Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Discrete and parallel frequency-bin entanglement generation from quantum frequency comb

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 A single microring source produces 14 parallel frequency-bin entangled states.

desk verdict Clean single-pair frequency-bin conversion from a SiN QFC, but the 14-pair parallel claim outruns the per-pair evidence and the paper contradicts itself about multiplexed HOM. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18304 v1 pith:PBZAKW3O submitted 2024-11-27 quant-ph physics.optics

Chi Lu , Xiaoyu Wu , Wenjun Wen , Xiao-song Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.optics PACS 03.67.-a42.50.Ex42.65.-k
keywords quantumfrequencycombfrequency-binentanglementHong-Ou-Mandelinterferencespontaneousfour-wavemixingsiliconnitridemicroringresonatorSagnacinterferometerdensewavelength-divisionmultiplexingpolarization
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 claims that one integrated silicon-nitride microring source, placed in a Sagnac interferometer, can supply a broadband polarization-entangled frequency comb from which up to fourteen discrete frequency-bin entangled states are produced at once. It demonstrates a free-space hybrid gate that maps the polarization entanglement of each frequency pair onto the frequency-bin degree of freedom, giving pairs of two-level quantum states whose relative phase can be tuned. This matters because frequency-bin encoding survives fiber transmission, is filterable by standard telecom technology, and could scale to many parallel channels without extra filtering loss. The evidence is Hong-Ou-Mandel interference on individual and multiplexed pairs, with visibilities of about 78 to 87 percent, plus a restricted density-matrix fidelity of 88.30 ± 1.15 percent for one frequency pair.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the polarization-entangled quantum frequency comb and the hybrid gate that converts polarization entanglement into frequency-bin entanglement. The comb is generated by pumping a high-Q silicon-nitride microring, with an FSR of about 99 GHz and a linewidth of about 190 MHz, bidirectionally in a Sagnac interferometer, so each of up to 14 signal-idler frequency pairs carries the polarization Bell state $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|H\rangle_s|H\rangle_i + e^{i\theta}|V\rangle_s|V\rangle_i)$. The hybrid gate combines a wavelength-selective switch, a polarizing beam splitter with 45-degree polarizers, and a QWP-HWP-QWP phase control, producing for each pair the state $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\omega\rangle_{s,m}|\omega\rangle_{i,m} + e^{i\theta}|\omega\rangle_{i,m}|\omega\rangle_{s,m})$; Hong-Ou-Mandel interference at a fiber beam splitter is the mechanism that detects the nonclassical beating, with the Lorentzian cavity lineshape setting the envelope and the frequency detuning setting the oscillation period.

What would settle it

Perform frequency-resolved projection measurements or full two-photon tomography on each of the 14 pairs; if the per-pair fidelity or visibility falls toward or below 50 percent for some pairs, or if adjacent-channel crosstalk from the wavelength switch raises accidental counts, the parallel-entanglement claim would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper asserts that fourteen pairs of polarization-entangled photons at different frequencies, produced by spontaneous four-wave mixing in a silicon-nitride microring inside a Sagnac loop, are simultaneously converted into discrete frequency-bin entangled states. The conversion uses a wavelength-selective switch that separates signal and idler modes into different spatial paths, a polarizing beam splitter that redirects horizontal and vertical components, and 45-degree polarizers that erase polarization information, leaving an entangled state in which each photon is split between two frequency channels. The paper supports this with Hong-Ou-Mandel interference fringes whose oscillation period matches each pair's frequency detuning, with visibilities between roughly 78 and 87 percent, and demonstrates that the entangled state's phase and exchange symmetry can be adjusted with a three-waveplate set. For one pair it reconstructs a restricted density matrix with fidelity 88.30 ± 1.15 percent to the target maximally entangled state.

Load-bearing premise

The 14-pair claim assumes the source emits the same polarization-entangled structure for every frequency pair and that the wavelength switch completely separates each pair, because full tomography was performed on only one pair.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the source emits many well-separated frequency pairs at once, the same device can supply a parallel set of frequency-bin entangled states without cascade filtering, avoiding the loss of post-generation filtering.
  • The phase control lets the experimenter switch each entangled state between symmetric and antisymmetric exchange symmetry, as shown by fringes shifting between dips and peaks at phases 0, π/2, π, and 3π/2.
  • Multiplexing multiple pairs produces a sharper central Hong-Ou-Mandel dip and revivals with a period set by twice the free spectral range, reflecting the broad spectrum of the combined entangled state.
  • The measured visibilities and single-pair density-matrix fidelity quantify how close these states are to maximally entangled states under the current loss and coupling imbalances.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The restricted density-matrix verification is performed on a single pair, so the paper's own acknowledged standard would require projection measurements in the frequency degree of freedom before claiming full certification of high-dimensional entanglement across all 14 pairs.
  • The measured imbalance p ≈ 0.70 in the computational basis means the per-pair state is not maximally entangled; engineering equalized losses across signal and idler paths would directly improve fidelity and could be tested without changing the source.
  • Because the conversion is deterministic and operates at telecom wavelengths, the same gate could in principle be used for fiber-network entanglement distribution, where frequency-bin states avoid polarization drift.
  • A natural next test is to apply the phase control independently to individual frequency pairs rather than uniformly, to confirm truly parallel programmable control over all 14 states.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports an experiment in which a polarization-entangled quantum frequency comb (QFC) generated by a silicon nitride microring in a Sagnac interferometer is converted into discrete frequency-bin entanglement. A wavelength selective switch separates signal and idler modes, a PBS and 45-degree polarizers map the polarization entanglement onto the frequency-bin degree of freedom, and wave plates control the relative phase. The authors measure Hong-Ou-Mandel interference for single frequency pairs (2nd, 5th, 10th, and 15th) with visibilities between about 78% and 87%, for multiplexed groups of 4, 9, and 14 pairs, and reconstruct a restricted density matrix for the 2nd pair with fidelity 88.30 ± 1.15% to a Bell state. The central claim is that fourteen pairs of polarization-entangled photons are simultaneously transformed into frequency-bin entangled states with controllable relative phases.

Significance. If the 14-pair parallel claim could be fully supported, this would be a valuable demonstration: a single integrated source plus a free-space hybrid gate would produce multiple parallel two-dimensional frequency-bin entangled states with controllable phase, relevant for frequency-domain quantum networks and entanglement distribution. The strengths of the paper are its use of a low-loss silicon nitride source with a large FSR-to-linewidth ratio, explicit single-pair HOM visibility data for several pairs, phase-dependent HOM fringe control, and the reconstruction of a restricted density matrix. However, the evidence directly certifying each of the 14 pairs is incomplete, and the multiplexed HOM data are used in a way that the paper itself acknowledges is insufficient for inter-pair phase characterization. The single-pair results are credible, but the headline parallel claim needs additional measurements or a more limited statement.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Eq. (4) and Fig. 3(d-f)] The multiplexed HOM interference curves are fitted as an incoherent sum of individual pair curves, and the text after Eq. (4) states that these results "cannot reflect the relative phase between different frequency pairs" and that full characterization requires frequency-domain projections (refs. [33-37]). Nevertheless, in the same section, the discussion of Fig. 4(b) uses the multiplexed HOM curve to conclude that "the relative phase does not change for different frequency pairs" and to claim parallel control over the high-dimensional state. This is an internal inconsistency: a measurement declared insufficient for inter-pair phase information is then used as evidence for exactly that phase information. The claim of parallel phase control is load-bearing for the abstract's central assertion and is not established by the data shown.
  2. [§3, Fig. 5 and density-matrix paragraph] The restricted density matrix and the fidelity of 88.30 ± 1.15% are reconstructed only for the 2nd frequency pair, using the balance parameter p, visibility V, and phase phi obtained from fits to the same or closely related data. This provides an in-sample validation for one pair, not a certification of the 14 pairs claimed in parallel. Single-pair HOM fringes are shown only for pairs 2, 5, 10, and 15, and the remaining pairs are not individually tested. The assumption that the polarization-entangled QFC of Eq. (1) has the same H/V coherence and phase for every frequency pair, and that the WSS isolates each pair without crosstalk, is load-bearing for the 14-pair claim and is not directly measured. Additional per-pair entanglement witnesses or frequency-domain projections are needed to support the parallel claim.
  3. [§3, Fig. 4(a) and 4(b)] The phase-control demonstration in Fig. 4(a) is performed for the 2nd pair only; the four-pair result in Fig. 4(b) shows a collective HOM pattern that is consistent with a common phase but does not distinguish a global rotation from independent per-pair rotations, nor does it certify entanglement in each pair. Because the abstract and conclusion assert simultaneous transformation of fourteen pairs, the evidence should either include per-pair phase and visibility data, or the claims should be reduced to the subset of pairs actually characterized.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2, Eq. (1) and Eq. (2)] The symbol θ is used for the phase of the polarization-entangled state in Eq. (1) and again for the relative phase of the frequency-bin state in Eq. (2), while later the quantum-beat phase is called φ. Using distinct symbols for these three phases would improve clarity.
  2. [§3, first paragraph] The word "exbibit" should be "exhibit".
  3. [§3, density-matrix display] The density matrix in the text is not typeset as a proper 4x4 matrix; the formatting is broken and should be corrected for readability.
  4. [§3, Fig. 2(a) and text] The HOM envelope width is given as about 8 ns, but the ODL scan range is 0 to 2.4 ns, so only part of the envelope is measured. The figure caption should state explicitly that the full envelope is not covered and that the fitted envelope relies on the independently measured cavity linewidth.
  5. [References] Reference [22] lists volume "272" which appears to be a typo for volume 26; please check the citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the central result is an experimental frequency-bin conversion with in-sample HOM and density-matrix characterization; minor self-citations and an internal consistency gap about inter-pair phases do not make the derivation circular.

full rationale

The paper is an experimental demonstration rather than a first-principles derivation, so the circularity burden is low. The polarization-entangled QFC model in Eq. (1) and the frequency-bin state in Eq. (2) are standard physical descriptions, not results derived from the conclusion. The HOM fringes in Figs. 2-3 directly witness entanglement for the measured pairs, and the multiplexed HOM analysis in Eq. (4) is a sum of independently characterized pair contributions. The reconstructed density matrix in Fig. 5 uses p from computational-basis counts, V from the pair-2 HOM beat, and phi from the multi-pair fit; the reported fidelity is therefore a function of the same fitted parameters, which is in-sample state reconstruction rather than an out-of-sample prediction, and the paper does not present it as a prediction. The QFC source is attributed to the authors' prior work Ref. [19], but the present paper independently measures the transmission spectrum, single-photon spectrum, and HOM interference, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The only notable issue is that after Eq. (4) the paper states that multiplexed HOM results 'cannot reflect the relative phase between different frequency pairs,' yet later uses Fig. 4(b) to conclude that 'the relative phase does not change for different frequency pairs.' That is an internal consistency or evidence gap about extrapolating from four measured pairs to all fourteen, not a circularity: no equation reduces to its own input by construction. No circular step is present, and the score reflects only minor self-citation and in-sample validation, not circular reasoning.

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

The central claims rest on standard QFC generation, the validity of the hybrid polarization-to-frequency conversion gate from Ref. [1], and the assumption that all 14 pairs behave identically. No new physical entities are introduced. The measured parameters V, phi, and p are fitted from the same data used for the density matrix.

free parameters (3)
  • HOM visibility V = 78.62%, 33.45%, 78.43%, 86.89%, 86.83%
    Fitted from quantum beat fringes and used to reconstruct the restricted density matrix and to claim entanglement.
  • Quantum beat phase phi = -0.1168 +/- 0.1094 rad
    Fitted from HOM interference of multiple frequency pairs; used in density matrix and fidelity calculation.
  • Balance parameter p = 0.701 +/- 0.005
    Obtained from computational basis coincidence counts (5914 +/- 77 and 2527 +/- 50); used as a diagonal element in the reconstructed density matrix.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The QFC source produces the polarization-entangled state of Eq. (1) with H/V coherence for all M frequency pairs.
    Invoked in Section 2 (Eq. 1); only the 2nd pair is fully characterized later in the paper.
  • domain assumption The PBS plus 45-degree polarizer implements a deterministic conversion from polarization to frequency-bin entanglement without adding which-path information.
    Used in Section 2 and relies on Ref. [1] rather than an in-paper proof.
  • domain assumption The HOM interference formula of Eq. (3) with a Lorentzian envelope describes the biphoton coincidence probability.
    Standard result used in Section 3 for all visibility and phase fits.
  • domain assumption Different frequency pairs contribute incoherently, so the multi-pair HOM result is the sum of single-pair curves (Eq. 4).
    Used for Fig. 3(d-f); assumes no inter-pair coherence or crosstalk.
  • domain assumption The QWP-HWP-QWP stack shifts the phase theta identically for all frequency pairs.
    Used in Fig. 4 to claim parallel phase control; not independently measured per pair.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discrete and parallel frequency-bin entanglement generation from quantum frequency comb." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PBZAKW3O

@misc{pith2026241118304,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discrete and parallel frequency-bin entanglement generation from quantum frequency comb},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PBZAKW3O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18304}
}
read the original abstract

Photons' frequency degree of freedom is promising to realize large-scale quantum information processing. Quantum frequency combs (QFCs) generated in integrated nonlinear microresonators can produce multiple frequency modes with narrow linewidth. Here, we utilize polarization-entangled QFCs to generate discrete frequency-bin entangled states. Fourteen pairs of polarization-entangled photons with different frequencies are simultaneously transformed into frequency-bin entangled states. The characteristic of frequency-bin entanglement is demonstrated by Hong-Ou-Mandel interference, which can be performed with single or multiple frequency pairs in parallel. Our work paves the way for harnessing large-scale frequency-bin entanglement and converting between different degrees of freedom in quantum information processing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18304 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Two-photon interference of different frequency pairs. (a-c) Coincidence counts in 60s of the 5 th, 10th and 15 th frequency pair (193.0THz￾194.0THz, 192.5THz-194.5THz and 192THz-195THz). (d-f) Coincidence counts in 30s of the 2-5 th, 2-10th and 2-15th frequency pairs. Red lines are fitting results considering the accidental coincidence counts. The phase 𝜃 between |𝜔⟩ 𝑠,𝑚 |𝜔⟩ 𝑖,𝑚 and |𝜔⟩ 𝑖,𝑚 |𝜔⟩ 𝑠,𝑚 in the frequency-… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. The density matrix of two-photon frequency-bin entanglement state for the 2 nd frequency channel (193.3THz-193.7THz). (a) The real part of the density matrix. (b) The imaginary part of the density matrix. 4. Conclusion In conclusion, we obtain a multi-mode discrete frequency-bin entangled state converted from a polarization-entangled biphoton QFC. We show that our integrated silicon nitride MRR, which provides a lar… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Introduction Frequency-bin entanglement is crucial for quantum information processing [1,2]. Firstly, frequency -bin encoding is well -suited for single -mode optical fiber transmission, making it a promising candidate for realizing entanglement distribution in quantum networks using existing fiber infrastructure. Secondly, with the advancement of integra...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The radius of our MRR is about 230𝜇𝑚, corresponding to the 99GHz FSR at telecommunication wavelength

    Experimental Setup First, as shown in Figure 1(a), a chip-integrated silicon nitride microring resonator (MRR) is placed in a Sagnac interferometer to generate a broadband polarization entanglement quantum frequency comb (QFC) through the spontaneous four-wave mixing process [ 19]. The radius of our MRR is about 230𝜇𝑚, corresponding to the 99GHz FSR at te...

    work page arXiv

  3. [3]

    QWP-HWP-QWP

    Experimental Results To characterize frequency-bin entanglement, we perform nonclassical Hong- Ou-Mandel (HOM) interference measurements on non-degenerate signal-idler photon pairs with different frequency detunings. A photon emitted from the PBS pass es through a tunable optical delay line (ODL) and coincides with another photon passing through a n FPC o...

    work page

  4. [4]

    We show that our integrated silicon nitride MRR, which provides a large ratio of FSR to single - photon bandwidth, guarantees the well-separation between different frequency modes

    Conclusion In conclusion, we obtain a multi-mode discrete frequency-bin entangled state converted from a polarization -entangled biphoton QFC. We show that our integrated silicon nitride MRR, which provides a large ratio of FSR to single - photon bandwidth, guarantees the well-separation between different frequency modes. Frequency D oF can transmit infor...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Ramelow, L

    S. Ramelow, L. Ratschbacher, A. Fedrizzi, N. Langford, A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2009, 103, 253601

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    H.-H. Lu, M. Liscidini, A. L. Gaeta, A. M. Weiner, J. M. Lukens, Optica 2023, 10, 1655

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    M. Kues, C. Reimer, J. M. Lukens, W. J. Munro, A. M. Weiner, D. J. Moss, R. Morandotti, Nat. Photonics 2019, 13, 170

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    A. Boes, L. Chang, C. Langrock, M. Yu, M. Zhang, Q. Lin, M.Loncar, M. Fejer, J. Bowers, A. Mitchell, Science 2023, 379, 6627

    work page 2023

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    X. Li, P. L. Voss, J. E. Sharping, P. Kumar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2005, 94, 053601

    2005

  2. [10]

    L. G. Helt, Z. Yang, M. Liscidini, J. E. Sipe, Opt. Lett. 2010, 35, 3006

    2010

  3. [11]

    Reimer, L

    C. Reimer, L. Caspani, M. Clerici, M. Ferrera, M. Kues, M. Peccianti, A. Pasquazi, L. Razzari, B. E. Little, S. T. Chu, D. J. Moss, R. Morandotti, Opt. Express 2014, 22, 6535

    2014

  4. [12]

    Reimer, M

    C. Reimer, M. Kues, P. Roztocki, B. Wetzel, F. Grazioso, B. E. Little, S. T. Chu, T. Johnston, Y. Bromberg, L. Caspani, D. J. Moss, R. Morandotti, Science 2016, 351, 1176

    2016

  5. [13]

    J. Chen, Z. H. Levine, J. Fan, and A. L. Migdall, Opt. Express 2011, 19, 1470

    2011

  6. [14]

    Mazeas, M

    F. Mazeas, M. Traetta, M. Bentivegna, F. Kaiser, D. Aktas, W. Zhang, C. A. Ramos, L. A. Ngah, T. Lunghi, E. Picholle, N. Belabas-Plougonven, X. L. Roux, E. Cassan, D. Marris-Morini, L. Vivien, G. Sauder, L. Labonté , S. Tanzilli, Opt. Express 2016, 24, 28731

    2016

  7. [15]

    J. A. Jaramillo-Villegas, P. Imany, O. D. Odele, D. E. Leaird, Z.-Y. Ou, M. Qi, A. M. Weiner, Optica 2017, 4, 655

    2017

  8. [16]

    Imany, J

    P. Imany, J. A. Jaramillo-Villegas, O. D. Odele, K. Han, D. E. Leaird, J. M. Lukens, P. Lougovski, M. Qi, A. M. Weiner, Opt. Express 2018, 26, 1825

    2018

  9. [17]

    Samara, A

    F. Samara, A. Martin, C. Autebert, M. Karpov, T. J. Kippenberg, H. Zbinden, R. Thew, Opt. Express 2019, 27, 19309

    2019

  10. [18]

    Samara, N

    F. Samara, N. Maring, A. Martin, A. S. Raja, T. J. Kippenberg, H. Zbinden, R. Thew, Quantum Sci. Technol. 2021, 6, 045024

    2021

  11. [19]

    Y.-R. Fan, C. Lyu, C.-Z. Yuan, G.-W. Deng, Z.-Y. Zhou, Y. Geng, H.-Z. Song, Y. Wang, Y.-F. Zhang, R.-B. Jin, H. Zhou, L.-X. You, Z. Wang, G.-C. Guo, Q. Zhou, Laser Photonics Rev. 2023, 17, 2300172

    2023

  12. [20]

    Z. Xie, T. Zhong, S. Shrestha, X. Xu, J. Liang, Y. Gong, J. C. Bienfang, A. Restelli, J. H. Shapiro, F. N. C. Wong, C. W. Wong, Nat. Photonics 2015, 9, 536

    2015

  13. [21]

    Maltese, M

    G. Maltese, M. I. Amanti, F. Appas, G. Sinnl, A. Lemaî tre, P. Milman, F. Baboux, S. Ducci, npj Quantum Inf. 2020, 6, 13

    2020

  14. [22]

    Chang, X

    K.-C. Chang, X. Cheng, M. C. Sarihan, A. K. Vinod, Y. S. Lee, T. Zhong, Y.-X. Gong, Z. Xie, J. H. Shapiro, F. N. C. Wong, C. W. Wong, npj Quantum Inf. 2021, 7, 48

    2021

  15. [23]

    W. Wen, W. Yan, C. Lu, L. Lu, X. Wu, Y. Lu, S. Zhu, X.-S. Ma, Phys. Rev. Applied 2023, 20, 064032

    2023

  16. [24]

    Hong, Z.-Y

    C.-K. Hong, Z.-Y. Ou, L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1987, 59, 2044

    1987

  17. [25]

    Z. Y. Ou, L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1988, 61, 54

    1988

  18. [26]

    Kaneda, H

    F. Kaneda, H. Suzuki, R. Shimizu, K. Edamatsu, Optics Express 2018, 272, 1416

    2018

  19. [27]

    Zhang, C

    Z. Zhang, C. Yuan, S. Shen, H. Yu, R. Zhang, H. Wang, H. Li, Y. Wang, G. Deng, Z. Wang, L. You, Z. Wang, H. Song, G. Guo, Q. Zhou, npj Quantum Inf. 2021, 7, 123

    2021

  20. [28]

    C. L. Morrison, F. Graffitti, P. Barrow, A. Pickston, J. Ho, A. Fedrizzi, APL Photon 2022, 7, 066102

    2022

  21. [29]

    Y. Chen, M. Fink, F. Steinlechner, J. P. Torres, Rupert Ursin, npj Quantum Inf. 2019, 5, 43

    2019

  22. [30]

    W. Wen, Z. Chen, L. Lu, W. Yan, W. Xue, P. Zhang, Y. Lu, S. Zhu, X.-s. Ma, Phys. Rev. Appl. 2022, 18, 024059

    2022

  23. [31]

    Fedrizzi, T

    A. Fedrizzi, T. Herbst, A. Poppe, T. Jennewein, A. Zeilinger. Opt. Express. 2007, 15, 15377

    2007

  24. [32]

    Wengerowsky, S

    S. Wengerowsky, S. K. Joshi, F. Steinlechner, J. R. Zichi, S. M. Dobrovolskiy, R. van der Molen, J. W. N. Los, V. Zwiller, M. A. M. Versteegh, A. Mura, D. Calonico, M. Inguscio, H. Hü bel, L. Bo, T. Scheidl, A. Zeilinger, A. Xuereb, R. Ursin, PNAS. 2019, 116, 6684

    2019

  25. [33]

    Yamazaki, R

    T. Yamazaki, R. Ikuta, T. Kobayashi, S. Miki, F. China, H. Terai, N. Imoto, T. Yamamoto, Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 8964

    2022

  26. [34]

    Y. Chen, S. Ecker, L. Chen, F. Steinlechner, M. Huber, R.Ursin, npj Quantum Inf. 2021, 7, 167

    2021

  27. [35]

    N. B. Lingaraju, H.-H. Lu, S. Seshadri, P. Imany, D. E. Leaird, J. M. Lukens, A. M. Weiner, Opt. Express 2019, 27, 38683–38697

    2019

  28. [36]

    Zhang, C

    L. Zhang, C. Cui, J. Yan, Y. Guo, J. Wang, L. Fan, npj Quantum Inf. 2023, 9, 57

    2023

  29. [37]

    Olislager, J

    L. Olislager, J. Cussey, A. T. Nguyen, P. Emplit, S. Massar, J.-M. Merolla, K. Phan Huy, Phys. Rev. A. 2010, 82, 013804. [34]M. Kues, C. Reimer, P. Roztocki, L. R. Corté s, S. Sciara, B. Wetzel, Y.-B. Zhang, A. Cino, S. T. Chu, B. E. Little, D. J. Moss, L. Caspani, J. Azañ a, ...

    2010

  30. [38]

    H.-H. Lu, J. M. Lukens, N. A. Peters, O. D. Odele, D. E. Leaird, A. M. Weiner, P. Lougovski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2018, 120, 030502

    2018

  31. [39]

    H.-H. Lu, E. M. Simmerman, P. Lougovski, A. M. Weiner, J. M. Lukens, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2020, 125, 120503

    2020

  32. [40]

    H.-H. Lu, K. V. Myilswamy, R. S. Bennink, S. Seshadri, M. S. Alshaykh, J. Liu, T. J. Kippenberg, D. E. Leaird, A. M. Weiner, J. M. Lukens, Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 4338

    2022

  33. [41]

    Fedrizzi, T.Herbst, M

    A. Fedrizzi, T.Herbst, M. Aspelmeyer, M. Barbieri, T. Jennewein, A. Zeilinger, New J. Phys. 2009, 11, 103052

    2009

  34. [42]

    S.Wengerowsky, S. K. Joshi, F. Steinlechner, H. Hubel, R. Ursin, Nature 2018, 564, 225

    2018

  35. [43]

    S. K. Joshi, D. Aktas, S. Wengerowsky, M. ončarić, S. P. Neumann, B. Liu, T. cheidl, . C. oren o, Ž. amec, . Kling, A. Qiu, M. Ra avi, M. tipčević, J. G. Rarity, R. Ursin, Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, 36

    2020

  36. [44]

    Zheng, C.-H

    Y. Zheng, C.-H. Zhai, D.-J. Liu, J. Mao, X.-J. Chen, T.-X. Dai, J.-S. Huang, J.-M. Bao, Z.-R. Fu, Y.-Y. Tong, X.-T. Zhou, Y. Yang, B. Tang, Z.-H. Li, Y. Li, Q.-H. Gong, H.-K. Tsang, D.-X. Dai, J.-W. Wang, Science 2023, 381, 221

    2023

Pith tools

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