Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 82 references

Post-selected von Neumann Measurement with Superpositions of Orbital-Angular-Momentum Pointer States

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a postselected von Neumann measurement with an OAM pointer can turn a Gaussian state non-Gaussian, squeezed, and higher-SNR in the weak regime.

desk verdict The paper's central claim collapses on reading Eq. (1): the pointer is already non-Gaussian, and the SNR variance formula is also wrong. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14210 v2 pith:RHTN3MGV submitted 2024-11-21 quant-ph

Janarbek Yuanbek , Yi-Fang Ren , Yusuf Turek This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.65.Ta42.50.Tx
keywords postselectedvonNeumannmeasurementorbitalangularmomentumpointerLaguerre-GaussianmodesweakquadraturesqueezingWignerfunctionnegativitysignal-to-noiserationon-Gaussianstateengineering
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

This paper tries to establish that a postselected von Neumann measurement with a pointer prepared in a superposition of orbital-angular-momentum (OAM) modes can serve as a quantum state-optimisation tool. With an anomalous weak value and a small coupling strength $\Gamma$, the pointer state after postselection is claimed to acquire quadrature squeezing, a Wigner function with negative regions, and a signal-to-noise ratio above the non-postselected scheme. The authors report exact analytical expressions and numerical results for squeezing, second-order cross-correlation, Wigner function, SNR, and fidelity, and frame the central effect as a transformation from an initially Gaussian pointer to a non-Gaussian output. If correct, the scheme offers a universal route to tailoring quantum states by choosing two degrees of freedom and coupling them with a von Neumann interaction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the postselected final pointer state of Eq. (8), a superposition of two displaced copies of the input OAM pointer, weighted by $1\pm\langle\hat{\sigma}_x\rangle_w$. The displacements $\hat{D}(\pm\Gamma/2)$ are generated by the von Neumann coupling $H=g\,\hat{\sigma}_x\otimes\hat{P}_x$, and the input pointer is the superposition $(|\mathrm{LG}_{00}\rangle+\gamma e^{i\varphi}|\mathrm{LG}_{01}\rangle)/\sqrt{1+\gamma^2}$. Interference between the two displaced copies, controlled by the anomalous weak value and the coupling-strength parameter $\Gamma=gt/\sigma$, is the mechanism that produces squeezing, Wigner negativity, and the SNR enhancement.

What would settle it

Prepare the input state of Eq. (1) with $\gamma\neq0$ and measure its Wigner function before any interaction; if negative regions appear in the input distribution, the central 'Gaussian-to-non-Gaussian' claim is falsified for that preparation, and the remaining testable claim is whether Wigner negativity grows with $\Gamma$ and the weak value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the normalized final pointer state $|\Psi\rangle = \lambda\big[(1+\langle\hat{\sigma}_x\rangle_w)\hat{D}(\Gamma/2)+(1-\langle\hat{\sigma}_x\rangle_w)\hat{D}^\dagger(\Gamma/2)\big]|\Psi_i\rangle$ inherits and amplifies the structure of the input superposition $|\Psi_i\rangle$, and that for large anomalous weak values $\langle\hat{\sigma}_x\rangle_w=e^{i\delta}\tan(\alpha/2)$ and small $\Gamma$ the output is squeezed in one quadrature, has growing Wigner-function negativity, and gives a postselected-to-non-postselected SNR ratio $\chi>1$. The authors take this as evidence that postselected von Neumann measurements with OAM pointers can engineer nonclassical states and improve precision measurement in the weak-measurement regime.

Load-bearing premise

The argument treats the initial pointer state of Eq. (1) as a Gaussian state with everywhere-positive Wigner function; since that state contains a single-photon $l=1$ term, the claimed Gaussian-to-non-Gaussian transition is only as strong as this identification, and if the state is already non-Gaussian the claim reduces to an increase in nonclassicality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quadrature squeezing of the output pointer grows with the weak value in the weak-measurement regime, so an OAM pointer can be tuned to produce squeezed states by choosing $\alpha$ and $\Gamma$.
  • The postselected scheme achieves a higher signal-to-noise ratio than the non-postselected scheme for large anomalous weak values, despite a postselection probability of only $\cos^2(\alpha/2)$.
  • The output Wigner function develops negative regions whose magnitude grows with $\Gamma$, providing a quantitative witness of nonclassicality induced by the measurement.
  • The method is proposed as universal: any two degrees of freedom admitting a von Neumann coupling can in principle be used to engineer Gaussian or non-Gaussian states, extending beyond the LG superposition studied here.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the 'Gaussian-to-non-Gaussian' framing depends on calling the state in Eq. (1) Gaussian; since that state already contains a single-photon $l=1$ term, the defensible claim is that postselection increases the nonclassicality of an already non-Gaussian input.
  • A direct experimental test would be homodyne tomography of the input and output spatial modes; the predicted growth of Wigner negativity at fixed $\Gamma$ and $\alpha=8\pi/9$ should be observable.
  • The same interference mechanism suggests a heralding scheme in which the polarization postselection projects the spatial mode into a tunable vortex state, effectively using weak measurement as a single-photon OAM-state synthesizer.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a postselected von Neumann measurement scheme in which the pointer is a superposition of LG00 and LG01 spatial modes, and the measured system is a polarization qubit. The authors derive the normalized postselected pointer state, then analyze its quadrature squeezing, intensity distribution, second-order cross-correlation, Wigner function, signal-to-noise ratio, and fidelity. The central advertised result is that postselection transforms an 'initial Gaussian state' into a non-Gaussian state, thereby increasing nonclassicality, squeezing, and measurement precision in the weak-measurement regime.

Significance. If the central claim were correct, the scheme would offer a broadly applicable, parameter-free (in the sense of having no fitted parameters) method for converting Gaussian states into non-Gaussian ones, with implications for quantum state engineering and metrology. The analytical derivation is self-contained and machine-checkable in principle, and the SNR comparison between postselected and non-postselected cases is a useful feature. However, the headline claim is invalidated by the paper's own definition of the input state: Eq. (1) and its HG expansion in Eq. (4) describe a non-Gaussian two-mode superposition even before any measurement. The advertised Gaussian-to-non-Gaussian transition therefore is not demonstrated, and the broader universal-optimization conclusion is unsupported.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. I, Sec. V.B, Eq. (1), Eq. (4)] The input pointer state is not Gaussian. The paper repeatedly states that the initial pointer is 'a typical Gaussian state whose Wigner function consistently takes positive values' (Sec. I) and labels the Γ=0 case in Fig. 6 as Gaussian. However, Eq. (1) defines |Ψ_i⟩ as a superposition of LG00 and LG01, and Eq. (4) gives the explicit HG expansion |Ψ_i⟩ = (|0,0⟩ + (γe^{iφ}/√2)(|1,0⟩ + i|0,1⟩))/√(1+γ²). For any γ≠0 this state contains single-photon components and is non-Gaussian; its Wigner function possesses negative regions. Consequently, the abstract and conclusion's claim that postselected von Neumann measurement 'transforms the initial Gaussian state into a non-Gaussian state' is internally inconsistent with the state actually used. Correcting this misclassification would remove the advertised Gaussian-to-non-Gaussian transition, leaving only a statement about modifying an already non-Gaussian OAM superposition.
  2. [Sec. VII, Fig. 6] The conclusion's broader claim that the method 'offers a universal approach applicable to diverse quantum states' and can transform 'a classical state to a nonclassical one' is not supported by the analysis. Since the input state is already nonclassical for γ≠0, the observed increase in Wigner-negativity and squeezing cannot be attributed to a classical-to-nonclassical conversion. The quantitative results may still be valid for the specific non-Gaussian superposition considered, but the universal state-optimization narrative, which rests on the false Gaussian-input premise, overreaches beyond what the equations demonstrate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. V.B] The text refers to 'the original state |Ψ′⟩' as the Γ=0 Gaussian state, but the state defined in Eq. (1) is |Ψ_i⟩; this notation is inconsistent and should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 6 caption and surrounding text] The description of the rows is confusing: the text says 'each row, from top to bottom, represents different values of r = 2', which is not a set of different values, and the figure caption mentions 'different values of r' without specifying the actual values. Please clarify the parameter values used in the subplots.
  3. [Sec. VI.A, Eqs. (31)-(39)] The symbol ⟨a⟩ is used without a state subscript for expectation values evaluated in different states (|Ψ_i⟩, |Ψ⟩, and |Φ⟩). This makes the SNR derivation unnecessarily difficult to follow; distinct notations such as ⟨a⟩_i, ⟨a⟩_Ψ, and ⟨a⟩_Φ would improve clarity.
  4. [Various] There are several typographical errors, including 'thee weak values' in the caption of Fig. 3(d), 'Universirty' in Ref. [68], and the fidelity formula in Sec. VI.B written as 'T rp√ρσ√ρ' instead of a properly formatted trace expression. Reference [15] is also incomplete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; the state transformation is an exact calculation from the von Neumann coupling, but the advertised Gaussian-to-non-Gaussian transition rests on a mislabeled non-Gaussian input, which is a correctness issue rather than circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The postselected pointer state, Eq. (8), follows exactly from the von Neumann Hamiltonian (Eq. 6), the displacement-operator decomposition (Eq. 7), and the weak-value expression (Eq. 11). No parameter is fitted to data, and no output quantity is fed back as an input. The observables reported—quadrature squeezing (Eqs. 17–18), second-order cross-correlation (Eq. 23), Wigner function (Appendix B), and SNR ratio (Eqs. 27–43)—are direct analytic evaluations of expectation values under this state; numerical plots scan free parameters Gamma, alpha, and r rather than fitting them. The authors' self-citations ([31]–[38], [40]) are motivational or comparative and do not carry the derivation. The genuine concern is correctness, not circularity: the input state written in Eq. (1) is already non-Gaussian, since its Hermite-Gaussian expansion in Eq. (4) contains single-photon terms |1,0> and |0,1>, yet Sec. I, Sec. V B, and the Conclusion describe it as a typical Gaussian state whose Wigner function is everywhere positive. Consequently, the claim that the initial Gaussian state transforms into a non-Gaussian state after postselection is unsupported. But this is a false premise about the input, not a reduction of the outputs to the inputs by construction; the postselection calculation itself is a genuine calculation. Therefore the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a parameter study; the output state and all figures depend on the chosen amplitudes and phases of the superposition and on the weak-value and coupling parameters. None of these are fitted to external data, which keeps the circularity burden low, but the advertised state-engineering result is controlled entirely by hand-picked parameters.

free parameters (5)
  • α (weak value parameter) = 8π/9 in most figures
    Chosen by hand to set the anomalous weak value ⟨σx⟩w = e^{iδ} tan(α/2); central to the claimed amplification and squeezing effects.
  • Γ (coupling strength) = varied, e.g., 0, 0.2, 0.3, 1
    Dimensionless coupling strength between measured system and pointer; control parameter for the weak-to-strong measurement transition.
  • γ (superposition weight) = 1 in most figures
    Relative amplitude of LG01 in the initial pointer state, Eq. (1); defines the non-Gaussian character of the input.
  • φ (relative phase of superposition) = 0 or π/2 in figures
    Relative phase between LG00 and LG01 in Eq. (1); controls interference terms in the final state.
  • δ (preselected state phase) = 0 in figures
    Phase in the preselected polarization state, Eq. (11); controls the imaginary part of the weak value.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard von Neumann measurement coupling H = g σx ⊗ Px and postselection produce the pointer state in Eq. (8).
    Sec. II, Eqs. (6)-(8); textbook weak measurement formalism.
  • standard math LG modes can be expanded in HG modes through Eqs. (3)-(5).
    Sec. II, Eqs. (3)-(5); standard mode decomposition.
  • standard math The Wigner function is defined through the symmetrically ordered characteristic function, and the squeezing parameters and g(2) correlation are computed from these definitions.
    Secs. III and V; standard continuous-variable quantum optics definitions.
  • domain assumption The spatial and polarization degrees of freedom can be treated as pointer and measured system respectively, with a bilinear coupling of the form H = g σx ⊗ Px.
    Sec. II states 'we use the spatial and polarization degrees of freedom of |Ψ_i⟩ as the measuring system (pointer) and the measured system'; this is a modeling assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Post-selected von Neumann Measurement with Superpositions of Orbital-Angular-Momentum Pointer States." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RHTN3MGV

@misc{pith2026241114210,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Post-selected von Neumann Measurement with Superpositions of Orbital-Angular-Momentum Pointer States},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RHTN3MGV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14210}
}
read the original abstract

We investigated an orbital angular momentum (OAM) pointer within the framework of von Neumann measurements and discovered its significant impact on optimizing superpositions of Gaussian and Laguerre-Gaussian (LG) states. Calculations of the quadrature squeezing, the second-order cross-correlation function, the Wigner function, and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) support our findings. Specifically, by carefully selecting the anomalous weak value and the coupling strength between the measured system and the pointer, we demonstrated that the initial Gaussian state transforms into a non-Gaussian state after postselection. This transition highlights the potential of OAM pointers in enhancing the performance of quantum systems by tailoring state properties for specific applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14210 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The setup for generating superpositions of the fun [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Schematic diagram of the weak measurement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Quadratic squeezing parameters Q1 and Q2. (a) Q1 as a function of r for different coupling strengths Γ, with the weak value fixed at α = 8π 9 , (b) Q1 as a function of the weak value with coupling Γ at r = 2. (c) Q2 as a function of r for different coupling strengths Γ, with the weak value fixed at α = 8π 9 . (d) Q2 as a function of thee weak values characterized by Γ at r = 2. Here, δ = 0 and φ = π 2 . measurement,… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Second-order cross-correlation as function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Intensity distribution after the postselected mea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Wigner function of |Ψ⟩ for different system parameters. Here, we set φ = 0, δ = 0, and α = 8π 9 . ⟨Ψi |Xˆ|Ψi⟩ = 2σRe [⟨aˆ⟩] , (31) ⟨Ψ|Xˆ|Ψ⟩ = 2σRe [⟨aˆ⟩] , (32) ⟨Ψ|Xˆ 2 |Ψ⟩ = σ 2 2  ⟨aˆ † aˆ⟩ + Re ⟨aˆ 2 ⟩ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) The ratio χ as a function of the coupling strength Γ for different weak values, with r = 2. (b) The ratio χ as a function of r for different weak values, with the coupling strength at Γ = 0.2 . (c) The ratio χ as a function of r for different coupling strength Γ , …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Fidelity as a function of Γ for different weak values . (b) Fidelity as a function of weak values characterized by α for different Γ . Here, we set δ = 0 , r = 2 and φ = π 2 . correlation between the two modes of the state |Ψi⟩, even when signal amplification via l…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. F. Nye and M. V. Berry, P. Roy. Soc. A-Math. Phy 336, 165 (1974)

    1974

  2. [2]

    V. I. Bazhenov, M. Vasnetsov, and M. Soskin, JETP 13 Lett. 52, 1037 (1990)

    1990

  3. [3]

    Kobayashi, K

    H. Kobayashi, K. Nonaka, and M. Kitano, Opt. Express 20, 14064 (2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    White, C

    A. White, C. Smith, N. Heckenberg, H. Rubinsztein- Dunlop, R. McDuff, C. Weiss, and C. Tamm, J. Mod. Opt. 38, 2531 (1991)

    work page 1991

  5. [5]

    N. R. Heckenberg, R. McDuff, C. P. Smith, and A. G. White, Opt. Lett.17, 221 (1992)

    work page 1992

  6. [7]

    Beijersbergen, R

    M. Beijersbergen, R. Coerwinkel, M. Kristensen, and J. Woerdman, Opt. Commun.112, 321 (1994)

    1994

  7. [8]

    Marrucci, C

    L. Marrucci, C. Manzo, and D. Paparo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 163905 (2006)

    2006

  8. [9]

    T. Ando, Y. Ohtake, N. Matsumoto, T. Inoue, and N. Fukuchi, Opt. Lett.34, 34 (2009)

    work page 2009

Show all 82 references
  1. [10]

    Mansuripur, A

    M. Mansuripur, A. R. Zakharian, and E. M. Wright, Phys. Rev. A84, 033813 (2011)

    2011

  2. [11]

    Kim and W

    J. Kim and W. A. Clarkson, Opt. Commun.296, 109 (2013)

    2013

  3. [12]

    B. Xia, J. Huang, H. Li, M. Liu, T. Xiao, C. Fang, and G. Zeng, Photonics Res. (2022)

    2022

  4. [13]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  5. [14]

    Vedral, Nat

    V. Vedral, Nat. Phys.10, 256 (2014)

    2014

  6. [15]

    Tavares, Rev

    J. Tavares, Rev. Ciência Elem (2023)

    2023

  7. [16]

    Allen, M

    L. Allen, M. W. Beijersbergen, R. J. C. Spreeuw, and J. P. Woerdman, Phys. Rev. A45, 8185 (1992)

    1992

  8. [17]

    D. G. Grier, Nat. Phys.424, 810 (2003)

    2003

  9. [18]

    Gibson, J

    G. Gibson, J. Courtial, M. J. Padgett, M. Vasnetsov, V. Pas’ko, S. M. Barnett, and S. Franke-Arnold, Opt. Express 12, 5448 (2004)

    2004

  10. [19]

    Wang, J.-Y

    J. Wang, J.-Y. Yang, I. M. Fazal, N. Ahmed, Y. Yan, H. Huang, Y. Ren, Y. Yue, S. Dolinar, M. Tur,et al. , Nat. Photonics 6, 488 (2012)

    2012

  11. [20]

    Bozinovic, Y

    N. Bozinovic, Y. Yue, Y. Ren, M. Tur, P. Kristensen, H. Huang, A. E. Willner, and S. Ramachandran, Science 340, 1545 (2013)

    2013

  12. [21]

    Krenn, J

    M. Krenn, J. Handsteiner, M. Fink, R. Fickler, R. Ursin, M. Malik, and A. Zeilinger, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.113, 13648 (2016)

    2016

  13. [22]

    M. P. J. Lavery, C. Peuntinger, K. Gunthner, P. Banzer, D. Elser, R. W. Boyd, M. J. Padgett, C. Marquardt, and G. Leuchs, Sci. Adv.3, e1700552 (2017)

    2017

  14. [23]

    Groblacher, T

    S. Groblacher, T. Jennewein, A. Vaziri, G. Weihs, and A. Zeilinger, New J. Phys.8, 75 (2006)

    2006

  15. [24]

    A. Sit, F. Bouchard, R. Fickler, J. Gagnon-Bischoff, H. Larocque, K. Heshami, D. Elser, C. Peuntinger, K. Günthner, B. Heim, C. Marquardt, G. Leuchs, R. W. Boyd, and E. Karimi, Optica4, 1006 (2017)

    2017

  16. [25]

    Nicolas, L

    A. Nicolas, L. Veissier, L. Giner, E. Giacobino, D. Max- ein, and J. Laurat, Nat. Photonics8, 234 (2014)

    2014

  17. [26]

    Juchtmans, A

    R. Juchtmans, A. Béché, A. Abakumov, M. Batuk, and J. Verbeeck, Phys. Rev. B91, 094112 (2015)

    2015

  18. [27]

    B. Jack, J. Leach, J. Romero, S. Franke-Arnold, M. Ritsch-Marte, S. M. Barnett, and M. J. Padgett, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 083602 (2009)

    2009

  19. [28]

    Fürhapter, A

    S. Fürhapter, A. Jesacher, S. Bernet, and M. Ritsch- Marte, Opt. Express13, 689 (2005)

    2005

  20. [29]

    Prentice, M

    P. Prentice, M. Macdonald, T. Frank, A. Cuschieri, G. C. Spalding, W. Sibbett, P. Campbell, and K. Dholakia, Opt. Express 12 4, 593 (2004)

    2004

  21. [30]

    Aharonov, D

    Y. Aharonov, D. Z. Albert, and L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1351 (1988)

    1988

  22. [31]

    Turek, Commun

    Y. Turek, Commun. Theor. Phys.72, 055504 (2020)

    2020

  23. [32]

    Turek, Eur

    Y. Turek, Eur. Phys. J. Plus136, 221 (2021)

    2021

  24. [33]

    W. J. Xu, T. Yusufu, and Y. Turek, Phys. Rev. A105, 022210 (2022)

    2022

  25. [34]

    Q. Hu, T. Yusufu, and Y. Turek, Phys. Rev. A 105, 022608 (2022)

    2022

  26. [35]

    Turek, J

    Y. Turek, J. Yuanbek, and A. Abliz, Phys. Lett. A462, 128663 (2023)

    2023

  27. [36]

    Turek, A

    Y. Turek, A. Islam, and A. Abliz, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138, 72 (2023)

    2023

  28. [37]

    98,075103 (2023)

    Y.Turek, N.Aishan, andA.Islam,Phys.Scr. 98,075103 (2023)

    2023

  29. [38]

    Turek, Chin

    Y. Turek, Chin. Phys. B29, 090302 (2020)

    2020

  30. [39]

    M. R. Dennis and J. B. Götte, New J. Phys.14, 073013 (2012)

    2012

  31. [40]

    Turek, H

    Y. Turek, H. Kobayashi, T. Akutsu, C.-P. Sun, and Y. Shikano, New J. Phys.17, 083029 (2015)

    2015

  32. [41]

    Kobayashi, K

    H. Kobayashi, K. Nonaka, and Y. Shikano, Phys. Rev. A 89, 053816 (2014)

    2014

  33. [42]

    J. Qiu, C. Ren, and Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A93, 063841 (2016)

    2016

  34. [43]

    J. Zhu, P. Zhang, Q. Li, F. Wang, C. Wang, Y. Zhou, J. Wang, H. Gao, L. C. Kwek, and F. Li, Sci. Rep.9, 7993 (2019)

    2019

  35. [44]

    J. B. Götte and M. R. Dennis, New J. Phys.14, 073016 (2012)

    2012

  36. [45]

    M. R. Dennis and J. B. Götte, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 183903 (2012)

    2012

  37. [46]

    J. B. Götte and M. R. Dennis, Opt. Lett.38, 2295 (2013)

    2013

  38. [47]

    O. S. Magaña Loaiza, M. Mirhosseini, B. Rodenburg, and R. W. Boyd, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 200401 (2014)

    2014

  39. [48]

    Leach, M

    J. Leach, M. J.Padgett, S.M.Barnett, S. Franke-Arnold, and J. Courtial, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 257901 (2002)

    2002

  40. [49]

    Belmonte and J

    A. Belmonte and J. P. Torres, Opt. Lett.37, 2940 (2012)

    2012

  41. [50]

    G. C. G. Berkhout, M. P. J. Lavery, J. Courtial, M. W. Beijersbergen, and M. J. Padgett, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 153601 (2010)

    2010

  42. [51]

    Genevet, J

    P. Genevet, J. Lin, M. A. Kats, and F. Capasso, Nat. Commun. 3, 1278 (2012)

    2012

  43. [52]

    Saitoh, Y

    K. Saitoh, Y. Hasegawa, K. Hirakawa, N. Tanaka, and M. Uchida, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 074801 (2013)

    2013

  44. [53]

    Guzzinati, L

    G. Guzzinati, L. Clark, A. Béché, and J. Verbeeck, Phys. Rev. A 89, 025803 (2014)

    2014

  45. [54]

    Clark, A

    L. Clark, A. Béché, G. Guzzinati, and J. Verbeeck, Phys. Rev. A 89, 053818 (2014)

    2014

  46. [55]

    Vaziri, G

    A. Vaziri, G. Weihs, and A. Zeilinger, J. Opt. 4, S47 (2002)

    2002

  47. [56]

    A. Mair, A. Vaziri, G. Weihs, and A. Zeilinger, Nat. Phys. (2001)

    2001

  48. [57]

    B. Jack, A. M. Yao, J. Leach, J. Romero, S. Franke- Arnold, D. G. Ireland, S. M. Barnett, and M. J. Padgett, Phys. Rev. A81, 043844 (2010)

    2010

  49. [58]

    F. Yue, D. Wen, C. Zhang, B. D. Gerardot, W. Wang, S. Zhang, and X. Chen, Adv. Mater29, 1603838 (2017)

    2017

  50. [59]

    V. V. Kotlyar, A. A. Kovalev, and A. P. Porfirev, Opt. Express 27, 11236 (2019)

    2019

  51. [60]

    B. P. da Silva, B. A. D. Marques, R. B. Rodrigues, P. H. S. Ribeiro, and A. Z. Khoury, Phys. Rev. A103, 063704 (2021)

    2021

  52. [61]

    X. Wu, Z. Wang, and B. Yu, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B41, 768 (2024)

    2024

  53. [62]

    de Lima Bernardo, S

    B. de Lima Bernardo, S. Azevedo, and A. Rosas, Opt. Commun. 331, 194 (2014)

    2014

  54. [63]

    von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quantum 14 Mechanics, edited by N

    J. von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quantum 14 Mechanics, edited by N. A. Wheeler (Princeton Univer- sity Press, Princeton, 2018)

    2018

  55. [64]

    Y. Pan, J. Zhang, E. Cohen, C.-w. Wu, P.-X. Chen, and N. Davidson, Nat. Phys.16, 1206 (2020)

    2020

  56. [65]

    Adesso, S

    G. Adesso, S. Ragy, and A. R. Lee, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. 21 (2014)

    2014

  57. [66]

    G. Ren, W. hai Zhang, and Y. jun Xu, Physica A520, 106 (2019)

    2019

  58. [67]

    S. K. Giri, K. Thapliyal, B. Sen, and A. Pathak, Physica A 466, 140 (2017)

    2017

  59. [68]

    Gerry and P

    C. Gerry and P. Knight, Introductory Quantum Op- tics (Cambridge Universirty Press, Cambridge, England, 2004)

    2004

  60. [69]

    Agarwal, Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2013)

    G. Agarwal, Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2013)

    2013

  61. [70]

    D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, N. Yunger Halpern, H. V. Lepage, A. A. Lasek, C. H. W. Barnes, and S. Lloyd, Nat. Commun. 11, 3775 (2020)

    2020

  62. [71]

    Parigi, A

    V. Parigi, A. Zavatta, M. Kim, and M. Bellini, Science 317, 1890 (2007)

    2007

  63. [72]

    Averchenko, C

    V. Averchenko, C. Jacquard, V. Thiel, C. Fabre, and N. Treps, New J. Phys.18, 083042 (2016)

    2016

  64. [73]

    Tomoda, A

    H. Tomoda, A. Machinaga, K. Takase, J. Harada, T. Kashiwazaki, T. Umeki, S. Miki, F. China, M. Yabuno, H. Terai, D. Okuno, and S. Takeda, Phys. Rev. A 110, 033717 (2024)

    2024

  65. [74]

    A. I. Lvovsky and J. Mlynek, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 250401 (2002)

    2002

  66. [75]

    A. I. Lvovsky, P. Grangier, A. Ourjoumtsev, V. Parigi, M. Sasaki, and R. Tualle-Brouri, (2020)

    2020

  67. [76]

    Walschaers, PRX Quantum2, 030204 (2021)

    M. Walschaers, PRX Quantum2, 030204 (2021)

    2021

  68. [77]

    Asavanant and A

    W. Asavanant and A. Furusawa, Phys. Rev. A 109, 040101 (2024)

    2024

  69. [78]

    G. S. Agarwal, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B5, 1940 (1988)

    1988

  70. [79]

    Z. Z. Xin, D. B. Wang, M. Hirayama, and K. Matumoto, Phys. Rev. A50, 2865 (1994)

    1994

  71. [80]

    H. P. Yuen, Phys. Rev. A13, 2226 (1976)

    1976

  72. [81]

    D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and A. Zeilinger, Am. J. Phys.58, 1131 (1990)

    1990

  73. [82]

    Giedke, B

    G. Giedke, B. Kraus, M. Lewenstein, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A64, 052303 (2001)

    2001

  74. [83]

    K. J. Blow, R. Loudon, S. J. D. Phoenix, and T. J. Shepherd, Phys. Rev. A42, 4102 (1990)

    1990

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.