enable
interconnecting sensors via dipolar interactions.
6. Enable quantum sensing of molecular structure with single nuclear spin sensitivity (10 years) to
allow studies of molecular functionality and structures.
7. Enable sensing of DC-THz electromagnetic fields with quantum advantage (10 years), including
the following:
§ Back-action-evasion/squeezed states for 100 kHz–100 MHz signals for dark matter and
axion searches; and
§ Low dark-count single-photon detection and parametric amplification at 100 GHz to
improve sensitivity by >20 dB over current technologies.
8. Achieve photon-number-resolved detection of optical pulses with errors <1%, at rates >1 GHz.

III. Materials, Components and Systems Used for Quantum Sensing

A wide range of materials, excitations, and device architectures have been proposed for quantum
sensing. So it is important to identify, pursue, and improve the most suitable sensor platforms for
particular applications. The major systems explored to date include the following.

• Defects in the solid state

§ Diamond, SiC, hBN, transition metal dichalcogenides, molecular spins, and other defects
still to be discovered/developed85–88
• Atomic systems
§ Trapped atoms and atomic vapors64
§ Entangled atomic clocks connected with low-phase-noise precision photonic links89
§ Rydberg atoms for field sensing and photodetection across frequency scales90
• Superconducting systems
§ Superconducting qubits and superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID)-
based sensors for electromagnetic measurements91,92
§ Superconducting pair-breaking detectors for photon counting93
• Non-classical photonic states (optical, microwave, mm-wave)66
• Mechanical systems in the quantum regime (including opto- and electro-mechanical systems)94

33
IV. Relevant Questions and Issues for Quantum Sensing
Harnessing these systems for useful sensing applications will be enabled by adopting a multi-pronged
approach that aims to interconnect sensors across many frequency and spatial scales, realize altogether
new sensing paradigms, and advance the performance of quantum sensors beyond their classical
counterparts and beyond the quantum sensors of today. Achieving these key impacts is not simply an
engineering challenge; indeed, significant scientific discovery is a necessary part of a quantum sensing
roadmap. Below is a list of questions and issues that highlight anticipated needs for scientific discovery
where we lack clarity. Progress in these areas is essential over the next 15 years to enable viable
quantum sensing technologies.
• Physics of sensing and metrology
§ How does one harness entanglement for enhancing practical figures of merit including
not only absolute sensitivity but also, for example, dynamic range, bandwidth, spatial
resolution, access to correlations, and non-invasiveness of the measurement?
§ What types of entangled states are metrologically useful for each specific task and what
targets will benefit the most?
§ Can entanglement be created, protected, and accessed in the context of a practical
sensing target?
§ How do we use the destruction of entanglement as a quantum sensor?
§ How can entanglement be used to evade (1) measurement backaction and (2) SQLs of
measurement in practical applications?
§ Can the typical per-photon advantage of optical quantum sensors be leveraged to
overcome the concomitant technical and intrinsic constraints of needing to use only one
photon per mode at a time, i.e., when is the quantum solution superior in practice to the
classical solution employing coherent states with many photons?
• Materials and architectures
§ How do we deterministically generate or place defects (native or impurity based) in
solids with nanometer- or even Angstrom-level precision to controllably generate
entanglement among solid-state sensors?
§ How do we achieve robust and reliable control over surfaces and interfaces that can
transmit entanglement while maintaining coherence of constituent sensors?
• System scale for interconnects
§ Quantum sensors can be interconnected in a variety of ways, including transferring
quantum information between quantum systems, inducing correlations among spins, or
generating entanglement that is measurement-induced or deterministic. Initial
experimental demonstrations will be based on small-scale entangled systems. These will
provide a controllable testbed that will inform the design principles for larger entangled
systems that will benefit from the developments in the quantum networking thrust.

34
 Figure 11. Quantum sensing platforms and applications. All qubit platforms couple to physical quantities. This is a
resource for sensing, enabling a wide variety of applications across platforms. This is not an exhaustive list and is
intended as a snapshot of current applications and potentials.

V. Research Needs and Developments Necessary

The scientific questions listed above are largely — and deliberately — broader questions that are less
targeted to specific materials systems. A sensing roadmap, while using specific material systems to
demonstrate concepts and ideas, needs to consider the need for an overall approach, theory, and design
methodology. These questions frame the following specific research needs over the next decade, with
emphasis on obtaining more clarity around sensing metrics and sensing needs, theory, and the
investigation of more complete ranges of systems and excitations.

35
(i) Control and Determination of Metrics
In order to take advantage of interconnected quantum sensors, the following metrics should be
achieved. In some cases, these metrics can be quantified, and in some cases, the research is not yet
there and we must focus more on determining specific target metrics. In almost all cases, the interplay
between metrics needs a strong analytical foundation.
• The application determines the coherence and the detector efficiencies. Detector efficiencies
must be increased with target numbers being application-specific. This process is not always
clear; a case study could help with metrics for one target. Coherence must be maintained over
the length scales of the interconnected system, which can vary from sub-micron for microscopic
imaging systems to a few hundred kilometers for inter-repeater distances for the distribution of
entanglement over long-distance fiber optical or space-based networks. Detection targets
should be at and below the quantum projection noise limit.
• The sensitivity (noise per root hertz) and bandwidth of sensors are key parameters. Single
electron spin sensitivity should be improved beyond the ~10-nm spatial resolutions that have
already been reproducibly reached. Typical bandwidths for various sensing applications span a
large range, from sub-Hz to THz.67 The phase noise should typically be less than 1 mrad per node
interrogation (rms phase jitter).
• Backaction evasion and/or squeezed-state generation of better than 3 dB at 100 kHz–100 MHz
with coherent superconducting systems will have important practical impact for sensing.
Eventually, 20 dB is needed for wide-ranging applications.
• Quantum non-demolition (QND) methods have been proposed as a way to count the number of
photons within a microwave cavity without destroying the photons, using a technique that
involves coupling and then decoupling a superconducting qubit.82,95 Microwave photon counting
targets should be at 10–30 GHz using superconducting qubits with dark counts of less than 0.01
per second.
• Similar QND capability for optical photons would also be desirable, for example, effectively
converting any quantum memory into a heralded quantum memory (which not only stores a
quantum state transmitted on a photon, but also produces a measurable signal that it has done
so), a critical resource for quantum repeater architectures.
• For networked sensors, bandwidth of the interconnect (number of entangled pairs transmitted
per second) should be 100 kHz (100 GHz) with (without) memories.
• Single-photon detectors with system efficiencies >98%, saturation rates > 109 cps, noise < 100
cps, jitter < 10 ps, photon-number resolution (at least to distinguish 1 and >1 photon).
(ii) Materials
There is a severe lack of understanding of materials science issues in quantum information applications
in general, and quantum sensing is not an exception. Some of the major materials developments needed
are as follows.
• Deterministic positioning and/or generation of sensing qubits: Sensing with multiple solid-state
defect qubits will require deterministic positioning of those defects to within ∼ 5 nm to enable
controlled entanglement generation. By “defects,” we mean either native defects such as
vacancies, self-interstitials, or their complexes or extrinsic defects such as impurity atoms

36
 deliberately introduced via doping techniques. Current two-dimensional lithographic techniques
are inadequate. Approaches such as ion implantation suffer from uncertainty in the depth of
implant because of the statistical nature of the process. For solid-state sensors, this is a
significant materials and processing challenge that must be overcome to create entanglement
between multiple solid-state defect qubits.
• Robust and reliable control over interfaces and surfaces: A comprehensive and quantitative
understanding of the role that interfaces and surfaces have on quantum sensors, particularly
with respect to noise, is lacking.96 As a result, clear approaches to control interfaces and surfaces
experimentally have been lacking as well, with learning often benefitting from Edisonian
successes. Interface- and surface-induced noise examples exist in both solid-state defect-host
materials systems, as well as superconducting microwave qubits. Understanding and mitigating
interface- and surface-induced noise to approach bulk-like or vacuum-like properties — even at
interfaces and over the length scale of the interconnected system — is a key materials target.
Such materials design will need to, eventually, control entanglement in the presence of
unwanted interactions/entanglement with the environment.
• Low-loss robust sources of quantum light
§ On-chip optical squeezing (requiring low-loss strong optical nonlinearity) >10dB.
§ Efficient pure-state single-photon sources, with efficiencies >95% (collection and
fraction of single photons). Such sources are important for sub-shot noise quantum
metrology (e.g., of material absorption) and quantum-enhanced telescopy.
• Access to, and development of, advanced characterization methods: Materials characterization is
key to accelerating quantum sensor R&D by establishing local structural, dynamical, and
coherence properties of quantum systems.
§ The primary challenge is sensitivity (or precision). Spatial, temporal, and spectral
precision at the picometer and femtosecond scale is critical to identify quantum-state
behavior and quantify its relationship to intrinsic and extrinsic parameters.
§ The second challenge is environmental control, which is required to create quantum-
relevant in-situ conditions allowing for the real-world observation of synthesis, defect
dynamics, hybridization, and device-level validation.
§ The third challenge is correlation to develop a cohesive multi-platform integration of
synchrotron, X-Ray Free-Electron Laser Facility (XFEL), electron, optical, and scanning
probe techniques necessary for understanding and optimizing quantum structure-
function relationships spanning large length and timescales — from the single defect
level to the full quantum network level. Frontier materials characterization capabilities
span optical, x-ray, electron, and scanning probe microscopies. These can be used to
enable imaging at and below the single-defect level, with femtosecond temporal
resolution to probe dynamic quantum responses. Such methods provide a micro-to-
nanoscopic understanding of defect structure, sources of decoherence and instability,
noise sources, and dissipation of information transduction.

37
(iii) Theoretical Advances
Theoretical advances will also be needed to realize significant advances in quantum sensing over the
target 15-year timeframe. Theory needs for a roadmap will include the following.
• A rigorous theory of quantum metrology using remote quantum states that elucidates the kind
of distributed sensing tasks that can benefit from a quantum advantage and the scaling nature
of this advantage.
• Protocols: There are three major needs here. First, basic knowledge is lacking about how best to
exploit entangled states in a realistic noise environment (e.g., in the presence of inevitable
dephasing) and under realistic levels of measurement imprecision. New protocols and
approaches are needed that allow quantum sensors to benefit from entanglement under such
constraints. We need to address this issue via new protocols and approaches (e.g., through the
use of error correction and error mitigation strategies). For example, quantum “weak
measurements” can be used to suppress the effects of some types of systematic noise97. This
issue is also related to the second major need: new ways to generate and stabilize metrologically
useful quantum states in such realistic, resource-limited experimental platforms. This work
needs to be conducted in tandem with experimental improvements in the materials and sensors
to mitigate dephasing so that entanglement can be useful. Third, there is a need for new
protocols to SQLs of measurement by preparing novel quantum states, using error-correction
techniques, and taking advantage of all quantum resources including entanglement. Finally, we
note that it is important to benchmark the efficiency of such protocols — an important, but
often overlooked, aspect. It is therefore important to determine efficiency specifications as part
of protocol development.

(iv) System Scaling and Sensing Platform Maturity

There is still a significant gap between laboratory demonstrations of quantum sensing and deployable
platforms in many application spaces. For example, inertial systems based on quantum sensing are not
SWaP-C competitive with existing solid-state sensors.83,98 Building up to large number of sensing nodes
(in terms of cost and manufacturability) will be important to leverage the scaling advantages of a
quantum network over a classical one, which underlines the need for improving SWaP-C and robustness.
Such durability of sensing systems (survivability to shock, operation across temperature) is also
important if they are to be deployed in the field for long periods. Understanding materials properties, as
well as understanding which system integration schemes will be compatible, will also be critical to
sensor performance.

(v) Broadening the Frequency Space

Quantum modalities are only well-developed in specific islands in the frequency space (optical and
microwave).67 These techniques need to be extended to longer wavelengths (radio frequency [RF] and
below), and in between to THz and mid-IR wavelengths. These frequency bands are already especially
useful in medical imaging, security applications, and chemical fingerprinting. Operating in these new
wavebands requires new infrastructure, including improved detectors, improved refrigeration
technology, and the development of testing and calibration equipment and techniques.

38
 Figure 12: Components of an example practical quantum sensing module. A network of all-to-all entangled qubits
will enable sensitivities beyond the SQL. There are multiple, parallel steps needed to accomplish this, spanning a
large range of skill sets, and necessitating interdisciplinary efforts. Qubit creation and material quality, as well as
mitigation of surface effects, will push materials science to a level not required for classical electronics. On the
other hand, new theoretical understandings of quantum control techniques and system-environment interactions
will enable more coherent systems and new entanglement protocols. Interconnects that mediate entangling
interactions are needed to realize such a sensor.

Figure 13: This chart summarizes the necessary advances toward functional quantum sensing technologies. We
frame these alongside the state of the art and the 15-year goals discussed in the text to show the progress that
these advances will enable.

39
 E. References
1. Galvin, R. Science Roadmaps. Science (80-. ). 280, 803 (1998).
2. Gargini, P. The International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS): ‘Past, present and
future’. in GaAs IC Symposium. IEEE Gallium Arsenide Integrated Circuits Symposium. 22nd
Annual Technical Digest 2000. (Cat. No.00CH37084) 3–5 (2000). doi:10.1109/GAAS.2000.906261.
3. Ma, J. et al. The 2021 battery technology roadmap. J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys. 54, 183001 (2021).
4. Wilson, G. M. et al. The 2020 photovoltaic technologies roadmap. J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys. 53,
493001 (2020).
5. Hutt, J. Space Launch Roadmap. in 12th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems
and Technologies (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2003).
doi:doi:10.2514/6.2003-6941.
6. Galvin, R. Science Roadmaps. Science (80-. ). 280, 803 (1998).
7. Chow, J., Dial, O. & Gambetta, J. IBM Quantum Computing. IBM Quantum unveiled Eagle
https://research.ibm.com/blog/127-qubit-quantum-processor-eagle (2021).
8. Martinis, J. Quantum Supremacy Using a Programmable Superconducting Processor.
https://ai.googleblog.com/2019/10/quantum-supremacy-using-programmable.html (2019).
9. Nayak, C. Microsoft has demonstrated the underlying physics required to create a new kind of
qubit. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/microsoft-has-demonstrated-the-
underlying-physics-required-to-create-a-new-kind-of-qubit/?wt.mc_id=twitter_MSR-
Blog_post_Q322 (2022).
10. Altman, E. et al. Quantum Simulators: Architectures and Opportunities. PRX Quantum 2, 17003
(2021).
11. Georgescu, I. M., Ashhab, S. & Nori, F. Quantum simulation. Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153–185 (2014).
12. Hensgens, T. et al. Quantum simulation of a Fermi–Hubbard model using a semiconductor
quantum dot array. Nature 548, 70–73 (2017).
13. Salfi, J. et al. Quantum simulation of the Hubbard model with dopant atoms in silicon. Nat.
Commun. 7, 11342 (2016).
14. Barends, R. et al. Digital quantum simulation of fermionic models with a superconducting circuit.
Nat. Commun. 6, 7654 (2015).
15. Kandala, A. et al. Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and
quantum magnets. Nature 549, 242–246 (2017).
16. Cao, Y., Romero, J. & Aspuru-Guzik, A. Potential of quantum computing for drug discovery. IBM J.
Res. Dev. 62, 6:1-6:20 (2018).
17. Dieterich, J. M. & Carter, E. A. Opinion: Quantum solutions for a sustainable energy future. Nat.
Rev. Chem. 1, 0032 (2017).
18. Gisin, N., Ribordy, G., Tittel, W. & Zbinden, H. Quantum cryptography. Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 145–
195 (2002).
19. Farhi, E., Goldstone, J. & Gutmann, S. A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm. (2014).
20. McClean, J. R., Romero, J., Babbush, R. & Aspuru-Guzik, A. The theory of variational hybrid
quantum-classical algorithms. New J. Phys. 18, 023023 (2016).
21. Harrow, A. W., Hassidim, A. & Lloyd, S. Quantum Algorithm for Linear Systems of Equations. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 103, 150502 (2009).
22. Preskill, J. Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum 2, 79 (2018).
23. Gambetta, J. M., Chow, J. M. & Steffen, M. Building logical qubits in a superconducting quantum
computing system. npj Quantum Inf. 3, 2 (2017).
24. Ryan-Anderson, C. et al. Realization of Real-Time Fault-Tolerant Quantum Error Correction. Phys.

40
 Rev. X 11, 041058 (2021).
25. Abobeih, M. H. et al. Fault-tolerant operation of a logical qubit in a diamond quantum processor.
(2021).
26. Neuman, T. et al. A phononic interface between a superconducting quantum processor and
quantum networked spin memories. npj Quantum Inf. 7, 121 (2021).
27. Doherty, M. W. et al. The nitrogen-vacancy colour centre in diamond. Phys. Rep. 528, 1–45
(2013).
28. Koehl, W. F., Buckley, B. B., Heremans, F. J., Calusine, G. & Awschalom, D. D. Room temperature
coherent control of defect spin qubits in silicon carbide. Nature 479, 84–87 (2011).
29. Pacchioni, G. Spin qubits: Useful defects in silicon carbide. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2, 17052 (2017).
30. Kjaergaard, M. et al. Superconducting Qubits: Current State of Play. Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter
Phys. 11, 369–395 (2020).
31. Saffman, M. Quantum computing with atomic qubits and Rydberg interactions: progress and
challenges. J. Phys. B At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 49, 202001 (2016).
32. Chatterjee, A. et al. Semiconductor qubits in practice. Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 157–177 (2021).
33. Burkard, G., Ladd, T. D., Nichol, J. M., Pan, A. & Petta, J. R. Semiconductor Spin Qubits. (2021).
34. Bruzewicz, C. D., Chiaverini, J., McConnell, R. & Sage, J. M. Trapped-ion quantum computing:
Progress and challenges. Appl. Phys. Rev. 6, 21314 (2019).
35. Singh, K., Anand, S., Pocklington, A., Kemp, J. T. & Bernien, H. Dual-Element, Two-Dimensional
Atom Array with Continuous-Mode Operation. Phys. Rev. X 12, 011040 (2022).
36. Zwanenburg, F. A. et al. Silicon quantum electronics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 961–1019 (2013).
37. Krinner, S. et al. Engineering cryogenic setups for 100-qubit scale superconducting circuit
systems. EPJ Quantum Technol. 6, 2 (2019).
38. Xue, X. et al. CMOS-based cryogenic control of silicon quantum circuits. Nature 593, 205–210
(2021).
39. Kimble, H. J. The quantum internet. Nature 453, 1023–1030 (2008).
40. Bennett, C. H., Devetak, I., Harrow, A. W., Shor, P. W. & Winter, A. The Quantum Reverse
Shannon Theorem and Resource Tradeoffs for Simulating Quantum Channels. IEEE Trans. Inf.
Theory 60, 2926–2959 (2014).
41. Cubitt, T. S., Leung, D., Matthews, W. & Winter, A. Zero-Error Channel Capacity and Simulation
Assisted by Non-Local Correlations. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 57, 5509–5523 (2011).
42. Leditzky, F., Alhejji, M. A., Levin, J. & Smith, G. Playing games with multiple access channels. Nat.
Commun. 11, 1497 (2020).
43. Vazirani, U. & Vidick, T. Fully Device-Independent Quantum Key Distribution. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113,
140501 (2014).
44. Broadbent, A. & Schaffner, C. Quantum cryptography beyond quantum key distribution. Des.
Codes Cryptogr. 78, 351–382 (2016).
45. Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S. & Maccone, L. Quantum Private Queries. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 230502
(2008).
46. Ben-Or, M. & Hassidim, A. Fast Quantum Byzantine Agreement. in Proceedings of the Thirty-
Seventh Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing 481–485 (Association for Computing
Machinery, 2005). doi:10.1145/1060590.1060662.
47. Vaccaro, J. A., Spring, J. & Chefles, A. Quantum protocols for anonymous voting and surveying.
Phys. Rev. A 75, 12333 (2007).
48. Kómár, P. et al. A quantum network of clocks. Nat. Phys. 10, 582–587 (2014).
49. Bhaskar, M. K. et al. Experimental demonstration of memory-enhanced quantum
communication. Nature 580, 60–64 (2020).
50. Pompili, M. et al. Realization of a multinode quantum network of remote solid-state qubits.

41
 Science (80-. ). 372, 259–264 (2021).
51. Awschalom, D. et al. Development of Quantum Interconnects (QuICs) for Next-Generation
Information Technologies. PRX Quantum 2, 17002 (2021).
52. Dally, W. J. & Towles, B. Principles and Practices of Interconnection Networks. (Elsevier, 2003).
53. Monroe, C. et al. Large-scale modular quantum-computer architecture with atomic memory and
photonic interconnects. Phys. Rev. A 89, 22317 (2014).
54. For a rough equivalent for QKD, see ITU Y.3800, which includes integration with classical key
management services https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.3800-201910-I/en.
55. Muralidharan, S. et al. Optimal architectures for long distance quantum communication. Sci. Rep.
6, 20463 (2016).
56. Piparo, N. Lo, Hanks, M., Gravel, C., Munro, W. J. & Nemoto, K. Resource reduction for quantum
error correction using quantum multiplexed photons. in Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics
FTh3D.3 (Optica Publishing Group, 2020). doi:10.1364/CLEO_QELS.2020.FTh3D.3.
57. Wehner, S., Elkouss, D. & Hanson, R. Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead. Science
(80-. ). 362, (2018).
58. Wojciech Kozlowski, Stephanie Wehner, Rodney Van Meter, Bruno Rijsman, Angela Cacciapuoti,
Marcello Caleffi, and Shota Nagayama. Architectural principles for a quantum internet. Internet-
Draft draft-irtf-qirg-principles-04, IETF Secretariat, February 2021.
59. Multiplexing here refers to use of memory or a link for separate, competing connections, not
e.g., putting separate wavelengths into the same fiber, which is a separate problem.
60. Andersen, U. L., Neergaard-Nielsen, J. S., van Loock, P. & Furusawa, A. Hybrid discrete- and
continuous-variable quantum information. Nat. Phys. 11, 713–719 (2015).
61. Tamura, Y. Ultra-low Loss Silica Core Fiber. in 2018 Optical Fiber Communications Conference and
Exposition (OFC) 1–3 (2018).
62. Cozmuta, I., Cozic, S., Poulain, M., Poulain, S. & Martini, J. R. L. Breaking the silica ceiling: ZBLAN-
based opportunities for photonics applications. in Optical Components and Materials XVII (eds.
Jiang, S. & Digonnet, M. J. F.) vol. 11276 133–147 (SPIE, 2020).
63. Lauk, N. et al. Perspectives on quantum transduction. Quantum Sci. Technol. 5, 20501 (2020).
64. Ludlow, A. D., Boyd, M. M., Ye, J., Peik, E. & Schmidt, P. O. Optical atomic clocks. Rev. Mod. Phys.
87, (2015).
65. Bennett, J. S. et al. Precision magnetometers for aerospace applications: A review. Sensors vol. 21
(2021).
66. Tse, M. et al. Quantum-Enhanced Advanced LIGO Detectors in the Era of Gravitational-Wave
Astronomy. Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, (2019).
67. Degen, C. L., Reinhard, F. & Cappellaro, P. Quantum sensing. Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, (2017).
68. Awschalom, D. et al. Development of Quantum Interconnects (QuICs) for Next-Generation
Information Technologies. PRX Quantum 2, (2021).
69. Hvidsten, T. R. et al. A comprehensive analysis of the structure-function relationship in proteins
based on local structure similarity. PLoS One 4, (2009).
70. Hsiao, W. W. W., Hui, Y. Y., Tsai, P. C. & Chang, H. C. Fluorescent Nanodiamond: A Versatile Tool
for Long-Term Cell Tracking, Super-Resolution Imaging, and Nanoscale Temperature Sensing.
Accounts of Chemical Research vol. 49 400–407 (2016).
71. Abe, M. et al. Matter-wave Atomic Gradiometer Interferometric Sensor (MAGIS-100). Quantum
Sci. Technol. 6, (2021).
72. Hogan, J. M. & Kasevich, M. A. Atom-interferometric gravitational-wave detection using
heterodyne laser links. Phys. Rev. A 94, 33632 (2016).
73. Ahmed, Z. et al. Quantum Sensing for High Energy Physics. (2018).
74. Brouwer, L. et al. Introducing DMRadio-GUT, a search for GUT-scale QCD axions. (2022).

42
75. Chaudhuri, S. et al. Radio for hidden-photon dark matter detection. Phys. Rev. D - Part. Fields,
Gravit. Cosmol. 92, (2015).
76. Schuh, H. & Behrend, D. VLBI: A fascinating technique for geodesy and astrometry. Journal of
Geodynamics vol. 61 68–80 (2012).
77. Gottesman, D., Jennewein, T. & Croke, S. Longer-baseline telescopes using quantum repeaters.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, (2012).
78. Bongs, K. et al. Taking atom interferometric quantum sensors from the laboratory to real-world
applications. Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 731–739 (2019).
79. Ho, K. O. et al. Diamond quantum sensors: from physics to applications on condensed matter
research. Funct. Diam. 1, 160–173 (2021).
80. Casola, F., Van Der Sar, T. & Yacoby, A. Probing condensed matter physics with magnetometry
based on nitrogen-vacancy centres in diamond. Nature Reviews Materials vol. 3 (2018).
81. Glenn, D. R. et al. High-resolution magnetic resonance spectroscopy using a Solid-State spin
sensor. Nature 555, 351–354 (2018).
82. Dixit, A. V. et al. Searching for Dark Matter with a Superconducting Qubit. Phys. Rev. Lett. 126,
(2021).
83. Chen, Y.-J. et al. Single-Source Multiaxis Cold-Atom Interferometer in a Centimeter-Scale Cell.
Phys. Rev. Appl. 12, 14019 (2019).
84. Khabiboulline, E. T., Borregaard, J., De Greve, K. & Lukin, M. D. Quantum-assisted telescope
arrays. Phys. Rev. A 100, 22316 (2019).
85. Heremans, F. J., Yale, C. G. & Awschalom, D. D. Control of Spin Defects in Wide-Bandgap
Semiconductors for Quantum Technologies. Proc. IEEE 104, 2009–2023 (2016).
86. Wolfowicz, G. et al. Quantum guidelines for solid-state spin defects. Nature Reviews Materials
vol. 6 906–925 (2021).
87. Gottscholl, A. et al. Spin defects in hBN as promising temperature, pressure and magnetic field
quantum sensors. Nat. Commun. 12, (2021).
88. Crook, A. L. et al. Purcell Enhancement of a Single Silicon Carbide Color Center with Coherent
Spin Control. Nano Lett. 20, 3427–3434 (2020).
89. Nichol, B. C. et al. A quantum network of entangled optical atomic clocks. arXiv (2021).
90. Adams, C. S., Pritchard, J. D. & Shaffer, J. P. Rydberg atom quantum technologies. J. Phys. B At.
Mol. Opt. Phys. 53, 12002 (2019).
91. Danilin, S. & Weides, M. Quantum sensing with superconducting circuits. arXiv (2021).
92. Krantz, P. et al. A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits. Appl. Phys. Rev. 6,
021318 (2019).
93. You, L. Superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors for quantum information.
Nanophotonics 9, 2673–2692 (2020).
94. Li, B. B., Ou, L., Lei, Y. & Liu, Y. C. Cavity optomechanical sensing. Nanophotonics vol. 10 2799–
2832 (2021).
95. Johnson, B. R. et al. Quantum non-demolition detection of single microwave photons in a circuit.
Nat. Phys. 6, 663–667 (2010).
96. de Leon, N. P. et al. Materials challenges and opportunities for quantum computing hardware.
Science vol. 372 (2021).
97. Jordan, A. N., Martínez-Rincón, J. & Howell, J. C. Technical Advantages for Weak-Value
Amplification: When Less Is More. Phys. Rev. X 4, 11031 (2014).
98. Jarmola, A. et al. Demonstration of diamond nuclear spin gyroscope. Sci. Adv vol. 7
https://www.science.org (2021).

43
Q-NEXT
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Lemont, IL 60439

www.anl.gov

Argonne National Laboratory is a U.S. Department of Energy

laboratory managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC