Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 86 references

Rigorous characterization of continuous-variable quantum states via optical parametric amplifiers

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A high-gain optical parametric amplifier followed by power measurement realizes the sign-free quadrature POVM, and sign-free quadrature data are sufficient to fully reconstruct and certify parity-symmetric quantum states.

desk verdict A clean and honest tomography package for parity-symmetric CV states from |x| data, with a loss-tolerance claim that outruns the experiment. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17023 v1 pith:7TQ6LQOW submitted 2026-07-19 quant-ph

Manthan Badbaria , Fumiya Hanamura , Maxime Garnier , Ulysse Chabaud , Rajveer Nehra This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords sign-freequadraturemeasurementopticalparametricamplifiercontinuous-variablequantumtomographyparity-symmetricstatesstellarrankWignernegativityloss-tolerantdetectionsemidefiniteprogramming
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper establishes that dropping the sign of the measured quadrature—recording only the squared value after phase-sensitive amplification—does not cost full tomographic information for any state with definite photon-number parity. It proves loss-tolerance: detector inefficiency adds vacuum noise whose width shrinks as e^{-2r} with amplifier gain, so the measurement approaches the ideal |x⟩⟨x|+|−x⟩⟨−x| POVM. From such data, a convex semidefinite program reconstructs the density matrix, and a closed-form estimator gives each same-parity matrix element with Hoeffding-level confidence intervals. The same data feed stellar-rank and Wigner-negativity witnesses without full tomography. If true, this gives a hardware-simple, loss-tolerant route to verifying non-Gaussian states used in bosonic quantum error correction.

What carries the argument

The sign-free quadrature POVM Π_φ=|x_φ⟩⟨x_φ|+|−x_φ⟩⟨−x_φ|, realized by high-gain phase-sensitive OPA plus quadrature-power detection. The companion estimator R^η_{n,n+2k}(x,φ), built from generalized Laguerre polynomials, turns each measured (|x|,φ) pair into an unbiased sample of a same-parity density-matrix element; the even-d reflection symmetry R(φ,−x)=R(φ,x) is what makes sign-free data sufficient.

What would settle it

Measure a known parity-symmetric state (e.g., a single photon) with an OPA at finite gain, deliberately adding a controlled pre-amplifier loss (e.g., an attenuator before the OPA). If the reconstruction fidelity degrades according to the added pre-amplifier loss rather than remaining flat as gain increases, the claim that the scheme is loss-tolerant in the stated sense is falsified. Equivalently, resolve the two-peaked POVM at fixed η and increasing gain: the width should shrink as e^{-2r}; a plateau would indicate an unmodeled noise source.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the absolute value of a quadrature—measured via a high-gain phase-sensitive OPA and power detection—is tomographically complete for the class of parity-symmetric states. The POVM element is Π_φ=|x_φ⟩⟨x_φ|+|−x_φ⟩⟨−x_φ|, and the paper shows that for any n and k the density-matrix element ρ_{n+2k,n} equals the expectation value of an explicit estimator R^η_{n,n+2k} over uniformly random phase φ and outcomes |x_φ|. Consequently the full density matrix of any parity-symmetric state (Fock, cat, binomial, GKP) can be reconstructed elementwise, or via an SDP with physicality constraints, and linear functionals such as fidelities and Wigner-negativity witnesses can be es

Load-bearing premise

All detection loss is modeled as a beam splitter placed after the amplifier, with an undepleted classical pump; if a comparable loss occurs before or inside the amplifier, the added vacuum noise does not shrink to zero at high gain and the loss-tolerant claim breaks down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tomography of parity-symmetric CV states (single-photon, cat, binomial, GKP) requires only |x| statistics, not full homodyne sign resolution, while reaching near-unity fidelities (≥0.99 in simulations).
  • Detector inefficiency can be tolerated: the measurement approaches the ideal sign-free POVM in the high-gain limit, removing the need for high-efficiency photon-number-resolving detectors.
  • Direct estimation of linear features—fidelity with target states, stellar rank, Wigner negativity—is possible with rigorous Hoeffding confidence intervals, bypassing full tomography.
  • Bandwidth is set by the OPA gain, not by electronic homodyne bandwidth, extending the accessible measurement bandwidth.
  • The same scheme certifies non-Gaussianity (stellar rank and Wigner negativity) for Fock, cat, and GKP states from experimental datasets.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If pre-amplifier loss or excess amplifier noise is present, the 'loss-tolerant' headline must be rederived: the vacuum-noise width no longer vanishes in the high-gain limit unless the loss is modeled after the amplifier. A quantitative bound on pre-amplifier loss would sharpen the claim.
  • The estimator-based reconstruction suggests a direct multimode generalization: sign-free data for each mode, with K-mode parity symmetry, could certify entanglement and non-Gaussianity in cluster states without full multimode tomography.
  • The high-gain argument implies a practical calibration test: measure the residual width of the two-peaked POVM as a function of gain; finding a plateau would identify a non-OPA noise source that the model does not cover.
  • The stellar-rank witnesses were found too stringent for mixed experimental GKP states; non-linear multi-copy witnesses suggested by the authors would be a natural next step to certify those states.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an all-optical measurement scheme based on a high-gain phase-sensitive optical parametric amplifier followed by quadrature-power detection, which realizes a 'sign-free quadrature' POVM (|x⟩⟨x| + |−x⟩⟨−x|). The main theoretical claim is that sign-free quadrature data are sufficient for complete tomography of parity-symmetric states (Fock, cat, binomial, GKP), via an elementwise estimator identity (Eq. 13) and a semidefinite-program reconstruction (Eq. 8). The paper also develops direct estimators for linear functionals such as fidelities, and uses them to certify stellar rank and Wigner negativity. Validation is performed on both simulated data and experimental homodyne data, in which the sign-free dataset is obtained by taking absolute values of measured quadratures.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the scheme would relax detector-efficiency and bandwidth constraints in continuous-variable quantum state characterization, which is an important practical goal. The estimator identity in Appendix E is clean and correct: for even order differences, the homodyne pattern function is even in x, so the sign-free distribution gives the same expectation value, and this yields a parameter-free elementwise reconstruction. The trace-distance cross-checks (0.029, 0.022, 0.015) between the elementwise and SDP reconstructions provide nontrivial internal consistency. However, the SDP fidelity benchmark is weakened by the target-dependent choice of the regularization weight γ, and the loss-tolerance derivation in Appendix A contains a serious mathematical gap. The paper is therefore a valuable contribution in need of substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A9)] The derivation of the lossy POVM is not correct. In passing to the third line of Eq. (A9), the term (G/2)Δ²v² in the exponent is dropped from the vacuum expectation without justification. For a beam splitter of transmittance η followed by an ideal square-law detector, the measured intensity is G(√η x + √(1−η)v)², so the vacuum variable v enters both linearly and quadratically. The resulting POVM kernel is not the Gaussian exp[−G(x²−x′²)²/Δ²] of Eq. (A9); it is a noncentral chi-square distribution. The conclusion (A10) that the POVM approaches the ideal sign-free POVM in the high-gain limit may still hold, but it is not established by the given calculation, and the stated convergence rate is not correct. Since Eq. (A10) is the formal basis of the loss-tolerance claim, this derivation must be redone properly.
  2. [Eq. (12)] The estimator R^η_{n,n+d} is said to be defined 'for all ... η≤1', but the integral converges only for η > 1/2. For η < 1/2 the exponent −(1−1/(2η))k² is positive and the integral diverges; at η = 1/2 the exponential is unity and the polynomial |k|k^d L_n^{(d)}(k²) does not decay. Thus the identity (13) cannot hold for η ≤ 1/2. The paper must either restrict the domain explicitly, or, if the high-gain OPA is intended to realize an effective efficiency of 1, set η = 1 in Eq. (13) and provide a quantitative bound on the finite-gain deviation from the ideal POVM.
  3. [Sec. III B, Eq. (8), Table I] The SDP regularization weight γ is described as an 'ad hoc parameter' chosen to maximize the fidelity of the reconstruction. When the target state is known (as in the simulations and in the experimental comparison against MaxLik), this choice makes the reported fidelities in Table I partly tautological: γ is tuned to the answer and the fidelity is then quoted as a performance metric. This does not demonstrate predictive power for unknown states. Please replace this by a principled selection rule (e.g., cross-validation on a training set, or a default schedule) and report the sensitivity of the fidelities to γ. The parameter-free elementwise estimator of Table II is a meaningful cross-check and should be foregrounded.
  4. [Sec. II, Appendix A] The loss-tolerance claim is only established under the assumption that all loss is modeled as a beam splitter placed after the OPA. Losses before or inside the OPA (input coupling loss, internal loss, pump depletion) are not corrected by Eq. (13), and their effect is not quantified. Since the abstract and introduction advertise 'loss-tolerant characterization', the scope of the claim should be stated explicitly. A numerical study with a fraction of loss placed before the OPA would clarify the practical validity of the scheme under realistic conditions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III B, Ref. [63]] The reference for the photon-subtracted squeezed state appears as '[?]' in the text; it should be Ref. [63].
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption labels the stellar-rank witness as obtained via 'direct fidelity estimation', but the text in Sec. III C says the stellar rank is certified from the SDP-reconstructed density matrix. Please align the terminology.
  3. [Eq. (A10)] After taking the high-gain limit, the proportionality constant of the POVM should be stated explicitly; the factor 1/(2G|x|) in Eq. (A7) should be resolved.
  4. [Abstract / Sec. IV] The paper validates the scheme with experimental homodyne data and emulated sign-free data. It would be helpful to state explicitly in the abstract or introduction that no direct OPA power measurement on non-Gaussian states is reported, to avoid overclaiming experimental validation.
  5. [General] There are several typographical issues: 'using using' in Fig. 4 caption, 'T op row' in Figs. 2 and 3 captions, and inconsistent use of 'Wigner negativity witness' phrasing. These should be corrected.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central estimator identity and OPA POVM derivation are self-contained; only the γ-tuned fidelity benchmark is circular, and the loss-tolerance claim rests on an explicit post-amplifier loss model.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III A, Eq. (8); validation in Sec. III B and Table I]
    "The parameter γ is an ad hoc parameter that penalizes larger photon numbers and is chosen to maximize the fidelity of the state reconstruction."

    The same target states used to select γ are then used to define the reported reconstruction fidelities (ideal states in simulations and MaxLik reconstructions for experiments, Table I). Thus the near-unity fidelities are not independent tests of the reconstruction: the hyperparameter is optimized on the very benchmark being reported. This does not affect Eq. (13) (which is derived from the symmetry of the homodyne estimator) or the POVM derivation, but it means the demonstration numbers are partly fit rather than predicted.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is not circular. The OPA POVM of Eq. (5)/(A7) follows from the photocurrent characteristic function, and the loss-tolerant POVM of Eqs. (A9)-(A10) is a direct calculation under the explicitly stated assumption that all detector inefficiency is a beam splitter after the OPA. Eq. (13) is derived in Appendix E from the known homodyne estimator [47] using the symmetry R(φ,−x)=R(φ,x) for even index differences; this is a genuine reduction, not a definition. The stellar-rank and Wigner-negativity witnesses rely on published, parameter-free thresholds/profiles (including self-citations [57,59,64,67]) that do not incorporate the present data, so those citations are independent support. The only concrete circular element is the γ-tuning of the SDP benchmark: the fidelity used to validate the reconstruction is also the objective used to choose γ. That affects the reported demonstration, not the core mathematical claims. The pre-OPA/internal-loss robustness of the loss-tolerance headline is a stated modeling assumption and is untested against real OPA data, but this is a scope/correctness limitation rather than a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. 'Sign-free quadrature measurement' is a new measurement concept (POVM Eq. 5) built from existing OPA physics, not a new degree of freedom; the ledgers above capture the fitted parameters (γ, β, binning) and the background assumptions (parametric approximation, post-amplifier loss model, external estimator identity, self-cited witness benchmarks, parity-symmetry definition).

free parameters (3)
  • γ (SDP regularization weight) = unspecified (per-state tuning)
    Eq. 8: 'The parameter γ is an ad hoc parameter that penalizes larger photon numbers and is chosen to maximize the fidelity of the state reconstruction.' Tuned against the known target state; inflates Table I fidelities.
  • β (Wigner-negativity witness displacement) = 0 (single-photon), 0.45i and 0 (cat), 1.25+0.62i / 0.25+0.75i / 0 (GKP)
    Witness operator Ω(β) evaluated at pre-selected phase-space points where negativity is expected. The 1/2 threshold is theory-derived, but the reported points are chosen post hoc; the state is certified at those points only.
  • Histogram and truncation hyperparameters (N_bins, L, N_phases, N_max) = Table III values (e.g., N_max 20–35, N_phases 6–40)
    Chosen by hand per state; standard numerical discretization affecting SDP conditioning and runtime, but not the conceptual claim.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Parametric approximation: the OPA pump is treated classically and undepleted (Bogoliubov evolution, Eq. 1)
    Sec. II, Eq. 1, citing [45]. If pump depletion or amplifier excess noise is significant, the POVM (Eq. 5) does not describe the measurement.
  • domain assumption All detection imperfection is a beam splitter of transmittivity η placed after the amplifier; input-side loss is not modeled
    Appendix A, Eq. A8–A10. The 'loss-tolerant' claim follows only if loss occurs after amplification; loss before the OPA attenuates the state itself.
  • standard math D'Ariano–Paris–Sacchi homodyne estimator identity (E_{φ,x}[R^η_{n,n+d}] = ρ_{n+d,n})
    Appendix E, Eq. E1–E2, taken from Ref. [47]. The paper's elementwise estimator (Eq. 13) reduces to this established result.
  • domain assumption Wigner-negativity witness threshold ⟨Ω(β)⟩ ≤ 1/2 for Wigner-positive states, and the stellar-robustness profile construction
    Sec. III C, from Refs. [57,59] (co-authored by U. Chabaud). Used as certification benchmarks; independently published and parameter-free.
  • standard math Parity-symmetry class definition: ΠρΠ = ρ, so ⟨k|ρ|l⟩ = 0 for k,l of different parity
    Sec. III A. Defines the class of states for which sign-free data is claimed complete.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rigorous characterization of continuous-variable quantum states via optical parametric amplifiers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7TQ6LQOW

@misc{pith2026260717023,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rigorous characterization of continuous-variable quantum states via optical parametric amplifiers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7TQ6LQOW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17023}
}
read the original abstract

Characterizing non-Gaussian quantum states is of paramount importance for continuous-variable quantum information processing, yet conventional homodyne-measurement-based state tomography remains limited by optical loss, detector efficiency, and measurement bandwidth. Here, we introduce an integrated framework for loss-tolerant characterization and certification using high-gain phase-sensitive optical parametric amplification and power measurements. Our computationally efficient semidefinite programming approach enables faithful reconstruction of parity-symmetric quantum states from amplified quadrature measurements while substantially relaxing detector-efficiency requirements and increasing the measurement bandwidth. We further develop a certification framework that directly quantifies non-Gaussianity via stellar-rank witnesses and Wigner negativity, using the same quadrature-power measurements. We demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed framework through both simulated and experimental data for representative quantum states, including single-photon, Schrodinger cat, and Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP) states. By unifying loss-tolerant measurements, state tomography, and nonclassical-state certification within a single experimentally accessible framework, our approach provides a practical pathway toward verifying increasingly complex states and can be readily implemented with current quantum photonic technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17023 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of the experimental scheme for sign-free [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison of quantum state reconstruction using conventional homodyne detection and the proposed OPA-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Comparison of quantum state reconstruction using homodyne and OPA-based measurements for representative non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Certification of a single-photon state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Certification of cat states using the homodyne tomography data from experiments in Ref. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: a show the stellar rank witnesses of a simu￾lated |GKP∆=0.2⟩ state by estimating its fidelity with a target non-Gaussian |GKP∆=0.2⟩ state together with its stellar robustness profile. For the experimental GKP states [51, 65] we could not witness a stellar rank, as the …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. POVM plots for inefficient photodetection with efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Diagonal elements of the reconstructed density matrix using elementwise reconstruction and SDP reconstruction. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Achievable fidelities for a target binomial state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Achievable fidelities for (a) target cat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Achievable fidelities for (a) target cat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Achievable fidelities for target states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. SDP reconstruction of the Wigner function using (left) complete quadrature data, and (right) sign-free quadrature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 12 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Clarke and F

    J. Clarke and F. K. Wilhelm, Nature453, 1031 (2008)

    2008

  2. [2]

    J. L. O’brien, A. Furusawa, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Nature Pho- tonics3, 687 (2009)

    2009

  3. [3]

    J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Physical review letters74, 4091 (1995)

    1995

  4. [4]

    Imamog, D

    A. Imamog, D. D. Awschalom, G. Burkard, D. P. DiVin- cenzo, D. Loss, M. Sherwin, A. Small,et al., Physical review letters83, 4204 (1999)

    1999

  5. [5]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Reviews of modern physics82, 2313 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    L. M. Vandersypen, M. Steffen, G. Breyta, C. S. Yan- noni, M. H. Sherwood, and I. L. Chuang, Nature414, 883 (2001)

    2001

  7. [7]

    T. D. Ladd, F. Jelezko, R. Laflamme, Y. Nakamura, C. Monroe, and J. L. O’Brien, nature464, 45 (2010)

    2010

  8. [8]

    Asavanant, Y

    W. Asavanant, Y. Shiozawa, S. Yokoyama, B. Charoen- sombutamon, H. Emura, R. N. Alexander, S. Takeda, J.-i. Yoshikawa, N. C. Menicucci, H. Yonezawa,et al., Science366, 373 (2019)

    2019

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    M. V. Larsen, X. Guo, C. R. Breum, J. S. Neergaard- Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, Science366, 369 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Reviews of Modern Physics84, 621 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Wigner, Physical Review40, 749 (1932)

    E. Wigner, Physical Review40, 749 (1932)

    1932

  4. [12]

    Eisert, S

    J. Eisert, S. Scheel, and M. B. Plenio, Physical Review Letters89, 137903 (2002)

    2002

  5. [13]

    S. D. Bartlett, B. C. Sanders, S. L. Braunstein, and K. Nemoto, Physical Review Letters88, 097904 (2002)

    2002

  6. [14]

    Fiur´ aˇ sek, Physical Review Letters89, 137904 (2002)

    J. Fiur´ aˇ sek, Physical Review Letters89, 137904 (2002)

    2002

  7. [15]

    Mari and J

    A. Mari and J. Eisert, Physical Review Letters109, 230503 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    R. I. Booth, U. Chabaud, and P.-E. Emeriau, Physical Review Letters129, 230401 (2022)

    2022

  9. [18]

    Bergmann and P

    M. Bergmann and P. van Loock, Phys. Rev. A94, 042332 (2016)

    2016

  10. [19]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. A 64, 012310 (2001). 11

    2001

  11. [20]

    Lvovsky, P

    A. Lvovsky, P. Grangier, A. Ourjoumtsev, V. Pa- rigi, M. Sasaki, and R. Tualle-Brouri, arXiv preprint 10.48550/arXiv.2006.16985 (2020)

    2006 doi arXiv

  12. [21]

    Walschaers, PRX Quantum2, 030204 (2021)

    M. Walschaers, PRX Quantum2, 030204 (2021)

    2021

  13. [22]

    M. Endo, R. He, T. Sonoyama, K. Takahashi, T. Kashi- wazaki, T. Umeki, S. Takasu, K. Hattori, D. Fukuda, K. Fukui,et al., Optics Express31, 12865 (2023)

    2023

  14. [23]

    Eaton, R

    M. Eaton, R. Nehra, and O. Pfister, New Journal of Physics21, 113034 (2019)

    2019

  15. [24]

    Ourjoumtsev, H

    A. Ourjoumtsev, H. Jeong, R. Tualle-Brouri, and P. Grangier, Nature448, 784 (2007)

    2007

  16. [25]

    Yanagimoto, R

    R. Yanagimoto, R. Nehra, R. Hamerly, E. Ng, A. Marandi, and H. Mabuchi, PRX Quantum4, 010333 (2023)

    2023

  17. [26]

    Chabaud, D

    U. Chabaud, D. Markham, and F. Grosshans, Physical Review Letters124, 063605 (2020)

    2020

  18. [27]

    Chabaud, G

    U. Chabaud, G. Ferrini, F. Grosshans, and D. Markham, Physical Review Research3, 033018 (2021)

    2021

  19. [28]

    Chabaud and M

    U. Chabaud and M. Walschaers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.11781 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Smithey, M

    D. Smithey, M. Beck, M. G. Raymer, and A. Faridani, Physical review letters70, 1244 (1993)

    1993

  21. [30]

    Nehra, A

    R. Nehra, A. Win, M. Eaton, R. Shahrokhshahi, N. Srid- har, T. Gerrits, A. Lita, S. W. Nam, and O. Pfister, Op- tica6, 1356 (2019)

    2019

  22. [31]

    Thekkadath, D

    G. Thekkadath, D. Phillips, J. Bulmer, W. Clements, A. Eckstein, B. Bell, J. Lugani, T. Wolterink, A. Lita, S. Nam,et al., Physical Review A101, 031801 (2020)

    2020

  23. [32]

    Arrazola, V

    J. Arrazola, V. Bergholm, K. Br´ adler, T. Bromley, M. Collins, I. Dhand, A. Fumagalli, T. Gerrits, A. Gous- sev, L. Helt,et al., Nature591, 54 (2021)

    2021

  24. [33]

    Peace, A

    D. Peace, A. Zappacosta, R. Cernansky, B. Haylock, A. Boes, A. Mitchell, and M. Lobino, Journal of Physics: Photonics4, 035002 (2022)

    2022

  25. [34]

    Z. Yang, M. Jahanbozorgi, D. Jeong, S. Sun, O. Pfister, H. Lee, and X. Yi, Nature Communications12, 1 (2021)

    2021

  26. [35]

    J. F. Tasker, J. Frazer, G. Ferranti, E. J. Allen, L. F. Brunel, S. Tanzilli, V. D’Auria, and J. C. Matthews, Na- ture Photonics15, 11 (2021)

    2021

  27. [36]

    Bruynsteen, M

    C. Bruynsteen, M. Vanhoecke, J. Bauwelinck, and X. Yin, Optica8, 1146 (2021)

    2021

  28. [37]

    Nehra, M

    R. Nehra, M. Eaton, C. Gonz´ alez-Arciniegas, M. Kim, T. Gerrits, A. Lita, S. W. Nam, and O. Pfister, Physical Review Research2, 042002 (2020)

    2020

  29. [38]

    Shaked, Y

    Y. Shaked, Y. Michael, R. Z. Vered, L. Bello, M. Rosen- bluh, and A. Pe’er, Nature Communications9, 609 (2018)

    2018

  30. [39]

    Nehra, R

    R. Nehra, R. Sekine, L. Ledezma, Q. Guo, R. M. Gray, A. Roy, and A. Marandi, Science377, 1333 (2022)

    2022

  31. [40]

    Takanashi, A

    N. Takanashi, A. Inoue, T. Kashiwazaki, T. Kazama, K. Enbutsu, R. Kasahara, T. Umeki, and A. Furusawa, Optics Express28, 34916 (2020)

    2020

  32. [41]

    Kalash and M

    M. Kalash and M. V. Chekhova, arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.10030 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Frascella, E

    G. Frascella, E. E. Mikhailov, N. Takanashi, R. V. Za- kharov, O. V. Tikhonova, and M. V. Chekhova, Optica 6, 1233 (2019)

    2019

  34. [43]

    Nehra, C

    R. Nehra, C. Oh, L. Jiang, and A. Marandi, npj Quantum Information (2026)

    2026

  35. [44]

    Yamashima, T

    T. Yamashima, T. Kashiwazaki, T. Suzuki, R. Nehra, T. Nakamura, A. Inoue, T. Umeki, K. Takase, W. Asa- vanant, M. Endo,et al., Optics Express33, 5769 (2025)

    2025

  36. [45]

    D’Ariano, M

    G. D’Ariano, M. Paris, and M. Sacchi, arXiv preprint quant-ph/9902013 (1999)

    1999 arXiv

  37. [46]

    D’Ariano, M

    G. D’Ariano, M. Paris, and M. Sacchi, Quantum State Estimation, edited by M. Paris and J. Rehacek, Lecture Notes in Physics649, 235 (2004)

    2004

  38. [47]

    G. M. D’Ariano, M. G. Paris, and M. F. Sacchi, Ad- vances in Imaging and Electron Physics128, 206 (2003), arXiv:quant-ph/0302028

    2003 arXiv

  39. [48]

    S. Boyd, S. P. Boyd, and L. Vandenberghe,Convex opti- mization(Cambridge university press, 2004)

    2004

  40. [49]

    Hanamura, K

    F. Hanamura, K. Takase, K. Hirota, R. Nehra, F. Lang, S. Miki, H. Terai, M. Yabuno, T. Kashiwazaki, A. Inoue, et al., Prx Quantum6, 040336 (2025)

    2025

  41. [50]

    Kawasaki, R

    A. Kawasaki, R. Ide, H. Brunel, T. Suzuki, R. Nehra, K. Nakashima, T. Kashiwazaki, A. Inoue, T. Umeki, F. China,et al., Nature Communications15, 9075 (2024)

    2024

  42. [51]

    Konno, W

    S. Konno, W. Asavanant, F. Hanamura, H. Nagayoshi, K. Fukui, A. Sakaguchi, R. Ide, F. China, M. Yabuno, S. Miki,et al., Science383, 289 (2024)

    2024

  43. [52]

    Diamond and S

    S. Diamond and S. Boyd, Journal of Machine Learning Research17, 1 (2016)

    2016

  44. [53]

    J. S. Lundeen, A. Feito, H. Coldenstrodt-Ronge, K. L. Pregnell, C. Silberhorn, T. C. Ralph, J. Eisert, M. B. Plenio, and I. A. Walmsley, Nat. Phys.5, 27 (2009)

    2009

  45. [54]

    Grandi, A

    S. Grandi, A. Zavatta, M. Bellini, and M. G. A. Paris, New J. Phys.19, 053015 (2017)

    2017

  46. [55]

    Yanagimoto, E

    R. Yanagimoto, E. Ng, M. Jankowski, R. Nehra, T. P. McKenna, T. Onodera, L. G. Wright, R. Hamerly, A. Marandi, M. Fejer,et al., Optica11, 896 (2024)

    2024

  47. [56]

    X. Deng, S. Li, Z.-J. Chen, Z. Ni, Y. Cai, J. Mai, L. Zhang, P. Zheng, H. Yu, C.-L. Zou,et al., Nature Physics20, 1874 (2024)

    2024

  48. [58]

    Fiur´ aˇ sek, Optics Express30, 30630 (2022)

    J. Fiur´ aˇ sek, Optics Express30, 30630 (2022)

    2022

  49. [59]

    Chabaud, P.-E

    U. Chabaud, P.-E. Emeriau, and F. Grosshans, Quantum 5, 471 (2021)

    2021

  50. [60]

    Hoeffding, Journal of the American statistical associ- ation58, 13 (1963)

    W. Hoeffding, Journal of the American statistical associ- ation58, 13 (1963)

    1963

  51. [61]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information (2002)

    2002

  52. [62]

    Hanamura, K

    F. Hanamura, K. Takase, K. Hirota, R. Nehra, F. Lang, S. Miki, H. Terai, M. Yabuno, T. Kashiwazaki, A. Inoue, T. Umeki, W. Asavanant, M. Endo, J.-i. Yoshikawa, and A. Furusawa, PRX Quantum6, 040336 (2025)

    2025

  53. [63]

    Kawasaki, R

    A. Kawasaki, R. Ide, H. Brunel,et al., Nature Commu- nications15, 9075 (2024)

    2024

  54. [64]

    Chabaud, G

    U. Chabaud, G. Roeland, M. Walschaers, F. Grosshans, V. Parigi, D. Markham, and N. Treps, PRX Quantum2, 020333 (2021)

    2021

  55. [65]

    M. V. Larsen, J. E. Bourassa, S. Kocsis,et al., Nature 642, 587 (2025)

    2025

  56. [66]

    Mari and J

    A. Mari and J. Eisert, Physical review letters109, 230503 (2012)

    2012

  57. [67]

    Garnier, T

    M. Garnier, T. Martinez, and U. Chabaud, stellar- rank-numerics,https://github.com/qat-inria/ stellar-numerics(2026)

    2026

  58. [68]

    Chabaud, F

    U. Chabaud, F. Grosshans, E. Kashefi, and D. Markham, Quantum5, 578 (2021)

    2021

  59. [69]

    Y.-D. Wu, G. Bai, G. Chiribella, and N. Liu, Physical Review Letters126, 240503 (2021)

    2021

  60. [70]

    Upreti and U

    V. Upreti and U. Chabaud, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04688 (2024). 12

    2024 arXiv

  61. [71]

    Y. Tang, C. Zhu, Y. Zhang, J. Eisert, Z.-W. Liu, I. Roth, O. G¨ uhne, X. Wang, and Z. Liu, arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.27105 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  62. [72]

    Williams, E

    J. Williams, E. Sendonaris, R. Nehra, R. M. Gray, R. Sekine, L. Ledezma, and A. Marandi, Physical Re- view Research7, 043006 (2025)

    2025

  63. [73]

    Chabaud and S

    U. Chabaud and S. Mehraban, arXiv:2111.00117 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  64. [74]

    O. Hahn, G. Ferrini, A. Ferraro, and U. Chabaud, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23721 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  65. [75]

    J. K. Nauth, N. Walk, A. M. Datta, K. Busch, J. Eis- ert, O. Benson, and R. A. K¨ ogler, arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.02427 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  66. [76]

    R. Wang, A. Udupa, T. Hillmann, U. Chabaud, A. Fer- raro, and G. Ferrini, arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.06404 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  67. [77]

    M. H. Michael, M. Silveri, R. T. Brierley, V. V. Albert, J. Salmilehto, L. Jiang, and S. M. Girvin, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031006 (2016)

    2016

  68. [78]

    Chabaud, Continuous variable quantum advan- tages and applications in quantum optics, PhD the- sis arXiv:2102.05227 [quant-ph] (Sorbonne University, 2021)

    U. Chabaud, Continuous variable quantum advan- tages and applications in quantum optics, PhD the- sis arXiv:2102.05227 [quant-ph] (Sorbonne University, 2021)

    2021 arXiv

  69. [79]

    Matsuura, H

    T. Matsuura, H. Yamasaki, and M. Koashi, Physical Re- view A102, 032408 (2020)

    2020

  70. [80]

    Tzitrin, J

    I. Tzitrin, J. E. Bourassa, N. C. Menicucci, and K. K. Sabapathy, Physical Review A101, 032315 (2020)

    2020

  71. [81]

    Leonhardt,Essential quantum optics: from quan- tum measurements to black holes(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    U. Leonhardt,Essential quantum optics: from quan- tum measurements to black holes(Cambridge University Press, 2010). Appendix A: Experimental scheme To derive the POVM for the OPA scheme, we start from Eq. 4. Substituting ˆI=Gˆx 2 φ andI=Gx 2 φ into the characteristic function...

    2010

  72. [82]

    We have computed numerically the profile of achievable fidelities with the binomial state |Weven(2,1)⟩= 1 2 |0⟩+ √ 3 2 |4⟩

    Binomial States Binomial states are defined as [77]: |Weven/odd(N, S)⟩= 1√ 2N N+1X p=0 peven/odd s N+ 1 p |p(S+ 1)⟩,(I1) whereN, S∈N. We have computed numerically the profile of achievable fidelities with the binomial state |Weven(2,1)⟩= 1 2 |0⟩+ √ 3 2 |4⟩. This profile is dep...

  73. [83]

    vpwhwhzM6ZWWsmoXjjrzpCsYoBY=

    Cat states Cat states of amplitudeαare defined as: |cat± α ⟩= 1p N ±α (|α⟩ ± |−α⟩),(I2) whereN ± α = 2(1±e −2|α|2 ) is a normalising constant. These states have an infinite stellar rank and thus cannot be perfectly approximated using states of bounded stellar rank. We have com...

  74. [84]

    This is due to low amplitudes cat + states being close to the vacuum state and low amplitudes cat − states being close to a single-photon Fock state

    The main difference between low amplitude cat + and cat − states is that the former are easier to approximate by low stellar rank states than the latter. This is due to low amplitudes cat + states being close to the vacuum state and low amplitudes cat − states being close to a...

  75. [85]

    High amplitude cat states are ‘more non-Gaussian’ than low amplitude cat states, in the sense that more photon additions/subtractions are needed to approximate them to the same precision

  76. [86]

    even to odd ranks) than from even to odd ranks (resp

    The maximum achievable fidelity increases more from odd to even ranks (resp. even to odd ranks) than from even to odd ranks (resp. odd to even ranks) for cat + states (resp. cat − states). Like for binomial states, this is due to cat + states (resp. cat − states) having suppor...

  77. [87]

    For each given amplitude, there is a critical stellar rank after which good approximation of the cat state becomes possible, which outlines the hardness of engineering cat states of high amplitude in terms of non-Gaussian elementary optical operations, namely photon-addition/s...

  78. [88]

    ZrFqVJnE2yxG6VMicIAoVatnd5A=

    GKP states a. Ideal GKP states The ideal (square lattice) GKP states are defined as: |GKPj⟩ ∝ X s∈Z r 2π d (ds+j) + ˆq ,(I3) wherej∈ {0, . . . , d−1}andd≥2 is the dimension of the logical Hilbert space. These states have infinite norm. Their stellar function is given by [78]: ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.