Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 27 references

Quantum Coherent State Transform on Continuous-Variable Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces the quantum coherent state transform (QCST), a six-gate circuit that encodes a continuous-variable state's position and momentum into two ancilla oscillators, whose momentum measurement samples the Husimi Q-function…

desk verdict Useful HQS circuit primitive, but the exact QCST claim is undercut by a load-bearing gate typo and the Heisenberg-limit claim is SQL in photon number. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12871 v2 pith:AVBFDBVD submitted 2024-12-17 quant-ph

Xi Lu , Bojko N. Bakalov , Yuan Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumcoherentstatetransformcontinuous-variablecomputingHusimiQ-functioncoherent-statePOVMsingle-shotparameterestimationgatecalibrationCV-DVtransfertwo-modeSUMgates
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 introduces the quantum coherent state transform (QCST), a unitary map that encodes the position and momentum information of a continuous-variable (CV) quantum state into the momentum amplitudes of two ancilla oscillators. It proves that a circuit of six two-mode SUM gates plus two vacuum ancillas implements this map exactly, and that measuring the ancillas in the momentum basis produces outcomes $\alpha = (p_1 + i p_2)/2$ whose probability density is the Husimi Q-function of the input state. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns coherent-state sampling into a single primitive: one copy of a coherent state suffices to estimate its parameter at the minimum-uncertainty limit, the same samples calibrate beam splitter and rotation gates at Heisenberg-limited precision, and repeated samples give Q-function tomography or Gaussian parameter estimation. The protocol also admits a DV-ancilla version that approximates QCST and supports CV-to-DV and DV-to-CV state transfer.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the QCST circuit: two vacuum CV ancillas, six two-mode SUM gates, and momentum-basis measurement of the first two modes. The first three gates create the entangled state whose momentum readout is the Q-function; the last three gates are claimed to reset the third oscillator to vacuum via $U_{\mathrm{reset}} = e^{i(-\hat{p}_2\hat{q}_3+\hat{p}_1\hat{p}_3)/\sqrt{2}}$, using the displacement identity $|\alpha\rangle\langle\alpha| = \frac{1}{\pi} \iint e^{-(p^2+q^2)/2 - 2i(p\,\mathrm{Re}\,\alpha + q\,\mathrm{Im}\,\alpha)} e^{i\sqrt{2}(p\hat{q}+q\hat{p})}\,dq\,dp$ obtained from the Wigner–Weyl transform of the coherent state's Gaussian Wigner function. The key mechanism is that momentum readout converts the non-commuting $(\hat{q},\hat{p})$ information of the input into commuting momentum outcomes of two ancillas, with the reset gates intended to return the input mode to vacuum.

What would settle it

Take the fourth through sixth gates in the printed order, apply them to the state on the right-hand side of Eq. (6), and compute the overlap of the third mode with vacuum; if this overlap is not $1$ for, say, $|\psi\rangle = |1\rangle_F$, or if the third mode retains entanglement with the ancillas, the exact reset step and hence the exact QCST statement fail, even though the momentum-measurement probabilities would still be Q-samples.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is Theorem 1: the quantum circuit in FIG. 1, acting on two vacuum ancilla oscillators and an arbitrary CV state $|\psi\rangle$, implements $|0\rangle_c |0\rangle_c |\psi\rangle \mapsto \mathrm{QCST}(|\psi\rangle) |0\rangle_c$, where $\mathrm{QCST}(|\psi\rangle) = \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}} \iint \langle \alpha | \psi \rangle |2\,\mathrm{Re}\,\alpha\rangle_p |2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\alpha\rangle_p \, d^2\alpha$. Measuring the two ancilla modes in the momentum eigenbasis and setting $\alpha=(p_1+ip_2)/2$ yields a probability density equal to the Husimi Q-function $Q(\alpha)=\frac{1}{\pi} \langle\alpha|\rho|\alpha\rangle_c$. Equivalently, the measurement is a coherent-state POVM with elements $\{\frac{1}{\pi} |\alpha\rangle\langle\alpha|\}$, so one circuit run draws a sample from the Q-function of the unknown state. The paper further claims this sample stream enables single-shot coherent-state parameter estimation at the minimum-uncertainty limit, single-shot Heisenberg-limited calibration of beam-splitter and rotation gates, Gaussian state parameter estimation from sample moments, efficient Q-function tomography by maximum likelihood, and approximate CV-DV state transfer with DV ancillas.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the last three SUM gates factor into the single unitary $e^{i(-\hat{p}_2\hat{q}_3+\hat{p}_1\hat{p}_3)/\sqrt{2}}$ that resets the third oscillator to vacuum; the paper states this factorization without derivation, and the printed gate list shows a final gate $e^{i\hat{p}_1\hat{q}_3/(2\sqrt{2})}$ that does not match the required $e^{i\hat{p}_1\hat{p}_3/(2\sqrt{2})}$, so the exact QCST output depends on an unproved gate-algebra step.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One copy of an unknown coherent state $|\beta\rangle$ is enough to estimate $\beta$ with variance $1/2$ in each quadrature, the minimum-uncertainty limit, and choosing bright inputs $|\alpha\rangle$ with large $\alpha$ makes beam-splitter and rotation gate calibration errors $O(|\alpha|^{-1})$.
  • With $M$ samples from a Gaussian state, the sample mean and covariance of $\alpha$ estimate the Q-function's mean and covariance with error $O(M^{-1/2})$, allowing squeezing-gate parameters to be calibrated.
  • For non-Gaussian states, repeated runs of the same circuit plus maximum-likelihood reconstruction recover the Husimi Q-function with error scaling $O(M^{-1/2})$, without pointwise phase-space scans.
  • The same construction extends to multimode states: applying the circuit per mode lets all $2n$ ancilla momentum outcomes sample the joint Husimi Q-function.
  • Replacing CV ancillas with DV systems and conditional displacement gates approximates QCST; in the limit of fine and wide grids the CV state is reset to vacuum and the information is transferred to DV registers, giving CV-DV and DV-CV state transfer.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not spell this out, but the QCST circuit can be read as a circuit-level coherent-state heterodyne measurement, so the same device that samples $Q(\alpha)$ could serve as a subroutine inside larger hybrid circuits for quantum state discrimination or Bayesian phase estimation.
  • The DV-ancilla approximation error in Eq. (E3) is governed by the lattice spacing $N\lambda$ and the finite square in phase space captured by the grid; the paper leaves open the design rule for choosing $(N,\lambda)$ optimally for a target state's known support.
  • The paper needs a separate phase-estimation protocol for displacement gates rather than direct coherent-state parameter estimation, suggesting that QCST samples directly certify gates whose action preserves coherent states up to parameter-dependent displacement or rescaling, and extending it to more general gates is an open direction.
  • The arbitrary-angle momentum readout mentioned in Appendix A could be combined with QCST to sample rotated Husimi functions, connecting it to standard homodyne tomography without pointwise scans; the paper does not develop that generalization.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a quantum coherent state transform (QCST), implemented by a six-gate circuit with two vacuum ancilla oscillators, which is claimed to map |0>_c|0>_c|ψ> to QCST(|ψ>)|0>_c. Measuring the first two oscillators in the momentum basis is shown to yield samples distributed according to the Husimi Q-function. The authors apply this primitive to single-shot coherent-state parameter estimation, beam splitter and rotation gate calibration, Gaussian state estimation, Husimi Q-function tomography, and approximate CV-to-DV and DV-to-CV state transfer using discrete-variable ancillas.

Significance. If the construction is correct, the Husimi Q-function sampling (HQS) part is an elegant and potentially useful circuit-level primitive: it converts the non-commuting position and momentum information of a CV state into commuting momentum information of two ancillas, and the measurement distribution is exactly the Husimi Q-function. The first-half circuit calculation is self-contained, analytic, and parameter-free, and the numerical demonstrations for Gaussian estimation and Q-function tomography support the practical appeal. The exact QCST statement, however, is not supported by the displayed circuit because of a gate-algebra inconsistency, and there are normalization errors in the central equations. These are local and fixable, but they affect the exact-state claim and the CV-DV reset application, so the paper needs revision before the full set of claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Proof of Theorem 1, Eq. (8) and FIG. 1] The gate list under FIG. 1 ends with e^{i p1 q3/(2√2)}, but Eq. (8) claims that the last three gates multiply to e^{i(-p2 q3 + p1 p3)/√2}. These are not equal. With the displayed final gate, the product of the last three gates contains an extra p1 q3 term and does not reset the third oscillator to vacuum. The correct reset gate is e^{i p1 p3/(2√2)}, used symmetrically around e^{-i p2 q3/√2}. As printed, the six-gate circuit does not implement QCST(|ψ>)|0>_c exactly. The HQS sampling probabilities are unaffected because the last three gates commute with p1 and p2, but the exact QCST theorem and any protocol relying on exact vacuum reset, such as CV-DV transfer, are not currently supported. Please correct the figure and the proof consistently.
  2. [Eq. (1) and Eq. (6)] There is a normalization-factor error in the definition of QCST and in the final line of Eq. (6). Converting dp1 dp2 = 4 d^2α in the preceding line gives 2/√π ∫∫ ⟨α|ψ⟩ |2 Re α>_p |2 Im α>_p |α>_c d^2α, not 2√π times the same integral. The factor 2√π should be 2/√π in both Eq. (1) and the last line of Eq. (6). As written, the state in Eq. (6) is not normalized and is internally inconsistent with the first line of that equation. The probability densities are unaffected by this overall factor, but the exact QCST definition and theorem statement need the corrected normalization.
  3. [Single-Shot Beam Splitter Calibration, Eq. (11)] The second component of the inversion formula appears to be missing parentheses or has a sign error. With Eq. (10), a direct calculation gives α β'* - α' β* = -i sin(θ/2) e^{iφ} (|α|^2 + |β|^2), so the correct estimator for the second component should be i(α β'* - α' β*)/(|α|^2+|β|^2). The printed expression i α β'* - α' β* divided by the same denominator is not equal to sin(θ/2) e^{iφ}; for example, for α=β>0 and φ=0, it vanishes instead of giving sin(θ/2). Since this formula is the basis for the claimed single-shot beam splitter gate calibration, it must be corrected before that application is reliable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Conclusion and Appendix C] The paper calls Δθ = O(α^{-1}) a Heisenberg limit, but with the mean photon number of the initial coherent states scaling as N ≈ 2|α|^2, this is the standard quantum limit scaling Δθ = O(N^{-1/2}), not the usual Heisenberg scaling O(N^{-1}). The definition in Appendix C is nonstandard and should be clarified to avoid misleading readers.
  2. [Gaussian State Estimation, Eq. (12) and surrounding text] The abstract says the protocol estimates the parameters of any Gaussian state, while Eq. (12) is written only for pure Gaussian states. The text later says the mixed-state case follows from the Gaussian form, but the equations should be stated for general Gaussian states or the pure-state restriction should be made explicit.
  3. [Appendix E, Eq. (E3)] The notation I_DV ⊗ |0><0|_CV in the error definition is not explained; clarify what D describes and what the projector represents after the approximate transfer.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including 'eignebasis' for 'eigenbasis' in the main text and garbled axis labels in FIGS. 2-6. These should be cleaned up in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QCST derivation is self-contained; the Eq. (8)/FIG. 1 gate-algebra inconsistency is a correctness concern, not a circular step.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain. The central object QCST is defined in Eq. (1) as an integral transform; Theorem 1 is proved by direct computation of the six two-mode SUM gates, using the vacuum position-basis expansion and the standard Wigner-Weyl identity Eq. (7), then identifying the momentum-basis measurement PDF with the Husimi Q-function in Eq. (2). No parameter is fitted to data and then relabeled as a prediction: the single-shot coherent-state estimator, Gaussian-state estimator, and Q-function tomography all start from the derived Q-function sampling distribution and are validated on simulated data, so none of them supplies an input to the proof of Theorem 1. The self-citations ([1], [12], [27]) supply a gate name, a metrology context, and an existing CV-DV transfer label; none is load-bearing for the QCST construction itself. The one substantive concern I found is technical rather than circular: Eq. (8) asserts the last three gates factor as exp[i(-p2 q3 + p1 p3)/sqrt(2)] without showing the BCH reduction, and the final gate printed under FIG. 1 is exp[i p1 q3/(2 sqrt(2))], which is inconsistent with that factorization. This is an omitted-derivation/correctness issue for the exact reset claim; it does not turn the theorem into a restatement of its inputs, and the HQS sampling probabilities are unaffected because those gates do not change the p1,p2 marginals. Hence no circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central theorem uses only standard quantum mechanics identities and ideal gate assumptions. The free parameters listed are application-level or implementation-level choices, not fitted values that make the main derivation work. No new physical forces, particles, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Fock cutoff Gamma = Gamma = 32 in Fig. 3
    Truncation level for maximum likelihood Q-function tomography. It is chosen by hand for the numerical experiment and affects reconstruction accuracy, but it is not fitted to data and is not part of the central theorem.
  • Grid size N and lattice spacing lambda for DV-ancilla QCST = N = 64, lambda = 0.5 in Fig. 5; N = 8 to 32 in Fig. 6
    Implementation parameters for the approximate discrete-variable ancilla version of QCST. They are chosen by the user and influence convergence, which is demonstrated numerically rather than proven rigorously.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Wigner-Weyl identity for coherent-state projectors, Eq (7): |alpha><alpha| equals an integral of Gaussian-weighted displacement operators.
    Used in the proof of Theorem 1 to evaluate the q1, q2 integrals. It follows from the coherent-state Wigner function and standard Weyl correspondence.
  • domain assumption Momentum eigenbasis measurement on ancilla modes yields ideal projection onto |2 Re(alpha)>_p |2 Im(alpha)>_p.
    The POVM equivalence assumes ideal noiseless SUM gates and exact momentum measurement. Realistic continuous-variable devices have finite squeezing and measurement inefficiency.
  • domain assumption For Gaussian state estimation and squeezing calibration, the unknown state is a pure Gaussian state with the form in Eq (12).
    The protocol's parameter recovery uses this promise, and the paper does not analyze robustness to mixedness or non-Gaussian noise.
  • ad hoc to paper For Q-function tomography, the state is a pure state truncated at Fock level Gamma.
    The maximum likelihood reconstruction in Eq (16) assumes psi_k = 0 for k >= Gamma. The choice of Gamma is application-dependent and affects fidelity.
  • domain assumption For DV-ancilla approximate QCST, there exist coefficients {c_j} such that the discretized displacement sum approximates the vacuum projector as N tends to infinity and lambda tends to zero.
    The convergence of CV-DV transfer relies on this approximation. The paper provides numerics but no rigorous convergence bound.
invented entities (1)
  • Quantum Coherent State Transform (QCST)
    purpose: Mathematical transform mapping a CV state into a superposition of two momentum-eigenstate ancilla modes weighted by Husimi amplitudes; serves as the central primitive for sampling and state transfer.
    QCST is a mathematical construction defined by Eq (1) and realized by the proposed circuit. It is not a physical entity with external falsifiable predictions beyond the circuit itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Coherent State Transform on Continuous-Variable Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AVBFDBVD

@misc{pith2026241212871,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Coherent State Transform on Continuous-Variable Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AVBFDBVD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12871}
}
abstract

While continuous-variable (CV) quantum systems are believed to be more efficient for quantum sensing and metrology than their discrete-variable (DV) counterparts due to the infinite spectrum of their native operators, our toolkit of manipulating CV systems is still limited. We introduce the quantum coherent state transform~(QCST) and a framework for implementing it in CV quantum systems with two ancilla CV states and six two-mode SUM gates. Measurement of the resulting quantum state under the momentum eigenbasis is equivalent to a positive operator-valued measure (POVM) with elements $\left\{\frac{1}{\pi} \left|\alpha\right\rangle \left\langle\alpha\right| \right\}_{\alpha \in \mathbb{C}}$ , which provides an efficient way to learn the original CV state. Our protocol makes it possible to estimate the coherent state parameter within minimum-uncertainty precision using a single copy of the state, which finds applications in single-shot gate calibration of beam splitter and rotation gates to arbitrary precision. With repeated runs of our protocol, one can also estimate the parameters of any Gaussian state, which helps to calibrate other Gaussian gates, such as squeezing. For non-Gaussian states, our protocols can be used to perform Husimi Q-function tomography efficiently. With DV systems as ancilla instead, we can realize QCST approximately, which can be used to transfer CV states to DV states and back. The simplicity and broad applicability of the quantum coherent state transform make it an essential tool in continuous-variable quantum information science and engineering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12871 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The quantum circuit for QCST, where the subscripts of those quadratures indicate the index of the oscillator. Each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Numerical experiment results of Q-function tomography on the test states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Error scaling for three test states using our method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The quantum circuit for QGT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The quantum circuit for single-shot displacement gate calibration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Comparison of CV-ancilla QCST and DV-ancilla approximate QCST. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The Husimi Q-function and the QCST coefficient amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hybrid oscillator-qubit quan- tum processors: Instruction set architectures, abstract machine models, and applications

    Yuan Liu, Shraddha Singh, Kevin C Smith, Eleanor Crane, John M Martyn, Alec Eickbusch, Alexander Schuckert, Richard D Li, Jasmine Sinanan-Singh, Miche- line B Soley, et al. Hybrid oscillator-qubit quan- tum processors: Instruction set architectures, abstract machine models, and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10381, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Hybrid oscillator-qubit quantum processors: Simulating fermions, bosons, and gauge fields

    Eleanor Crane, Kevin C Smith, Teague Tomesh, Alec Eickbusch, John M Martyn, Stefan K¨ uhn, Lena Funcke, Michael Austin DeMarco, Isaac L Chuang, Nathan Wiebe, et al. Hybrid oscillator-qubit quantum processors: Simulating fermions, bosons, and gauge fields. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03747, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Engineering quantum states of a nanores- onator via a simple auxiliary system

    Kurt Jacobs. Engineering quantum states of a nanores- onator via a simple auxiliary system. Physical review letters, 99(11):117203, 2007

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Dual-rail encoding with superconducting cavities

    James D Teoh, Patrick Winkel, Harshvardhan K Babla, Benjamin J Chapman, Jahan Claes, Stijn J de Graaf, John WO Garmon, William D Kalfus, Yao Lu, Aniket Maiti, et al. Dual-rail encoding with superconducting cavities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences, 120(41):e2221736120, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Fast universal control of an oscillator with weak dispersive coupling to a qubit

    Alec Eickbusch, Volodymyr Sivak, Andy Z Ding, Salva- tore S Elder, Shantanu R Jha, Jayameenakshi Venka- traman, Baptiste Royer, Steven M Girvin, Robert J Schoelkopf, and Michel H Devoret. Fast universal control of an oscillator with weak dispersive coupling to a qubit. Nature Physics, 18(12):1464–1469, 2022

    2022

  6. [6]

    Efficient, direct compilation of su (n) op- erations into snap & displacement gates

    Joshua Job. Efficient, direct compilation of su (n) op- erations into snap & displacement gates. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.11900, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Constructing qu- dits from infinite-dimensional oscillators by coupling to qubits

    Yuan Liu, Jasmine Sinanan-Singh, Matthew T Kearney, Gabriel Mintzer, and Isaac L Chuang. Constructing qu- dits from infinite-dimensional oscillators by coupling to qubits. Physical Review A, 104(3):032605, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Quantum error cor- rection with the gottesman-kitaev-preskill code

    Arne L Grimsmo and Shruti Puri. Quantum error cor- rection with the gottesman-kitaev-preskill code. PRX Quantum, 2(2):020101, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Encoding a qubit in an oscillator

    Daniel Gottesman, Alexei Kitaev, and John Preskill. Encoding a qubit in an oscillator. Physical Review A, 64(1):012310, 2001

    2001

  2. [10]

    Optimal hamilto- nian simulation by quantum signal processing

    Guang Hao Low and Isaac L Chuang. Optimal hamilto- nian simulation by quantum signal processing. Physical review letters, 118(1):010501, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Grand unification of quantum algo- rithms

    John M Martyn, Zane M Rossi, Andrew K Tan, and Isaac L Chuang. Grand unification of quantum algo- rithms. PRX quantum, 2(4):040203, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Single-shot quantum signal pro- cessing interferometry

    Jasmine Sinanan-Singh, Gabriel L Mintzer, Isaac L Chuang, and Yuan Liu. Single-shot quantum signal pro- cessing interferometry. Quantum, 8:1427, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Leveraging hamiltonian simulation techniques to compile operations on bosonic devices

    Christopher Kang, Micheline B Soley, Eleanor Crane, SM Girvin, and Nathan Wiebe. Leveraging hamiltonian simulation techniques to compile operations on bosonic devices. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15542, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Quantum-enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. Quantum-enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit. Science, 306(5700):1330–1336, 2004

    2004

  7. [15]

    Observation of gravitational waves from 6 a binary black hole merger

    Benjamin P Abbott, Richard Abbott, TDe Abbott, MR Abernathy, Fausto Acernese, Kendall Ackley, Carl Adams, Thomas Adams, Paolo Addesso, Rana X Ad- hikari, et al. Observation of gravitational waves from 6 a binary black hole merger. Physical review letters, 116(6):061102, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    Efficient multiphoton sampling of molecular vibronic spectra on a superconducting bosonic processor

    Christopher S Wang, Jacob C Curtis, Brian J Lester, Yaxing Zhang, Yvonne Y Gao, Jessica Freeze, Victor S Batista, Patrick H Vaccaro, Isaac L Chuang, Luigi Frun- zio, et al. Efficient multiphoton sampling of molecular vibronic spectra on a superconducting bosonic processor. Phy...

    2020

  9. [17]

    Experimental state tomog- raphy of itinerant single microwave photons

    Christopher Eichler, Deniz Bozyigit, C Lang, L Steffen, J Fink, and Andreas Wallraff. Experimental state tomog- raphy of itinerant single microwave photons. Physical Review Letters, 106(22):220503, 2011

    2011

  10. [18]

    Ro- bust readout of bosonic qubits in the dispersive coupling regime

    Connor T Hann, Salvatore S Elder, Christopher S Wang, Kevin Chou, Robert J Schoelkopf, and Liang Jiang. Ro- bust readout of bosonic qubits in the dispersive coupling regime. Physical Review A, 98(2):022305, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Quantum non-demolition detection of single microwave photons in a circuit

    BR Johnson, MD Reed, Andrew Addison Houck, DI Schuster, Lev S Bishop, Eran Ginossar, JM Gam- betta, L DiCarlo, L Frunzio, SM Girvin, et al. Quantum non-demolition detection of single microwave photons in a circuit. Nature Physics, 6(9):663–667, 2010

    2010

  12. [20]

    Quantitative tomography for continuous variable quantum systems

    Olivier Landon-Cardinal, Luke CG Govia, and Aashish A Clerk. Quantitative tomography for continuous variable quantum systems. Physical review letters, 120(9):090501, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Efficient multimode wigner tomography

    Kevin He, Ming Yuan, Yat Wong, Srivatsan Chakram, Alireza Seif, Liang Jiang, and David I Schuster. Efficient multimode wigner tomography. Nature communications, 15(1):4138, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Determination of quasiprobability distributions in terms of probability distributions for the rotated quadrature phase

    K Vogel and H Risken. Determination of quasiprobability distributions in terms of probability distributions for the rotated quadrature phase. Physical Review A, 40(5):2847, 1989

    1989

  15. [23]

    Quantum homodyne tomography of a two- photon fock state

    Alexei Ourjoumtsev, Rosa Tualle-Brouri, and Philippe Grangier. Quantum homodyne tomography of a two- photon fock state. Physical review letters, 96(21):213601, 2006

    2006

  16. [24]

    Learning quantum states of continuous variable systems

    Francesco Anna Mele, Antonio Anna Mele, Lennart Bit- tel, Jens Eisert, Vittorio Giovannetti, Ludovico Lami, Lorenzo Leone, and Salvatore FE Oliviero. Learning quantum states of continuous variable systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01431, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Progress towards practical qubit computation using approximate gottesman-kitaev- preskill codes

    Ilan Tzitrin, J Eli Bourassa, Nicolas C Menicucci, and Krishna Kumar Sabapathy. Progress towards practical qubit computation using approximate gottesman-kitaev- preskill codes. Physical Review A, 101(3):032315, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Universal unitary trans- fer of continuous-variable quantum states into a few qubits

    Jacob Hastrup, Kimin Park, Jonatan Bohr Brask, Radim Filip, and Ulrik Lund Andersen. Universal unitary trans- fer of continuous-variable quantum states into a few qubits. Physical Review Letters, 128(11):110503, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Quantum Coherent State Transform on Continuous-Variable Systems

    Yuan Liu, John M Martyn, Jasmine Sinanan-Singh, Kevin C Smith, Steven M Girvin, and Isaac L Chuang. Toward mixed analog-digital quantum signal processing: Quantum ad/da conversion and the fourier transform. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14729, 2024. Supplemental Material for “Quan...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.