Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Phase estimation in lossy optical interferometry without a reference beam

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Photon loss breaks the metrological equivalence between interferometers with and without a reference beam, and the paper derives the quantum Fisher information formulas showing how the two settings diverge.

desk verdict The no-reference QFI in Eq. (8) is missing a factor e^{-(1-η)|α|^2}; the corrected scaling kills the paper's main claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24770 v1 pith:ZE2O5RGH submitted 2025-05-30 quant-ph

Jun Tang , Dong-Qing Wang , Wei Zhong , Lan Zhou , Yu-Bo Sheng This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumFisherinformationphaseestimationentangledcoherentstatesphotonlossopticalinterferometryreferencebeamNOONmetrology
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 asks whether an external reference beam matters for the ultimate phase sensitivity of a lossy optical interferometer when the probe is an entangled coherent state (ECS). In the ideal lossless case the two settings are metrologically equivalent for the two-phase-shifting configuration; the paper derives the quantum Fisher information with photon loss and shows this equivalence fails. Without a reference beam, the probe must be phase-averaged into a mixture of NOON components, giving a Fisher information that contains a Heisenberg-scaling term decaying as $e^{-|\alpha|^2(1-\eta)}$ and, at high photon number, tracking the exponential loss degradation of NOON states. With a reference beam, the coherent superposition survives partial loss and the Fisher information retains a shot-noise term, so the two scenarios diverge as loss grows. The claimed practical consequence is that the known disadvantage of ECSs relative to NOON states in reference-assisted measurements disappears when no reference beam is used.

What carries the argument

The central object is the phase-averaged ECS, $\varrho_{\mathrm{ECS}}=2\mathcal{N}^2\bigoplus_n |c_n|^2 |n::0\rangle\langle n::0|$, an incoherent direct sum of weighted NOON states; because the QFI is additive on this block-diagonal mixture, the no-reference calculation reduces to summing the per-NOON lossy Fisher information $n^2\eta^n$. For the reference-assisted case the machinery is the spectral decomposition of the lossy two-component coherent state: after loss the two components $|\alpha\sqrt{\eta},0\rangle$ and $|0,\alpha\sqrt{\eta}\rangle$ are non-orthogonal with overlap $p=e^{-\eta|\alpha|^2}$, and Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization plus the formula $F=4(\lambda_+\Delta^2G_++\lambda_-\Delta^2G_--4\lambda_+\lambda_-|G_{+-}|^2)$ for the generator $G=(a_1^\dagger a_1-a_2^\dagger a_2)/2$ yields the compact asymptotic expression Eq. (21). The NOON-state comparison uses $F_{\mathrm{NOON}}=\eta^{\bar N}\bar N^2$ at equal mean photon number.

What would settle it

Send the entangled coherent state $|\alpha,0\rangle+|0,\alpha\rangle$ through a Mach-Zehnder with per-path transmittance $\eta\approx0.9$, and measure the optimal phase variance both with and without a reference beam at mean photon numbers around $\bar N=20,50,100$. The paper predicts that at $\bar N=100$ the no-reference QFI is about $e^{-10}\cdot10^4\approx0.45$, giving $\delta\phi\approx1.5$, while the reference-assisted QFI stays near $\eta\bar N=90$, giving $\delta\phi\approx0.1$; observing a reference-free sensitivity near the shot-noise floor at such photon numbers, or an exponential decay in the reference-assisted case, would contradict the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the two-phase-shifting operation $U^T_\phi=\exp[-i\phi(a_1^\dagger a_1-a_2^\dagger a_2)/2]$, the paper computes the quantum Fisher information (QFI) of an ECS probe $|\mathrm{ECS}\rangle=\mathcal{N}(|\alpha\rangle|0\rangle+|0\rangle|\alpha\rangle)$ in a lossy interferometer with equal per-path transmittance $\eta$. With no reference beam, phase-averaging makes the probe the mixed state $\varrho_{\mathrm{ECS}}=2\mathcal{N}^2\bigoplus_n |c_n|^2 |n::0\rangle\langle n::0|$, and additivity of the QFI gives $F_\varrho=2\mathcal{N}^2 e^{-|\alpha|^2(1-\eta)}(|\alpha|^4\eta^2+|\alpha|^2\eta)$. With a reference beam, diagonalizing the two-component lossy state and applying the mixed-state QFI formula gives, in the limit $\eta|\alpha|^2\gg1$, $F_\sigma=2\mathcal{N}^2(e^{-2|\alpha|^2(1-\eta)}|\alpha|^4\eta^2+|\alpha|^2\eta)$. At $\eta=1$ both reduce to the same lossless expression, reproducing the earlier equivalence; for $\eta<1$ the no-reference Heisenberg term is damped by one exponential factor and the reference-assisted term by two, and at large mean photon number the no-reference QFI scales like $\exp[-\bar N(1-\eta)]\bar N^2$, the NOON-state scaling, while the reference-assisted QFI approaches the shot-noise form $\eta\bar N$. The paper therefore concludes that photon loss breaks the equivalence and reverses the ECS-versus-NOON performance comparison depending on the reference.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the absence of a reference beam is equivalent to uniformly averaging the probe over all global phases, as in Eq. (3); if a real reference-free experiment implements the missing phase reference differently, the computed Fisher information and the comparison to the reference-assisted case could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At any nonzero photon loss, the two-phase-shifting interferometer has different ultimate sensitivity with and without a reference beam; the lossless equivalence is restored only at $\eta=1$.
  • At high mean photon number, reference-free ECS probes follow the NOON-state exponential loss scaling $\exp[-\bar N(1-\eta)]\bar N^2$, so the Heisenberg-like scaling term is effectively killed by loss.
  • Reference-assisted ECS probes keep a shot-noise-limited Fisher information $\eta\bar N$ at high photon number, so the presence of a reference beam becomes decisive for lossy metrology.
  • Because reference-free ECSs track NOON-state scaling, the intermediate-photon-number advantage of NOON states over reference-assisted ECSs disappears when the reference beam is omitted.
  • Photon-number-resolving measurements, which need no shared reference, should be benchmarked with Eq. (8) rather than with QFIs computed under the assumption of a reference beam.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Applied to other coherent-superposition probes, the phase-averaging argument suggests that loss will erase coherence between photon-number sectors and push their QFI toward the corresponding number-state mixture scaling, a consequence the paper does not develop.
  • Equation (21) is derived in the large-$\eta|\alpha|^2$ limit; the paper's exact two-state diagonalization could be pushed to finite sizes, which would sharpen the crossing points $N_1$ and $N_2$ in the comparison with NOON states.
  • Since Eq. (3) is a uniform prior over the global phase, a reference-free experiment with a peaked prior or adaptive phase tracking would be expected to interpolate between the no-reference and reference-assisted results.
  • A direct photon-counting or parity measurement of the output would realize the reference-free scenario by construction, making the predicted NOON-like decay of Eq. (8) experimentally testable without needing an external phase reference.
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 analyzes phase estimation in a lossy two-mode interferometer using entangled coherent states (ECSs), contrasting the scenario with a common reference beam against the reference-free scenario modeled by phase averaging the probe. The authors claim two main results: (1) the lossless metrological equivalence between the two scenarios for the two-phase-shifting configuration breaks down under photon loss, and (2) the known inferiority of ECSs relative to NOON states in the presence of a reference beam disappears when no reference beam is used. The central technical content is the evaluation of the quantum Fisher information (QFI), with Eq. (8) for the reference-free case and Eq. (21) for the reference case, followed by a comparison with NOON states.

Significance. The question addressed is timely and relevant: practical phase-estimation schemes often lack a stable reference beam, and the behavior of non-classical states under loss in that setting is of genuine interest. The paper uses standard QFI methods and correctly identifies that the loss channel is phase-covariant, which is a useful structural observation. However, the main advertised conclusion is overturned by a specific error in the reference-free QFI derivation. The corrected calculation shows that, at large photon numbers, the reference-free ECS performs much worse than NOON states, not comparably to them. Since the second key result in the abstract is false, the paper in its current form cannot be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III A, Eqs. (6)-(8)] The step from Eq. (6) to Eq. (7) is not valid for a lossy interferometer. Equation (6) is the phase-averaged probe before loss; after the loss channel, the supports of different NOON components overlap, so the QFI is not the weighted sum of the single-NOON QFIs n^2 eta^n. Because the loss channel is covariant under total phase shifts, the correct reference-free state is the phase average of the lossy ECS of Eq. (10), which is a direct sum over n of two-level blocks with diagonal weight a_n = N^2 exp(-eta|alpha|^2)(eta|alpha|^2)^n/n! and coherence b_n = a_n exp(-(1-eta)|alpha|^2). The QFI per block is 2 n^2 b_n^2/a_n, yielding F_rho^correct = 2N^2 exp(-2(1-eta)|alpha|^2)(eta^2|alpha|^4 + eta|alpha|^2). This is smaller than Eq. (8) by the factor exp(-(1-eta)|alpha|^2). Consequently, for mean photon number Nbar ~ |alpha|^2, the reference-free ECS QFI scales as exp(-2(1-eta)Nbar) Nbar^2, not as the NOON-like exp(-(1-eta)Nbar) Nbar^2 claimed in the paper. This error is load-bearing because Eq. (8) is the basis for the paper's second main conclusion.
  2. [Sec. III C, Fig. 2 and Eqs. (22)-(24)] The comparison of the reference-free ECS with NOON states and with the reference-beam ECS is based on the incorrect Eq. (8). With the corrected F_rho, the reference-free ECS at large Nbar decays exponentially faster than NOON states and is also exponentially smaller than the reference-beam ECS, whose QFI approaches the shot-noise floor eta Nbar according to Eq. (21). Therefore the statements that for N > N1 the reference-free ECS 'resembles NOON states' and that 'omitting the reference beam can be advantageous' are not supported. The abstract's claim that the inferiority of ECSs relative to NOON states disappears without a reference beam is reversed by the corrected calculation: the inferiority becomes much more pronounced in the reference-free case.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (5)] The expansion of the ECS as a superposition of NOON states should use the coefficients c_n, not |c_n|^2; as written, |ECS> = sqrt(2) N sum_n |c_n|^2 |n::0> is dimensionally and algebraically incorrect.
  2. [Eq. (13) and Appendix B] For a two-dimensional density matrix with trace one, the eigenvalues are gamma_+- = (1 +- sqrt(1 - 4 det sigma))/2. The manuscript writes sqrt(1 - det sigma) in Eq. (13) and Eq. (B5), which is inconsistent with the expression for zeta_+- in the main text and with the spectral decomposition.
  3. [Sec. III B] The full expression for F_sigma is never displayed; only the p -> 0 limit is given in Eq. (21). Please provide the exact closed form or a reproducible derivation in the appendix, so that the limit and the subsequent comparison can be checked.
  4. [Notation throughout] The symbol N is used both for the normalization constant of the ECS and for the mean photon number, leading to confusing expressions such as 'with N = N for ECSs' in the caption of Fig. 2. Please distinguish the two, e.g. with calligraphic N for the normalization and \bar N for the mean photon number.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central QFI derivations are self-contained, and the self-citations are methodological rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's main claims are obtained by direct QFI calculations, not by fitting parameters or by importing its conclusions from prior work. The no-reference result, Eq. (8), follows from summing QFIs of weighted lossy NOON components, Eq. (7), using the standard lossy-NOON formula F_noon = n^2 eta^n; no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. The with-reference result, Eq. (21), is derived in the appendix via spectral decomposition of the lossy ECS and the standard QFI formula, Eqs. (C1)-(C6). The lossless equivalence used as motivation is not merely cited: setting eta = 1 in Eqs. (8) and (21) reduces both to Eq. (9), so the paper re-derives the equivalence internally. Self-citations to Refs. [14,15,16,31] appear for methodology, the phase-averaging model, and earlier lossy-QFI formulas, but these are also supported by external references such as Refs. [13,32,37] or are standard textbook results; they do not carry the central claim. The phase-averaging model in Eq. (3) is an assumption about how a missing reference beam is realized, but it is the starting point of the model rather than a conclusion manufactured from the answer. A possible mathematical objection to the additivity used in Eq. (7) under loss would be a correctness or modeling concern, not circularity, because the derivation does not reduce to its own inputs by construction. Overall, there is no self-definitional step, no fitted-input-called-prediction, and no load-bearing chain of self-citations.

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

The central claim rests on standard modeling choices (phase-averaging for no-reference, beam-splitter loss) and standard QFI machinery. No free parameters are fitted, and no new entities are introduced. The main assumption to watch is the phase-averaging model.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Without a reference beam, the probe state must be represented by the phase-averaged state in Eq. (3), uniformly averaged over the total phase.
    This is the standard treatment (Refs. [32,37]) for phase estimation without a shared reference. The no-reference QFI (Eqs. 6-8) is built entirely on this state.
  • domain assumption Photon loss is modeled by two beam splitters of equal transmittance eta coupling each signal mode to vacuum, and the loss channel can be commuted with the phase shift for QFI purposes.
    Standard loss model from Refs. [38,39], used in Eq. (10) and Appendix A. The equal-loss assumption means the conclusions may not directly apply to unbalanced-loss interferometers.
  • standard math The QFI of an n-photon NOON state under equal loss is F_noon = n^2 eta^n.
    Known result cited to Refs. [13,31]; used in Eq. (7). Not derived in this paper.
  • standard math The QFI formula (C3) applies to the two-dimensional spectral decomposition, and QFI is additive over orthogonal subspaces invariant under the generator.
    Standard quantum estimation theory (Braunstein-Caves, Paris). Used to justify Eq. (7) and to write Eq. (15).
  • domain assumption The with-reference QFI is asymptotically evaluated in the limit p = e^{-eta|alpha|^2} << 1, giving Eq. (21).
    The paper does not display the exact F_sigma; the high-N conclusions and the shot-noise asymptote rest on this limit. For the crossing-point figure, an unshown exact expression is claimed used.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase estimation in lossy optical interferometry without a reference beam." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZE2O5RGH

@misc{pith2026250524770,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase estimation in lossy optical interferometry without a reference beam},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZE2O5RGH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24770}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate phase estimation in a lossy interferometer using entangled coherent states, with particular focus on a scenario where no reference beam is employed. By calculating the quantum Fisher information, we reveal two key results: (1) the metrological equivalence between scenarios with and without a reference beam, established under ideal lossless conditions for the two-phase-shifting configuration,breaks down in the presence of photon loss, and (2) the pronounced inferior performance of entangled coherent states relative to NOON states, observed in the presence of a reference beam, disappears in its absence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24770 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of a two-mode lossy optical interferome [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Log-log plot of phase sensitivity as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Luis, Phys

    A. Luis, Phys. Rev. A 64, 054102 (2001)

    work page 2001

  2. [1]

    Tse and et

    M. Tse and et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 231107 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [2]

    In what follows, we compute the QFI for ECS-based phase estimation within two dis- tinct scenarios: with and without a reference beam. 2 A. Phase sensitivity without a reference beam We first consider the scenario in which no reference beam is available. In this case, the phase-averaging op- eration defined in Eq. (

    work page

  4. [3]

    As a result, the ECS probe state given in Eq

    must be applied. As a result, the ECS probe state given in Eq. ( 4) becomes a mixed state, which can be expressed as a direct sum of weighted NOON states [ 15, 36] ̺ECS = 2 N 2 ∞⨁ n=0 |cn|2 |n :: 0⟩⟨n :: 0|. (6) According to the additivity property of the QFI, the QFI for this phase-averaged ECS can be directly calculated as F̺ = 2 N 2 ∞∑ n=0 |cn|2Fnoon, ...

    work page

  5. [4]

    first undergoes photon loss, followed by the phase accumulation process. Under such loss, the ECS evolves into a mixed state as σECS = Tr 34 [ V13V24 (|ECS⟩12⟨ECS|⊗| 00⟩34⟨00|)V † 24V † 13 ] = N 2 ( |α√ η, 0⟩⟨α√η, 0| + |0,α √η⟩⟨0,α √η| +e−(1−η)|α|2 |α√η, 0⟩⟨0,α √η| +e−(1−η)|α|2 |0,α √η⟩⟨α√η, 0| ) , (10) where |0⟩k (k = 3, 4) denote the vacuum states of the...

    work page

  6. [5]

    Phase estimation in lossy optical interferometry without a reference beam

    and quantum lithography [ 6]. The ultimate sensitivity for estimating an unknown phase in an interferometer is typically determined by the state of input light. When classical light is used, the sensitivity is bounded by the shot noise limit 1/ √ N , where N is the average photon number [7– 9]. In contrast, non-classical states of light can surpass this l...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  7. [6]

    D’Angelo, M

    M. D’Angelo, M. V. Chekhova, and Y. Shih, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 013602 (2001)

    work page 2001

  8. [7]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Science 306, 1330 (2004)

    2004

Show all 48 references
  1. [8]

    In the low intensity regime, where |α|2(1 −η) ≪ 1, we have e−2|α|2(1−η) ∼ 1, which leads to F̺ = Fσ ≈ 2N 2 ( |α|4η2 + |α|2η )

    and ( 21). In the low intensity regime, where |α|2(1 −η) ≪ 1, we have e−2|α|2(1−η) ∼ 1, which leads to F̺ = Fσ ≈ 2N 2 ( |α|4η2 + |α|2η ) . (22) This explains why, in Fig. ( 2), the QFIs of both ECS strategies nearly coincide in the low-photon-number regime. In the high intensi...

  2. [9]

    Acernese and M

    F. Acernese and M. e. Agathos (Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 231108 (2019)

    2019

  3. [10]

    Defienne, W

    H. Defienne, W. P. Bowen, M. Chekhova, G. B. Lemos, D. Oron, S. Ramelow, N. Treps, and D. Faccio, Nature Photonics 18, 1024 (2024)

    2024

  4. [11]

    Jin, Z.-Q

    R.-B. Jin, Z.-Q. Zeng, C. You, and C. Yuan, Progress in Quantum Electronics 96, 100519 (2024)

    2024

  5. [12]

    G. Qian, X. Xu, S.-A. Zhu, C. Xu, F. Gao, V. V. Yakovlev, X. Liu, S.-Y. Zhu, and D.-W. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 033603 (2023)

    2023

  6. [13]

    Y. M. Zhang, X. W. Li, W. Yang, and G. R. Jin, Phys. Rev. A 88, 043832 (2013)

    2013

  7. [14]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nat. Photon. 5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  8. [15]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010401 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    J. Joo, W. J. Munro, and T. P. Spiller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 083601 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    J. Joo, K. Park, H. Jeong, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, and T. P. Spiller, Phys. Rev. A 86, 043828 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    S. L. Braunstein, C. M. Caves, and G. Milburn, Annals of Physics 247, 135 (1996)

    1996

  12. [20]

    X.-X. Jing, J. Liu, W. Zhong, and X.-G. Wang, Communications in Theoretical Physics 61, 115 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    This leaves only the second term, which scales as shot noise limit: Fσ ∼η N

    (which corre- sponds to the Heisenberg-limit scaling) vanishes due to e−2|α|2(1−η) → 0. This leaves only the second term, which scales as shot noise limit: Fσ ∼η N . By contrast, for ECSs without a reference beam, the behavior resembles that of NOON states in this regime. Reca...

  14. [22]

    Zhong, L

    W. Zhong, L. Zhou, C.-F. Zhang, and Y.-B. Sheng, Quantum Information Processing 22, 56 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Tang, Z.-H

    J. Tang, Z.-H. Du, W. Zhong, L. Zhou, and Y.-B. Sheng, Chinese Physics B 34, 020303 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    X. Yu, X. Zhao, L. Shen, Y. Shao, J. Liu, and X. Wang, Opt. Express 26, 16292 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  18. [26]

    M. A. T. T. E. O. G. A. PARIS, Int. J. Quantum Inform. 07, 125 (2009)

    2009

  19. [27]

    Zhong, X

    W. Zhong, X. M. Lu, X. X. Jing, and X. G. Wang, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, 385304 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    R. A. Campos, C. C. Gerry, and A. Benmoussa, Phys. Rev. A 68, 023810 (2003)

    2003

  21. [29]

    H. F. Hofmann, Phys. Rev. A 79, 033822 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    W. N. Plick, P. M. Anisimov, J. P. Dowling, H. Lee, and G. S. Agarwal, New J. Phys. 12, 113025 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Chiruvelli and H

    A. Chiruvelli and H. Lee, J. Mod. Opt. 58, 945 (2011)

    2011

  24. [32]

    K. P. Seshadreesan, P. M. Anisimov, H. Lee, and J. P. Dowling, New J. Phys. 13, 083026 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    K. P. Seshadreesan, S. Kim, J. P. Dowling, and H. Lee, Phys. Rev. A 87, 043833 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Pezzé and A

    L. Pezzé and A. Smerzi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 163604 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Zhong, Y

    W. Zhong, Y. Huang, X. Wang, and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. A 95, 052304 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    G. S. Thekkadath, M. E. Mycroft, B. A. Bell, C. G. Wade, A. Eckstein, D. S. Phillips, R. B. Patel, A. Buraczewski, A. E. Lita, T. Gerrits, S. W. Nam, M. Stobińska, A. I. Lvovsky, and I. A. Walmsley, npj Quantum Information 6, 89 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Zhong, L

    W. Zhong, L. Zhou, and Y.-B. Sheng, Phys. Rev. A 103, 042611 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Jarzyna and R

    M. Jarzyna and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Phys. Rev. A 85, 011801(R) (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    Yurke, S

    B. Yurke, S. L. McCall, and J. R. Klauder, Phys. Rev. A 33, 4033 (1986)

    1986

  32. [40]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory (Academic, New York, 1976). 6

    1976

  33. [41]

    A. S. Holevo, Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982)

    1982

  34. [42]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 53, 023001 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 555 (2007)

    2007

  36. [44]

    Dorner, R

    U. Dorner, R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, B. J. Smith, J. S. Lundeen, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, and I. A. Walm- sley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 040403 (2009)

    2009

  37. [45]

    Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, U

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, U. Dorner, B. J. Smith, J. S. Lundeen, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, and I. A. Walm- sley, Phys. Rev. A 80, 013825 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    Israel, L

    Y. Israel, L. Cohen, X.-B. Song, J. Joo, H. S. Eisenberg, and Y. Silberberg, Optica 6, 753 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000)

    2000

  40. [48]

    Zhong, Z

    W. Zhong, Z. Sun, J. Ma, X. Wang, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A 87, 022337 (2013) . 7

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.