Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Tuning between photon-number and quadrature measurements with weak-field homodyne detection

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A weak-field homodyne detector can be tuned continuously between photon-number and quadrature measurements by adjusting the coherent state's amplitude, and the paper demonstrates this experimentally.

desk verdict A solid experimental demonstration that weak-field homodyne detection really can tune between photon-number and quadrature measurements; the central claim holds up, but the mode-overlap parameter in the model is partly tuned to the data, and the secondary linear-scaling claim is heuristic. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04765 v2 pith:7IGWBQ2C submitted 2019-08-13 quant-ph

G.S. Thekkadath , D.S. Phillips , J.F.F. Bulmer , W.R. Clements , A. Eckstein , B.A. Bell , J. Lugani , T.A.W. Wolterink
show 5 more authors
A. Lita S.W. Nam T. Gerrits C.G. Wade I.A. Walmsley
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords weak-fieldhomodynedetectionphoton-number-resolvingdetectorstransitionedgesensorsquadraturemeasurementphotoncountingstateengineeringheraldedphoton-numberstatescontinuousvariables
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 experimentally shows that a single detector arrangement, weak-field homodyne detection, can be moved continuously between counting photons and measuring field quadratures. A quantum signal is combined with a weak coherent state on a balanced beam splitter, and the photon-number difference at the two outputs is recorded with photon-number-resolving transition edge sensors. As the coherent state amplitude is increased, the discrete difference statistics converge to the distribution expected from a quadrature measurement. The authors also use the detector to herald a state and show that its photon-number distribution can be controlled by the interference between the signal and the coherent reference. This matters because variable measurement operators are useful for hybrid discrete- and continuous-variable quantum information processing and for testing quantum properties without rebuilding the detector.

What carries the argument

The central object is the photon-number difference observable $\Delta\hat{n}=i(\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{b}-\hat{a}\hat{b}^\dagger)$ formed by mixing a signal and a coherent reference on a balanced beam splitter. With ideal number-resolving detection, $\alpha=0$ projects onto photon-number states, while the classical-field limit $\hat{b}\to|\alpha|e^{i\theta}$ turns the same observable into $i|\alpha|\hat{X}(\theta)$, the quadrature operator. The ability to resolve up to about twenty photons with transition edge sensors, superconducting bolometers that measure absorbed light energy, is what makes the intermediate regime experimentally accessible. The comparison models include the effects of detection inefficiency and a heuristic two-effective-mode description of mode mismatch parameterized by a single overlap $M$.

What would settle it

Use the same detector to measure difference statistics for a signal built from two clearly separated temporal modes with a known amplitude ratio, and compare the results to the two-effective-mode prediction computed with the independently measured overlap $M$; a systematic mismatch would show that the single-parameter model is not sufficient to establish the convergence claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that weak-field homodyne detection continuously interpolates between two complementary measurements. With the signal in a photon-number state and a coherent reference of amplitude $\alpha$, the measured photon-number difference $\Delta\hat{n}=i(\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{b}-\hat{a}\hat{b}^\dagger)$ reduces, under the classical-field approximation $\hat{b}\to|\alpha|e^{i\theta}$, to $i|\alpha|\hat{X}(\theta)$, where $\hat{X}(\theta)$ is the quadrature operator. The measured probability $P^{(j,\alpha)}(\Delta n)$ approaches $P^{(j,\alpha)}_{\mathrm{classical}}(\Delta n)$, the quadrature distribution of a $j$-photon state, as $|\alpha|$ grows. For $j=6$ and $|\alpha|^2=15.41$, the data agree with both the full quantum model and the classical-field model even though $|\alpha|$ is not much larger than the mean photon number $N=10.4$, showing that the measurement is already projecting onto quadrature states. The paper further observes that the minimum coherent strength $|\alpha|^2_{\min}$ required for a quadrature-like measurement scales linearly with $N$, instead of quadratically, and attributes this relaxation to detector inefficiency smoothing the quadrature distribution.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison between data and theory assumes that all imperfect overlap between the signal and the coherent reference can be described by a single number representing how well the two fields occupy the same optical mode; if the fields actually spread over three or more distinct modes, the claimed convergence to quadrature statistics could be an artifact of that assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An experimenter can switch a single detector between photon counting and homodyne-like quadrature measurement simply by changing the intensity of the coherent reference field, with no rearrangement of optics.
  • In the intermediate regime, the detector performs phase-sensitive non-Gaussian projections, a capability unavailable to either standard photon counters or strong-field homodyne alone.
  • The demonstrated state-engineering result implies that one arm of an entangled two-mode squeezed state can be steered into different photon-number distributions by choosing the detection outcome and local-oscillator amplitude.
  • Because detector inefficiency lowers the required local-oscillator strength, practical weak-field homodyne can operate with weaker references than the textbook condition $|\alpha|\gg N$.
  • The same setup could serve as a loss-tolerant tool for heralding non-Gaussian states such as Schrödinger cat states, since the heralded state's form depends on the continuously tunable measurement basis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: If the observed linear scaling of $|\alpha|^2_{\min}$ with $N$ holds at other efficiencies, then lossy photon-number-resolving detectors may permit quadrature monitoring of relatively bright signals without bright local oscillators; this is a testable prediction the paper does not make.
  • Inference: A direct check of the two-effective-mode overlap assumption would be to deliberately prepare a signal in two distinguishable modes with a known amplitude ratio and compare the model's prediction with the measured difference statistics; a systematic mismatch would indicate that the single overlap parameter $M$ is not sufficient.
  • Inference: The same apparatus, used twice, could both herald a non-Gaussian state and verify its nonclassicality in a loss-tolerant way; the paper mentions the prospect but does not implement it.
  • Inference: The convergence of discrete difference statistics to a quadrature distribution suggests that weak-field homodyne could serve as a resource for hybrid protocols where the same physical measurement is switched between discrete and continuous variable encodings without changing the optical layout.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports an experimental implementation of weak-field homodyne detection using photon-number-resolving transition edge sensors. The authors combine a heralded photon-number state (the signal) with a weak coherent state on a balanced beam splitter and record the photon-number difference at the two outputs. They observe that, as the coherent-state amplitude increases, the measured difference statistics transition from matching a quantum model without the classical-field approximation to also matching a classical-field (quadrature) model. They quantify this transition with a residual metric S_classical and extract a minimum coherent-state amplitude |α|²_min for quadrature behavior, reporting a linear scaling with the signal's mean photon number. They also demonstrate a proof-of-principle state-engineering application in which the weak-field homodyne measurement conditions the photon-number distribution of the heralded mode.

Significance. If the central claims are sustained, this is a valuable experimental advance: it is the first demonstration of continuous tuning between photon-number and quadrature measurements using photon-number-resolving detectors with high efficiency and dynamic range. The paper is generally careful in modeling the experiment, with derivations of the quantum and classical equations in the Supplemental Material and independent calibration of detector efficiencies and the squeezing parameter. The use of TES detectors and the quantitative residual analysis are strengths. However, the mode-overlap parameter M is partly adjusted to fit the very data used for comparison, which tempers the strength of the quadrature-convergence claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplemental Material, 'Model parameters'; main text 'Results'] The main text states that the parameters of the comparison models are determined from independent measurements, but the mode-overlap parameter M is not independently measured. The supplement reports a measured visibility V=0.800±0.060 and states that 'the models agree best with the data by using M=0.82.' Because both P^(j,α)(Δn) and P^(j,α)_classical(Δn) are evaluated with this same M (Supplemental Eqs. S13 and S19), the agreement between the data and the classical model at |α|²=15.41 in Fig. 3 is in part due to choosing M to fit the data. This weakens the central claim that the detector is already projecting onto quadrature states. I recommend that the authors either determine M from an independent measurement, or provide a quantitative sensitivity analysis of the conclusions with respect to M over its uncertainty range, and explicitly state that M is a fitted parameter rather than an independently measured one.
  2. [Results, Fig. 4 and Eq. (6)] The extraction of |α|²_min relies on an exponential fit A exp(-B|α|²) to S_classical, but the text only says this is done 'for sufficiently large |α|²' without specifying the number of points, the fitting range, or the criterion used. Because |α|²_min is determined by extrapolating this fit to the threshold S_classical=6.7e-6, the reported linear scaling in Fig. 4(b) could depend on these choices. The authors should state the fitting procedure precisely and show that the conclusions are robust, for instance by fitting over different ranges or reporting systematic uncertainties.
  3. [Results, Eq. (6)] The threshold S_classical=6.7e-6 is defined as the average squared residual between the data and the quantum model over all j and |α|. Since the quantum model itself depends on the fitted M, the threshold inherits the same model dependence. The authors should quantify how the threshold and hence |α|²_min change when M is varied within its uncertainty, and clarify whether the extracted linear scaling is robust.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Supplemental Material, Table I] In the 'Model parameters' table, M is listed as 0.800±0.060, but the text states that M=0.82 is used for the model; please ensure that the reported value and the used value are consistent and clearly indicated.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption and main text] The main text and Fig. 3 use both 'blue curves' and 'blue regions' for the classical model; please use consistent terminology throughout.
  3. [Results, Fig. 3] The paper would be strengthened by reporting a goodness-of-fit statistic such as reduced chi-square to support the visual claim of agreement between the data and the models.
  4. [Results, Fig. 4] The exponential fit function is not displayed in the figure or caption; please include it and specify the fitted range.
  5. [Results, Fig. 4(b)] The claim of a linear scaling between |α|²_min and N would benefit from a citation or a brief derivation, since the linear scaling is presented as a surprising result.
  6. [Supplemental Material, Fig. S6 caption] There is a typo in the Fig. S6 caption: 'respecitvely' should be 'respectively.'

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The quadrature-convergence comparison is mildly compromised by a mode-overlap parameter M that is chosen to best fit the same data, but the central tunability result remains independently supported.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Supplemental Material, 'Model parameters' (p. 9-10); used in Eqs. (S13), (S16), (S19), (S20); main text Results and Fig. 3.]
    "the visibility V of this interference signal provides a lower bound onM. We measuredV = 0.800±0.060, and found that the models agree best with the data by usingM = 0.82."

    The red and blue model curves in Fig. 3, including the classical-field quadrature reference P_classical, are evaluated with M=0.82 via Eqs. (S19)-(S20). M is not independently determined; it is chosen because the models 'agree best with the data' being compared. The subsequent claim that at |α|^2=15.41 the data 'are already projecting onto quadrature states' is therefore based partly on a fitted parameter pulling the model toward those same data. The effect is limited because M=0.82 is within the independently measured visibility uncertainty (V=0.800±0.060), and the raw statistics show the trend, so the central claim does not reduce wholly to the fit.

full rationale

The theoretical derivation is self-contained: Eqs. (S7)-(S20) start from the standard beam-splitter transformation and derive the photon-number-difference statistics with and without the classical-field approximation, including Bernoulli-modeled detector losses and an imperfect heralded signal. The efficiencies η_c, η_d, η_h, the squeezing parameter |λ|, and the coherent-state amplitude |α| are obtained from independent Klyshko, photon-counting, and pump-blocking measurements, not from the target difference statistics. No uniqueness theorem is imported, and the self-citations (e.g., Refs. [18-20], [34], [40]) are contextual or methodological rather than load-bearing. The only reduction is the mode-overlap parameter M, which is adjusted to 'agree best with the data' inside the measured visibility uncertainty. Because M is a single constrained parameter and the qualitative tunability between photon-number and quadrature statistics is visible directly in the measured data, the paper's main claim retains independent content. This is a minor circular element, not a self-definitional collapse, so the score is 2.

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

The central model uses standard quantum optical derivations (beam splitter, coherent states, two-mode squeezing, loss via fictitious beam splitters) and five measured parameters. Four of these are determined by independent Klyshko and photon-counting measurements; the mode overlap M is chosen in part to match the target data, and the scaling threshold is a hand-picked value. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Mode overlap M = 0.82 (within measured visibility 0.800 ± 0.060)
    Adjusted so the imperfection model best matches the measured difference statistics (Supplemental Material, Model parameters). The independently measured visibility gives a lower bound, and the chosen value is within the uncertainty, but it is partly set by agreement with the target data.
  • Threshold S_classical for |α|²_min = 6.7 × 10^-6
    Hand-chosen as the average squared residual of the quantum model over all j and |α|. This threshold defines |α|²_min and therefore shapes the reported linear scaling law (main text, Fig. 4(a) discussion).
  • Exponential model parameters A and B for S_classical(|α|²) = Not reported numerically
    Fit to the measured S_classical values to interpolate |α|²_min for each j. The uncertainties in these parameters set the error bars in Fig. 4(b).
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Balanced beam splitter unitary transformation (Eq. S8) and the standard commutation relations for annihilation operators.
    Foundation of the derivation of the joint photon-number distribution P^(j,α)(m,n) in the Supplemental Material.
  • domain assumption The coherent state |α_b⟩ can be decomposed into two effective orthogonal modes using Eq. (S12), with a single mode overlap parameter M.
    The paper explicitly calls this a heuristic model. If the real modal structure involves more than two effective modes, the computed comparison models are unreliable.
  • standard math Detection inefficiency is modeled by fictitious beam splitters with transmissivity η_c and η_d before the detectors (Eq. S11).
    Standard treatment of loss in photodetection, used to derive the Bernoulli transformation of the ideal joint distribution.
  • domain assumption The heralded signal ρ̂_a^(j) is a statistical mixture of photon-number states given by Eq. (S14), resulting from a two-mode squeezed vacuum and a heralding measurement with efficiency η_h.
    Assumes the two-mode squeezed vacuum is the only source and that the imperfect heralding projects onto a mixture that is diagonal in the Fock basis.
  • domain assumption In the large-|α| limit, the classical field approximation b̂ → |α| e^{iθ} is valid (Eq. 2).
    This standard homodyne assumption is what the experiment is testing as |α| increases; the validity of the approximation defines the quadrature-measurement regime.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tuning between photon-number and quadrature measurements with weak-field homodyne detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7IGWBQ2C

@misc{pith2026190804765,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tuning between photon-number and quadrature measurements with weak-field homodyne detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7IGWBQ2C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04765}
}
read the original abstract

Variable measurement operators enable the optimization of strategies for testing quantum properties and the preparation of a range of quantum states. Here, we experimentally implement a weak-field homodyne detector that can continuously tune between measuring photon numbers and field quadratures. We combine a quantum signal with a coherent state on a balanced beam splitter and detect light at both output ports using photon-number-resolving transition edge sensors. We observe that the discrete difference statistics converge to the quadrature distribution of the signal as we increase the coherent state amplitude. Moreover, in a proof-of-principle demonstration of state engineering, we show the ability to control the photon-number distribution of a state that is heralded using our weak-field homodyne detector.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04765 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Engineering Schr\"odinger cat states with a photonic even-parity detector

    quant-ph 2019-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A photonic even-parity detector, built from a beam splitter and photon-number-resolving detectors, can remotely prepare two- and four-component Schrödinger cat states with fidelity approaching unity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Gerlach and O

    W. Gerlach and O. Stern, Z. Phys. 9, 349 (1922)

    work page 1922

  2. [2]

    Rutherford and H

    E. Rutherford and H. Geiger, Proc. Royal Soc. Lond. 81, 141 (1908)

    work page 1908

  3. [3]

    D. A. Glaser, Phys. Rev. 87, 665 (1952)

    work page 1952

  4. [4]

    R. H. Hadfield, Nat. Photon. 3, 696 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Yuen and J

    H. Yuen and J. Shapiro, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 26, 78 (1980)

    work page 1980

  6. [6]

    Hansen, T

    H. Hansen, T. Aichele, C. Hettich, P. Lodahl, A. Lvovsky, J. Mlynek, and S. Schiller, Opt. Lett. 26, 1714 (2001)

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    S. L. Braunstein, Phys. Rev. A 42, 474 (1990)

    work page 1990

  8. [8]

    Vogel and J

    W. Vogel and J. Grabow, Phys. Rev. A 47, 4227 (1993)

    work page 1993

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    M. G. Raymer, J. Cooper, H. J. Carmichael, M. Beck, and D. T. Smithey, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 12, 1801 (1995)

    1995

  2. [10]

    Banaszek and K

    K. Banaszek and K. W´ odkiewicz, Phys. Rev. A55, 3117 (1997)

    1997

  3. [11]

    Tyc and B

    T. Tyc and B. C. Sanders, J. Phys. A 37, 7341 (2004)

    2004

  4. [12]

    Grangier, M

    P. Grangier, M. J. Potasek, and B. Yurke, Phys. Rev. A 38, 3132 (1988)

    1988

  5. [13]

    Banaszek and K

    K. Banaszek and K. W´ odkiewicz, Phys. Rev. A58, 4345 (1998)

    1998

  6. [14]

    Kuzmich, I

    A. Kuzmich, I. A. Walmsley, and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1349 (2000)

    2000

  7. [15]

    A. I. Lvovsky and M. G. Raymer, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 299 (2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 513 (2005)

    2005

  9. [17]

    N. C. Menicucci, P. van Loock, M. Gu, C. Weedbrook, T. C. Ralph, and M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 110501 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    Puentes, J

    G. Puentes, J. S. Lundeen, M. P. A. Branderhorst, H. B. Coldenstrodt-Ronge, B. J. Smith, and I. A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 080404 (2009)

    2009

  11. [19]

    Zhang, H

    L. Zhang, H. B. Coldenstrodt-Ronge, A. Datta, G. Puentes, J. S. Lundeen, X.-M. Jin, B. J. Smith, M. B. Plenio, and I. A. Walmsley, Nat. Photon. 6, 364 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Donati, T

    G. Donati, T. J. Bartley, X.-M. Jin, M.-D. Vidrighin, A. Datta, M. Barbieri, and I. A. Walmsley, Nat. Com- mun. 5, 5584 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    U. L. Andersen, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, P. van Loock, and A. Furusawa, Nat. Phys. 11, 713 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Allevi, M

    A. Allevi, M. Bina, S. Olivares, and M. Bondani, Int. J. Quantum Inf 15, 1740016 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Olivares, A

    S. Olivares, A. Allevi, G. Caiazzo, M. G. Paris, and M. Bondani, New Journal of Physics 21, 103045 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    A. E. Lita, A. J. Miller, and S. W. Nam, Opt. Exp. 16, 3032 (2008)

    2008

  17. [25]

    Leonhardt, Measuring the Quantum State of Light (Cambridge University Press, 1997)

    U. Leonhardt, Measuring the Quantum State of Light (Cambridge University Press, 1997)

    1997

  18. [26]

    Skotiniotis, W

    M. Skotiniotis, W. D¨ ur, and P. Sekatski, Quantum1, 34 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    See the Supplemental Material for additional details on the theoretical models and the experimental setup

  20. [28]

    M. J. Fitch, B. C. Jacobs, T. B. Pittman, and J. D. Franson, Phys. Rev. A 68, 043814 (2003)

    2003

  21. [29]

    P. C. Humphreys, B. J. Metcalf, T. Gerrits, T. Hiem- stra, A. E. Lita, J. Nunn, S. W. Nam, A. Datta, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walmsley, New J. Phys. 17, 103044 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    Eckstein, A

    A. Eckstein, A. Christ, P. J. Mosley, and C. Silberhorn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 013603 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    Sperling, W

    J. Sperling, W. R. Clements, A. Eckstein, M. Moore, J. J. Renema, W. S. Kolthammer, S. W. Nam, A. Lita, T. Gerrits, W. Vogel, G. S. Agarwal, and I. A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 163602 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Aichele, A

    T. Aichele, A. I. Lvovsky, and S. Schiller, Eur. Phys. J. D 18, 237 (2002)

    2002

  25. [33]

    Liscidini and J

    M. Liscidini and J. E. Sipe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 193602 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Thekkadath, B

    G. Thekkadath, B. Bell, I. Walmsley, and A. Lvovsky, Quantum 4, 239 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Royer, Phys

    A. Royer, Phys. Rev. A 15, 449 (1977)

    1977

  28. [36]

    Laiho, K

    K. Laiho, K. N. Cassemiro, D. Gross, and C. Silberhorn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 253603 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    Lipfert, J

    T. Lipfert, J. Sperling, and W. Vogel, Phys. Rev. A 92, 053835 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    Harder, C

    G. Harder, C. Silberhorn, J. Rehacek, Z. Hradil, L. Motka, B. Stoklasa, and L. L. S´ anchez-Soto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 133601 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Bohmann, J

    M. Bohmann, J. Tiedau, T. Bartley, J. Sperling, C. Sil- berhorn, and W. Vogel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 063607 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Sperling, D

    J. Sperling, D. S. Phillips, J. F. F. Bulmer, G. S. Thekka- dath, A. Eckstein, T. A. W. Wolterink, J. Lugani, S. W. Nam, A. Lita, T. Gerrits, W. Vogel, G. S. Agarwal, C. Sil- berhorn, and I. A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 013605 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    S.-W. Ji, J. Kim, H.-W. Lee, M. S. Zubairy, and H. Nha, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 170404 (2010). 6

    2010

  34. [42]

    Ourjoumtsev, R

    A. Ourjoumtsev, R. Tualle-Brouri, J. Laurat, and P. Grangier, Science 312, 83 (2006)

    2006

  35. [43]

    Tualle-Brouri, A

    R. Tualle-Brouri, A. Ourjoumtsev, A. Dantan, P. Grang- ier, M. Wubs, and A. S. Sørensen, Phys. Rev. A 80, 013806 (2009)

    2009

  36. [44]

    M. C. Tichy, J. Phys. B 47, 103001 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    D. N. Klyshko, Quantum Electron. 10, 1112 (1980)

    1980

  38. [46]

    K. D. Irwin, Appl. Phys. Lett 66, 1998 (1995)

    1995

  39. [47]

    R. P. Welty and J. M. Martinis, IEEE Trans. Magn 27, 2924 (1991)

    1991

  40. [48]

    Figueroa-Feliciano, B

    E. Figueroa-Feliciano, B. Cabrera, A. Miller, S. Powell, T. Saab, and A. Walker, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res 444, 453 (2000)

    2000

  41. [49]

    Z. H. Levine, T. Gerrits, A. L. Migdall, D. V. Samarov, B. Calkins, A. E. Lita, and S. W. Nam, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 29, 2066 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    Sperling, A

    J. Sperling, A. Eckstein, W. R. Clements, M. Moore, J. J. Renema, W. S. Kolthammer, S. W. Nam, A. Lita, T. Gerrits, I. A. Walmsley, G. S. Agarwal, and W. Vogel, Phys. Rev. A 96, 013804 (2017). SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Theory I: Photon-number difference statistics without a classic...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.