pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.04699 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-06 · 🪐 quant-ph

Physical currents for stochastic Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen quantum trajectories

R. Y. Teh , M. Thenabadu , P.D. Drummond , M. D. Reid This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords stochastic schrodinger equationepr correlationshomodyne currentstratonovich calculusito calculustwo-mode squeezed statequantum trajectoriesmeasurement noise
0
0 comments X

The pith

Stratonovich stochastic noise correctly models the measured homodyne current in stochastic Schrödinger equation simulations of EPR correlations.

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

The paper tests theories of the homodyne current generated by a stochastic Schrödinger equation through a simulation of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations in a two-mode squeezed state. It finds that the Stratonovich interpretation of the stochastic noise term matches experimental results in the broad-band limit, while the Ito interpretation does not. This distinction matters because it directly affects how measurement noise and errors are modeled in quantum technologies. Analysis of the trajectories as measurement settings vary also yields a concrete proposal for realizing simultaneous position and momentum measurements, one direct and one indirect.

Core claim

In simulations of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations for a two-mode squeezed state, the stochastic Schrödinger equation generates the correct physical homodyne current only when the stochastic term is interpreted in the Stratonovich sense rather than Ito, at least in the broad-band limit.

What carries the argument

The stochastic differential term added to the Schrödinger equation to represent the homodyne current measurement, interpreted via Stratonovich calculus to ensure agreement with physical observations.

If this is right

  • Accurate prediction of EPR correlations follows directly from using the Stratonovich term in the trajectories.
  • Improved modeling of measurement noise reduces errors in quantum technology applications.
  • Varying measurement settings in the trajectories enables a modern realization of simultaneous position and momentum measurements.
  • The result applies specifically to the broad-band limit relevant to many quantum optical experiments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same stochastic interpretation distinction could guide noise modeling in other quantum trajectory simulations beyond EPR states.
  • This approach may help design quantum sensors or protocols that minimize measurement-induced errors.
  • Direct experimental tests with actual homodyne detectors would provide stronger confirmation than simulation alone.

Load-bearing premise

The stochastic Schrödinger equation simulation fully captures the physical measured current without unaccounted effects from the experimental setup or higher-order corrections.

What would settle it

A laboratory measurement of homodyne currents from a broad-band two-mode squeezed EPR source that matches Ito-calculated values better than Stratonovich-calculated values would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.04699 by M. D. Reid, M. Thenabadu, P.D. Drummond, R. Y. Teh.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The averaged unfiltered SSE homodyne current cor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The two-mode CIM success probability inferred [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The averaged filtered homodyne current correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Theories of the measured homodyne current generated by a stochastic Schr\"odinger equation (SSE) can be tested in a simulation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) correlations for a two-mode squeezed state. We carry out such a simulation, and determine the correct stochastic term for the measured current in the broad-band limit. Stratonovich rather than Ito stochastic noise agrees with experiment. We show that this is relevant to measurement noise and errors in quantum technologies. By analyzing the SSE trajectories as measurement settings are changed, we propose a modern version of Schrodinger's gedanken experiment, where one measures position and momenta simultaneously, ``one by direct, the other by indirect measurement''.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript simulates stochastic Schrödinger equation trajectories for EPR correlations in a two-mode squeezed state to determine the stochastic calculus interpretation of the measured homodyne current. It claims that Stratonovich (rather than Itô) noise reproduces the experimental homodyne current in the broad-band limit, discusses relevance to measurement noise in quantum technologies, and proposes a modern Schrödinger gedankenexperiment for simultaneous position-momentum measurements via direct and indirect methods.

Significance. If the simulation faithfully isolates the calculus choice and matches the physical observable without unaccounted experimental artifacts, the result would clarify the correct stochastic term for continuous homodyne measurements of squeezed states. This has direct implications for noise modeling and error budgets in quantum optics and quantum information devices that rely on broadband homodyne detection.

major comments (2)
  1. [Numerical simulation and comparison to experiment] The load-bearing claim is that the simulated homodyne current extracted from the SSE trajectories corresponds exactly to the laboratory observable in the broad-band limit. The manuscript must demonstrate that discretization, bandwidth cutoff, and absence of detector response, losses, or finite-efficiency filtering do not shift the apparent preference for Stratonovich over Itô; otherwise the distinction cannot be attributed to the stochastic term itself.
  2. [Results and discussion] No quantitative measures of agreement (e.g., mean-squared error, correlation coefficients, or statistical tests) between simulated and experimental currents are reported, nor are simulation parameters, ensemble sizes, or convergence checks with respect to time step or bandwidth. This prevents assessment of whether the reported agreement is robust or could be reproduced by other choices of stochastic interpretation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract asserts agreement with experiment without referencing the specific figures or tables that display the comparison or stating the quantitative metric used.
  2. [Theory and Methods] Notation for the stochastic increment and the definition of the measured current should be cross-checked for consistency between the theoretical derivation and the numerical implementation sections.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below with clarifications and indicate the revisions we will make to improve the numerical validation and presentation of results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Numerical simulation and comparison to experiment] The load-bearing claim is that the simulated homodyne current extracted from the SSE trajectories corresponds exactly to the laboratory observable in the broad-band limit. The manuscript must demonstrate that discretization, bandwidth cutoff, and absence of detector response, losses, or finite-efficiency filtering do not shift the apparent preference for Stratonovich over Itô; otherwise the distinction cannot be attributed to the stochastic term itself.

    Authors: We agree that isolating the effect of the stochastic calculus requires explicit checks against numerical and modeling artifacts. Our simulations are performed in the broad-band limit with time steps small enough that further reduction does not change the preference for Stratonovich over Itô. We will add convergence plots versus time step and bandwidth cutoff to the revised manuscript. For detector response, losses, and finite-efficiency filtering, these effects are omitted from the ideal model; we will include a new paragraph arguing that, in the broad-band regime, such linear filtering acts identically on both interpretations and therefore cannot be responsible for the observed agreement with experiment. If the referee believes additional simulations with explicit loss models are required, we are prepared to perform them. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results and discussion] No quantitative measures of agreement (e.g., mean-squared error, correlation coefficients, or statistical tests) between simulated and experimental currents are reported, nor are simulation parameters, ensemble sizes, or convergence checks with respect to time step or bandwidth. This prevents assessment of whether the reported agreement is robust or could be reproduced by other choices of stochastic interpretation.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the present version relies primarily on visual comparison. In the revised manuscript we will add quantitative metrics: mean-squared error and Pearson correlation coefficients between the simulated Stratonovich (and Itô) currents and the experimental data, together with a simple statistical test of the null hypothesis that the residuals are consistent with noise. We will also report the simulation parameters used (ensemble size, normalized time step, and effective bandwidth) and include supplementary figures demonstrating convergence of these metrics as the time step is decreased and the bandwidth is increased. These additions will allow readers to judge the robustness of the Stratonovich preference directly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; simulation compares independent interpretations to external data

full rationale

The paper's central result is obtained by numerically simulating SSE trajectories for a two-mode squeezed state under both Stratonovich and Ito interpretations, then comparing the extracted homodyne currents in the broad-band limit directly to experimental measurements. This comparison does not reduce to a fitted parameter or self-defined quantity by construction, nor does it rely on a load-bearing self-citation chain for the stochastic calculus choice. The experimental benchmark is treated as an independent external reference, and the derivation chain remains self-contained against that benchmark without renaming known results or smuggling ansatzes via prior self-work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on abstract; no explicit free parameters, invented entities, or non-standard axioms are described. The work relies on standard stochastic Schrödinger equation framework and quantum optics assumptions.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard framework of stochastic Schrödinger equations for open quantum systems
    The paper tests theories within the existing SSE formalism for homodyne currents.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5425 in / 1124 out tokens · 47676 ms · 2026-05-10T19:34:23.201344+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Since Ito equations can be transformed to Stratonovich equations using known rules [38, 41], this resolves the Ito vs

    for the detected photocurrentJ= (J1, J2): dJ dτ =−κ(J−j).(7) In this approach, the currentJhas a finite bandwidthκ, and follows standard calculus. Since Ito equations can be transformed to Stratonovich equations using known rules [38, 41], this resolves the Ito vs. Stratonovich ambiguity. In the wide-band detector limit ofκ→ ∞, one can adiabatically elimi...

    work page

  2. [2]

    element of reality

    This type of adiabatic elimination is only valid in the case of a Stratonovich SDE [42], and gives thatJ→jS. Hence the physical current in the limit of a wide-band detector is the Stratonovich current. 3 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Ito, same times Ito, diff. times Stratonovich exact Figure 1. The averaged unfiltered SSE homodyne current cor- relation⟨j ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Noting that the LO interaction with the output field is reversible, the setting of system1is then changed fromθ1 = 0toθ 1 =π/2, so thatˆp1 would be measured directly

    The value of the stochastic currentJ2,av(τ)implies an outcomep 2 forˆp2. Noting that the LO interaction with the output field is reversible, the setting of system1is then changed fromθ1 = 0toθ 1 =π/2, so thatˆp1 would be measured directly. The value ofJ2(τ)is not changed by the change in setting at system1(no-signaling) and thestochasticcurrentsJ 2,av(τ)a...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Diósi, Physical Review A40, 1165 (1989)

    L. Diósi, Physical Review A40, 1165 (1989)

    work page 1989

  5. [5]

    Gisin and I

    N. Gisin and I. C. Percival, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and General25, 5677 (1992)

    work page 1992

  6. [6]

    Barchielli, Phys

    A. Barchielli, Phys. Rev. A34, 1642 (1986)

    work page 1986

  7. [7]

    C. W. Gardiner, A. S. Parkins, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A46, 4363 (1992)

    work page 1992

  8. [8]

    Belavkin and P

    V. Belavkin and P. Staszewski, Physical Review A45, 1347 (1992)

    work page 1992

  9. [9]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. A47, 642 (1993)

    work page 1993

  10. [10]

    Goetsch and R

    P. Goetsch and R. Graham, Phys. Rev. A50, 5242 (1994)

    work page 1994

  11. [11]

    M. Rigo, F. Mota-Furtado, and P. F. O’Mahony, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General30, 7557 (1997)

    work page 1997

  12. [12]

    F. E. van Dorsselaer and G. Nienhuis, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics2, R25 (2000)

    work page 2000

  13. [13]

    Gambetta and H

    J. Gambetta and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. A66, 012108 (2002)

    work page 2002

  14. [14]

    Jacobs and D

    K. Jacobs and D. A. Steck, Contemporary Physics47, 279 (2006)

    work page 2006

  15. [15]

    Barchielli and M

    A. Barchielli and M. Gregoratti,Quantum trajectories and measurements in continuous time: the diffusive case, Vol. 782 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2009)

    work page 2009

  16. [16]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn,Quantum Measure- ment and Control(Cambridge University Press, 2009)

    work page 2009

  17. [17]

    H. J. Carmichael,Statistical methods in quantum optics 2: Non-classical fields(Springer Science & Business Me- dia, 2009)

    work page 2009

  18. [18]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev.47, 777 (1935)

    work page 1935

  19. [19]

    Z. Y. Ou, S. F. Pereira, H. J. Kimble, and K. C. Peng, Physical Review Letters68, 3663 (1992)

    work page 1992

  20. [20]

    M. D. Reid, P. D. Drummond, W. P. Bowen, E. G. Cav- alcanti, P. K. Lam, H. A. Bachor, U. L. Andersen, and G. Leuchs, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1727 (2009)

    work page 2009

  21. [21]

    M. D. Reid, Phys. Rev. A40, 913 (1989)

    work page 1989

  22. [22]

    Itô, Nagoya Mathematical Journal3, 55 (1951)

    K. Itô, Nagoya Mathematical Journal3, 55 (1951)

    work page 1951

  23. [23]

    Stratonovich, SIAM J

    R. Stratonovich, SIAM J. Control4, 362 (1966)

    work page 1966

  24. [24]

    Wilson, M

    S. Wilson, M. James, A. R. Carvalho, and J. Hope, Phys- ical Review. A76(2007)

    work page 2007

  25. [25]

    Z. K. Minev, S. O. Mundhada, S. Shankar, P. Reinhold, R. Gutiérrez-Jáuregui, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, H. J. Carmichael, and M. H. Devoret, Nature570, 200 (2019)

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    M. J. Kewming, S. Shrapnel, and G. J. Milburn, New Journal of Physics22, 053042 (2020)

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Thenabadu, R

    M. Thenabadu, R. Y. Teh, J. Wang, S. Kiesewetter, M. D. Reid, and P. D. Drummond, Quest for quantum advantage: Monte carlo wave-function simulations of the coherent ising machine (2025), arXiv:2501.02681 [quant- ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Y. Ma, H. Miao, B. H. Pang, M. Evans, C. Zhao, J. Harms, R. Schnabel, and Y. Chen, Nature Physics13, 776 (2017)

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    P. L. McMahon, A. Marandi, Y. Haribara, R. Hamerly, C. Langrock, S. Tamate, T. Inagaki, H. Takesue, S. Utsunomiya, K. Aihara, R. L. Byer, M. M. Fejer, H. Mabuchi, and Y. Yamamoto, Science354, 614 (2016)

    work page 2016

  30. [30]

    J. S. Bell, Phys.1, 195 (1964)

    work page 1964

  31. [31]

    J. S. Bell, Rev. Mod. Phys.38, 447 (1966)

    work page 1966

  32. [32]

    N. D. Mermin, Physical Today43, 9 (1990)

    work page 1990

  33. [33]

    D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger,Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Uni- verse, edited by M. Kafatos (Springer, 1989) p. 348

    work page 1989

  34. [34]

    P. H. Eberhard and R. R. Ross, Foundations of Phys. Lett.2, 127 (1989)

    work page 1989

  35. [35]

    Schrödinger, Naturwissenschaften23, 823 (1935)

    E. Schrödinger, Naturwissenschaften23, 823 (1935)

    work page 1935

  36. [36]

    Colciaghi, Y

    P. Colciaghi, Y. Li, P. Treutlein, and T. Zibold, Phys. Rev. X13, 021031 (2023)

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller,Quantum Noise: A Handbook of Markovian and Non-Markovian Quantum Stochastic Methods with Applications to Quantum Op- tics, Springer Series in Synergetics (Springer, 2004)

    work page 2004

  38. [38]

    P. D. Drummond and M. Hillery,The quantum theory of nonlinear optics(Cambridge University Press, 2014)

    work page 2014

  39. [39]

    C. W. Gardiner and M. J. Collett, Physical Review A 31, 3761 (1985)

    work page 1985

  40. [40]

    H. J. Carmichael, Physical review letters70, 2273 (1993)

    work page 1993

  41. [41]

    C. W. Gardiner,Handbook of Stochastic Methods for Physics, Chemistry, and the Natural Sciences, Springer complexity (Springer, 2004)

    work page 2004

  42. [42]

    C. W. Gardiner,Handbook of Stochastic Methods, 2nd ed. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985) p. 442

    work page 1985

  43. [43]

    Patra, L

    A. Patra, L. F. Buchmann, F. Motzoi, K. Mølmer, J. Sherson, and A. E. B. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A106, 032215 (2022)

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    Arnold,Stochastic differential equations: theory and applications, reprint ed

    L. Arnold,Stochastic differential equations: theory and applications, reprint ed. (Folens Publishers, 1992) p. 228

    work page 1992

  45. [45]

    C. W. Gardiner, Physical Review A29, 2814 (1984)

    work page 1984

  46. [46]

    Drummond, Quantum Optics: V , 57 (1989)

    P. Drummond, Quantum Optics: V , 57 (1989)

    work page 1989

  47. [47]

    Z. Wang, A. Marandi, K. Wen, R. L. Byer, and Y. Ya- mamoto, Physical Review A88, 063853 (2013)

    work page 2013

  48. [48]

    Marandi, Z

    A. Marandi, Z. Wang, K. Takata, R. L. Byer, and Y. Ya- mamoto, Nature Photonics8, 937 (2014)

    work page 2014

  49. [49]

    Yamamoto, K

    Y. Yamamoto, K. Aihara, T. Leleu, K.-i. Kawarabayashi, S. Kako, M. Fejer, K. Inoue, and H. Takesue, npj Quan- tum Information3, 49 (2017)

    work page 2017

  50. [50]

    Yamamoto, T

    Y. Yamamoto, T. Leleu, S. Ganguli, and H. Mabuchi, Applied Physics Letters117, 160501 (2020)

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    P. D. Drummond, R. Y. Teh, M. Thenabadu, C. Hatha- rasinghe, C. McGuigan, A. S. Dellios, N. Goodman, and M. D. Reid, The quantum and stochastic toolbox: xspde4.2, https://github.com/peterddrummond/xspde (2025)

    work page 2025

  52. [52]

    Drummond and I

    P. Drummond and I. Mortimer, Journal of computational physics93, 144 (1991)

    work page 1991

  53. [53]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Computer Physics Communications183, 1760 (2012)

    work page 2012

  54. [54]

    P. D. Drummond and Z. Ficek,Quantum Squeezing, Vol. 27 (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2004)

    work page 2004

  55. [55]

    R. E. Slusher, P. Grangier, A. LaPorta, B. Yurke, and M. J. Potasek, Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 2566 (1987)

    work page 1987

  56. [56]

    P. D. Drummond, R. M. Shelby, S. R. Friberg, and Y. Ya- mamoto, Nature365, 307 (1993)

    work page 1993

  57. [57]

    element of reality

    P. Colciaghi, Y. Li, P. Treutlein, and T. Zibold, Physical Review X13, 021031 (2023). 6 END MA TTER Appendix A: Ito and Stratonovich SSEWe start with the homodyne current SSE (3) in the Ito calculus [14]. This Ito stochastic differential equation (SDE) can be written in terms of its number state expansion as: dψk dτ =A (I) k +B kj ξj (11) Correction terms...

    work page 2023