Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 58 references

Direct Polarization-Entangled Photon Pair Generation Using Domain-Engineered Nonlinear Crystals

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 This paper claims that a single domain-engineered KTP crystal, in one pass of a femtosecond pump, directly produces polarization-entangled photon pairs at telecom wavelengths, with a CHSH parameter of 2.747 and a fidelity of 0.963 to the…

desk verdict Solid single-pass source with round JSI lobes; the new spectral characterization method needs a joint-spectral-phase check before it stands alone. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06460 v1 pith:PWMBFGLP submitted 2025-06-06 quant-ph

Anatoly Shukhin , Inbar Hurvitz , Leonid Vidro , Ady Arie , Hagai S. Eisenberg This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords polarizationentanglementspontaneousparametricdown-conversiondomain-engineeredcrystalquasi-phasematchingjointspectralintensityKTPquantumstatetomographytelecomwavelength
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 claims to have built a source of polarization-entangled photon pairs that needs only a single domain-engineered KTP crystal and a single pass of the pump, with no interferometer, no post-selection, and no temperature control. The crystal's phase-matching function is shaped as two spectral lobes with a $\pi$ phase difference; once a fiber add-drop filter separates the two frequencies, the biphoton state is the singlet Bell state $\left(|H\omega_1 V\omega_2\rangle - |V\omega_1 H\omega_2\rangle\right)/\sqrt{2}$. The authors certify this with a CHSH parameter $S=2.747\pm0.004$ and fidelity $0.963$ to the singlet, and they also reconstruct the polarization density matrix directly from the joint spectral intensity, avoiding full tomography. If correct, this makes high-quality telecom entanglement available in a compact and inexpensive package suitable for entanglement swapping and repeater protocols.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the engineered phase-matching function of the poled KTP crystal, written as a difference of two Gaussians with opposite signs. That antisymmetric two-lobe structure makes the joint spectral amplitude antisymmetric under swapping signal and idler frequencies, and the sign difference becomes the minus sign in the Bell state after frequency separation. The second mechanism is the overlap integral of the measured joint spectral intensity with its frequency-swapped version, which bounds the degree of polarization entanglement and, under a real-JSA assumption, supplies the off-diagonal elements of the two-photon polarization density matrix directly from spectral data.

What would settle it

Measure the spectral phase of the emitted biphotons directly, for example by recording two-photon interference fringes while scanning a phase applied to one lobe, and check that the lobes are exactly $\pi$ apart with no additional frequency-dependent phase; if extra phase appears, the JSI-derived concurrence and purity of $0.9955$ are not the true state values.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that spectral shaping of the phase-matching function is by itself enough to create polarization entanglement. A $4\,\mathrm{mm}$ KTP crystal poled so its phase-matching function is a difference of two Gaussians at $1548\,\mathrm{nm}$ and $1572\,\mathrm{nm}$ produces the two collinear type-II processes $|H\omega_1 V\omega_2\rangle$ and $|V\omega_1 H\omega_2\rangle$ with opposite phase. Because the JSA lobes are round rather than elongated, each frequency mode is nearly pure, and after an add-drop filter traces out the frequency the polarization state is close to $|\Psi^-\rangle$, with measured CHSH $S=2.747\pm0.004$, concurrence $0.948\pm0.004$, and fidelity $0.963\pm0.001$. The paper further claims that the density matrix can be obtained from the JSI alone: under the assumption that the joint spectral amplitude is real with only a $\pi$ phase between lobes, the off-diagonal element $f_{12}$ is the overlap integral of the two lobes, giving predicted concurrence and purity of $0.9956$ and $0.9955$, close to the QST values.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the joint spectral amplitude of the photon pair is real everywhere except for the engineered pi phase between the two lobes, so that the measured joint spectral intensity can be used directly to compute entanglement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Interferometric designs such as Sagnac loops and crossed crystals can be replaced by a single compact crystal, improving mechanical stability and removing active stabilization.
  • Round lobes give a measured single-photon spectral purity of about 0.494, the regime needed for high-visibility interference between two independent sources in entanglement swapping.
  • Polarization entanglement can be certified from joint spectral intensity measurements alone, providing a fast alignment-tolerant check that complements quantum state tomography.
  • The source runs at room temperature with pulsed or continuous pumping, so it can move beyond the laboratory to field quantum communication at telecom wavelengths.
  • The same design can be translated to waveguides or optical cavities to raise pair-generation rate or spectral brightness, and to other lobe shapes for time-energy entanglement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The spectral reconstruction method depends on the real-JSA assumption; a direct stress test is to add a controlled spectral phase (for example by chirping the pump) and compare the JSI-derived concurrence with quantum state tomography, since the method has no built-in way to detect such phase.
  • The two-lobe pattern is not tied to KTP: the same phase-matching design in other crystals or waveguides should produce the same entanglement, which could be checked by repeating the JSI-overlap measurement on a lithium-niobate waveguide.
  • A natural continuation is to use the group-velocity-matching robustness to run the source with a free-running diode pump instead of a mode-locked Ti:sapphire laser, testing the claimed insensitivity to pump and temperature fluctuations in an unstabilized setting.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper reports a single-pass, single-crystal, post-selection-free SPDC source based on a domain-engineered KTP crystal with a two-lobe phase-matching function. The crystal generates the polarization-frequency correlated state (|Hω1Vω2⟩ − |Vω1Hω2⟩)/√2, which is converted to a polarization-entangled state by frequency separation in a fiber add-drop filter. The authors characterize the source by joint spectral intensity (JSI) measurements, quantum state tomography (QST), CHSH inequality tests, polarization visibility, and pump-power-dependent squeezing estimates. The measured CHSH parameter is S = 2.747 ± 0.004, the reconstructed state has fidelity 0.963 to the singlet state, and the JSI lobes are reported to be round. A second contribution is a claimed direct extraction of the polarization density matrix from the measured JSI, yielding concurrence and purity of about 0.9956. The paper argues that the spectral and tomographic methods are complementary and in good agreement.

Significance. If the source and the spectral characterization method both hold, this is a practically useful advance: a compact, stable, single-pass source of telecom-wavelength polarization entanglement with a design that is potentially suitable for entanglement swapping and quantum repeater applications. A notable strength is that the central source claim is supported by independent evidence: the CHSH violation, the QST fidelity, and the visibility measurements do not rely on the contested spectral-phase assumption. The JSI measurement and the QST measurement are independent, and the phase-matching parameters in Eq. (5) are design inputs rather than fitted outputs, so there is no circularity in the main results. However, the paper's advertised JSI-to-density-matrix method rests on an explicitly assumed real-valued joint spectral amplitude, and the stated confirmation of that assumption by QST is not direct. The methodological claim therefore needs additional support before the paper can be accepted as it stands.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (9) and Appendix A, Eq. (15)] The spectral extraction of the polarization density matrix assumes that the JSA is real-valued with only a π phase difference between the two lobes. The paper states in Sec. 3.2 that this assumption 'will be confirmed through quantum state tomography,' but QST after the ADF measures only the polarization qubit state and is insensitive to the joint spectral phase. The discrepancy between the spectral concurrence/purity (0.9956/0.9955) and the QST concurrence/purity (0.948/0.948) is not explained, and a residual joint or nonlinear spectral phase would directly reduce the off-diagonal overlap f12 and hence the spectral concurrence. Please provide a direct measurement or an explicit bound on the joint spectral phase (for example, via a spectrally resolved two-photon interference or a quantum-beat measurement), and quantify how such a phase propagates to the extracted density matrix. Alternatively, the spectral values should be presented as an upper bound and the claim of a validated spectral-only reconstruction should be correspondingly softened.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (12)] The spectral density matrix in Eq. (12) has zero HH and VV populations by construction, so the method cannot detect population errors, polarization-dependent loss, or frequency-bin crosstalk at the ADF. The statement of 'good agreement' with QST is therefore not a full validation of the spectral method: the QST density matrix in Fig. 3 may contain small but nonzero HH and VV terms or other coherences that the spectral method cannot represent. Please compare the two density matrices element by element, including the terms that are forced to zero in Eq. (12), and discuss whether the 0.048 gap in concurrence is consistent with the stated experimental imperfections or whether it indicates a limitation of the spectral method.
  3. [Sec. 4, Conclusions] The statement that the source 'will operate under both pulsed and continuous-wave pumping' is not demonstrated in this paper; all reported measurements use a mode-locked Ti:sapphire pump. The JSA factorization in Eq. (4) depends on the pump spectral amplitude, and a CW pump changes the shape and symmetry of the two lobes. Either provide a CW-pumped measurement or explicitly qualify this statement as a design prediction rather than an experimental result.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sec. 3.2] The quantity called 'single-photon spectral purity' with values 0.496 and 0.494 is the purity of the reduced state of the total two-photon field, not the purity of a single lobe; please clarify the terminology or rename the quantity.
  2. [Sec. 2, Eq. (5)] The phase-matching parameters σ = 333 m^-1 and a = 2700 m^-1 are given, but the physical poling pattern that realizes this PMF is not described; including the domain structure or a reference to the design would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Fig. 4(a)] The caption reports V_V = 1.00, which is at the physical upper bound; please give the fit uncertainty for this value and explain how the average of 97% in the {H,V} basis is computed from V_H = 0.94 and V_V = 1.00.
  4. [Fig. 4(a)] The text says 'R-square > 0.99 (for all four fits)' but does not define the fitting metric; please state whether this is the coefficient of determination for the nonlinear sine fits and how it is calculated.
  5. [Introduction and Sec. 3.1] The term 'post-selection-free' is used for a scheme that nevertheless contains an ADF; since the ADF does not discard events based on measurement outcomes, the term is likely appropriate, but it should be defined or qualified to avoid confusion with frequency filtering.
  6. [Data availability] The data availability statement says the data are not publicly available; making the raw JSI and QST datasets available as supplementary material would allow readers to verify the reported uncertainties and the element-by-element comparison suggested above.
  7. [References] Reference [36] is cited as an arXiv preprint; if a peer-reviewed version exists, it should be cited instead.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity: the entanglement claim is anchored by an external Bell test (S = 2.747 ± 0.004) and independent QST, while the JSI-derived concurrence is a model-bound spectral witness whose real-JSA assumption is explicitly stated, flagged, and only partially confirmed by QST.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained, so no circular step meets the bar for a finding. The headline entanglement claim is anchored to external benchmarks: the CHSH parameter S = 2.747 ± 0.004 is a Bell-inequality test against the classical bound, and the quantum state tomography (QST, Ref. 45) reconstructs the density matrix from 16 independent polarization projections; neither result is fitted to, or calibrated by, the crystal design. The phase-matching parameters in Eq. 5 (σ = 333 m^-1 and a = 2700 m^-1) are stated design inputs, not fitted outputs, and the measured JSI (Fig. 2(b)) is a falsifiable check of that design. The spectral characterization (Sec. 3.2, Eqs. 9-15) is a model-based witness rather than a circular prediction: the density-matrix elements f_mn are defined as JSA-lobe overlaps in Appendix A and Eq. 15, the overlap integral η (Eq. 9) is explicitly labeled 'an upper limit for the degree of polarization entanglement,' and the quoted values (f12 = −0.4978, concurrence 0.9956) are deterministic transforms of the measured JSI under the stated real-JSA assumption. That assumption is the paper's own flagged limitation and must be weighed: Sec. 3.2 says 'we assume that the JSA is a real-valued function, neglecting any joint/nonlinear spectral phase dependence... the validity of this assumption will be confirmed through quantum state tomography.' The confirmation is incomplete, because the QST concurrence (0.948 ± 0.004) is about 5% below the spectral value (0.9956 ± 0.0004) beyond error bars, and Sec. 3.3 concedes the spectral method 'does not directly characterize polarization entanglement.' This is a validity risk for the advertised spectral-only state characterization (an unmeasured joint spectral phase could lower the lobe overlap), not a circular reduction, since the spectral result is never fed back into the QST or CHSH results, and the source claim survives independently. The same-group citations (Refs. 34, 35, 37, 38, 39) support standard formulas and the group's own spectral-shaping technique; they are parameter-free and externally testable here via the measured JSI and the independent QST, so they are not load-bearing circularity. The squeezing estimate (Sec. 3.4) is openly described as a fit r = C sqrt(P_pump) and is peripheral to the entanglement claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Two design parameters control the phase-matching lobes and one fit constant is used for the squeezing estimate; all are disclosed. The main axioms are standard weak-coupling SPDC, the real-JSA assumption, and ideal add-drop filter behavior. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Phase-matching lobe separation a = a = 2700 m^-1
    Chosen in Eq. 5 to place the two type-II SPDC lobes at 1548 nm and 1572 nm. It is a design knob, not fitted to the measured entanglement, but it fixes the frequency bins of the generated state.
  • Phase-matching lobe width sigma = sigma = 333 m^-1
    Chosen to give 13 nm FWHM spectral lobes. It shapes the roundness of the JSI and therefore the single-photon spectral purity reported in Sec. 3.2.
  • Squeezing fit coefficient C = fit value not reported; r = C sqrt(P_pump)
    Introduced in Sec. 3.4 to convert measured visibility reduction into a squeezing parameter. This is a fit to the pump-power data, not an independent measurement.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption First-order SPDC perturbation theory (Eq. 3) applies in the low-gain regime kappa < 1.
    The state in Eq. 6 is a single-biphoton term from first-order theory. At 50 mW the paper estimates kappa = 0.5, and at 620 mW kappa = 1.8, so high-power squeezing extraction requires multi-pair corrections.
  • domain assumption The JSA is real-valued up to a pi phase between the two lobes, with no joint spectral phase.
    Explicitly assumed in Sec. 3.2. It is needed to replace the JSA by the square root of the measured JSI and to obtain the density matrix elements in Eq. 15.
  • domain assumption The add-drop filter behaves as an ideal frequency splitter, sending the two lobes to separate arms with no cross-talk.
    Used in Eq. 11 and Appendix A. If the ADF has finite extinction or non-ideal cut-off, the traced polarization density matrix in Eq. 15 is not exact.
  • ad hoc to paper The two type-II SPDC processes have equal amplitudes and a pi phase relation, imposed by the crystal poling.
    The source design in Eq. 5 deliberately engineers two equal-amplitude PMF lobes with opposite phase. This is a design postulate of the crystal rather than a derived result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Direct Polarization-Entangled Photon Pair Generation Using Domain-Engineered Nonlinear Crystals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PWMBFGLP

@misc{pith2026250606460,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Direct Polarization-Entangled Photon Pair Generation Using Domain-Engineered Nonlinear Crystals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PWMBFGLP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06460}
}
abstract

A bi-photon polarization-frequency entanglement source was realized by shaping the phase-matching function of a poled KTP crystal. It provides a simple method to achieve either polarization or spectral entanglement in a simple collinear setup, based on single-pass SPDC and a dichroic (or polarizing) beam splitter. This is a robust and cost-effective configuration that can be easily implemented outside the laboratory environment. We characterized the source by two approaches: reconstructing the density matrix of the generated state with quantum state tomography, by recording the coincidences across 16 mutual polarization settings, in addition to a new method based on quantifying the symmetry of the joint spectral intensity by swapping between the signal and idler wavelengths. The polarization-entangled source violates the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality with a measured $S=2.747\pm 0.004$. We also measured the polarization entanglement visibility in two mutually unbiased polarization bases and evaluated the squeezing level by characterizing the reduction in visibility at high pump power.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06460 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Experimental scheme for direct generation and characterization of polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spectral characterization of the source. Simulated (a) and measured (b) JSIs, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Reconstructed density matrix 𝜌. From left to right: real, imaginary, and absolute values of 𝜌 are shown. Based on this matrix, the purity is 𝑃 = 0.948 ± 0.003, the concurrence is 𝐶 = 0.948 ± 0.004, and the fidelity with respect to the |𝛹 −⟩ state is 0.963 ± 0.001. The CHSH parameter is 𝑆 = 2.747 ± 0.004. calculated to be 0.963 ± 0.001. As a result, the purity and concurrence of the generated state were characterized… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Polarization entanglement visibility. The measure data points are fitted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Experimental quantum teleportation,

    D. Bouwmeester, J.-W. Pan, K. Mattle,et al., “Experimental quantum teleportation,” Nature390, 575–579 (1997)

    1997

  2. [2]

    Experimental entanglement swapping: Entangling photons that never interacted,

    J.-W. Pan, D. Bouwmeester, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, “Experimental entanglement swapping: Entangling photons that never interacted,” Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 3891–3894 (1998)

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    Quantum cryptography based on bell’s theorem,

    A. K. Ekert, “Quantum cryptography based on bell’s theorem,” Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 661–663 (1991)

    work page 1991

  4. [4]

    A significant-loophole-free test of bell’s theorem with entangled photons,

    M. Giustina, M. A. Versteegh, S. Wengerowsky,et al., “A significant-loophole-free test of bell’s theorem with entangled photons,” inQuantum information science and technology III, vol. 10442 (SPIE, 2017), pp. 19–27

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Experiment and the foundations of quantum physics,

    A. Zeilinger, “Experiment and the foundations of quantum physics,” Rev. Mod. Phys.71, S288 (1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    Entangled photon-pair sources based on three-wave mixing in bulk crystals,

    A. Anwar, C. Perumangatt, F. Steinlechner,et al., “Entangled photon-pair sources based on three-wave mixing in bulk crystals,” Rev. Sci. Instruments92 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Invited review article: Single-photon sources and detectors,

    M. D. Eisaman, J. Fan, A. Migdall, and S. V. Polyakov, “Invited review article: Single-photon sources and detectors,” Rev. scientific instruments82, 071101 (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Measuring the time–frequency properties of photon pairs: A short review,

    I. Gianani, M. Sbroscia, and M. Barbieri, “Measuring the time–frequency properties of photon pairs: A short review,” AVS Quantum Sci.2 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Postselection-free energy-time entanglement,

    D. Strekalov, T. Pittman, A. Sergienko,et al., “Postselection-free energy-time entanglement,” Phys. Rev. A54, R1 (1996)

    1996

  2. [10]

    Transverse entanglement migration in hilbert space,

    K. Chan, J. Torres, and J. Eberly, “Transverse entanglement migration in hilbert space,” Phys. Rev. A75, 050101– 050101 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    Transverse entanglement of biphotons,

    F. Just, A. Cavanna, M. V. Chekhova, and G. Leuchs, “Transverse entanglement of biphotons,” New J. Phys.15, 083015 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    Direct generation of high brightness path entangled n00n states using structured crystals and shaped pump beams,

    G. D. Domenico, S. Pearl, A. Karnieli,et al., “Direct generation of high brightness path entangled n00n states using structured crystals and shaped pump beams,” Opt. Express30, 21535–21543 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Directgenerationofspatiallyentangledquditsusingquantumnonlinear optical holography,

    O.Yesharim,S.Pearl,J.Foley-Comer, et al.,“Directgenerationofspatiallyentangledquditsusingquantumnonlinear optical holography,” Sci. Adv.9, eade7968 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Orbital angular momentum correlations of entangled paired photons,

    C. I. Osorio, G. Molina-Terriza, and J. P. Torres, “Orbital angular momentum correlations of entangled paired photons,” J. Opt. A: Pure Appl. Opt.11, 094013 (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    Hyperentanglement in structured quantum light,

    F. Graffitti, V. D’Ambrosio, M. Proietti,et al., “Hyperentanglement in structured quantum light,” Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043350 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Frequency-correlated photon-pairs tunable across the telecom spectrum via cascaded shg+ spdc in ppln,

    A. Samantaray, V. K. Yadav, J. Ghosh, and V. Venkataraman, “Frequency-correlated photon-pairs tunable across the telecom spectrum via cascaded shg+ spdc in ppln,” Opt. Commun.550, 129961 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    New high-intensity source of polarization-entangled photon pairs,

    P. G. Kwiat, K. Mattle, H. Weinfurter,et al., “New high-intensity source of polarization-entangled photon pairs,” Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 4337–4341 (1995)

    1995

  10. [18]

    High-flux source of polarization-entangled photons from a periodically poled ktiopo 4 parametric down-converter,

    C. E. Kuklewicz, M. Fiorentino, G. Messin,et al., “High-flux source of polarization-entangled photons from a periodically poled ktiopo 4 parametric down-converter,” Phys. Rev. A69, 013807 (2004)

    2004

  11. [19]

    Pulsedsagnacsourceofpolarization-entangledphotonpairsintelecommunication band,

    H.Kim,O.Kwon,andH.S.Moon,“Pulsedsagnacsourceofpolarization-entangledphotonpairsintelecommunication band,” Sci. reports9, 5031 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Efficient and pure femtosecond-pulse-length source of polarization-entangled photons,

    M. M. Weston, H. M. Chrzanowski, S. Wollmann,et al., “Efficient and pure femtosecond-pulse-length source of polarization-entangled photons,” Opt. express24, 10869–10879 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Cw-pumpedtelecombandpolarizationentangledphotonpairgeneration in a sagnac interferometer,

    Y.Li,Z.-Y.Zhou,D.-S.Ding,andB.-S.Shi,“Cw-pumpedtelecombandpolarizationentangledphotonpairgeneration in a sagnac interferometer,” Opt. Express23, 28792–28800 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Pulsed sagnac polarization-entangled photon source with a ppktp crystal at telecom wavelength,

    R.-B. Jin, R. Shimizu, K. Wakui,et al., “Pulsed sagnac polarization-entangled photon source with a ppktp crystal at telecom wavelength,” Opt. Express22, 11498–11507 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Bright, single-spatial-mode source of frequency non-degenerate, polarization-entangled photon pairs using periodically poled ktp,

    M. Pelton, P. Marsden, D. Ljunggren,et al., “Bright, single-spatial-mode source of frequency non-degenerate, polarization-entangled photon pairs using periodically poled ktp,” Opt. Express12, 3573–3580 (2004)

    2004

  16. [24]

    High-fidelity transmission of polarization encoded qubits from an entangled source over 100 km of fiber,

    H. Hübel, M. R. Vanner, T. Lederer,et al., “High-fidelity transmission of polarization encoded qubits from an entangled source over 100 km of fiber,” Opt. Express15, 7853–7862 (2007)

    2007

  17. [25]

    Phase-stable source of polarization-entangled photons in a linear double-pass configuration,

    F. Steinlechner, S. Ramelow, M. Jofre,et al., “Phase-stable source of polarization-entangled photons in a linear double-pass configuration,” Opt. express21, 11943–11951 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    Sources of photonic entanglement for applications in space,

    F. Steinlechner, “Sources of photonic entanglement for applications in space,” Ph.D. thesis (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    On-chip generation of hybrid polarization-frequency entangled biphoton states,

    S. Francesconi, A. Raymond, R. Duhamel,et al., “On-chip generation of hybrid polarization-frequency entangled biphoton states,” Photon. Res.11, 270–278 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    A novel single-crystal & single-pass source for polarisation- and colour-entangled photon pairs,

    F. Laudenbach, S. Kalista, M. Hentschel,et al., “A novel single-crystal & single-pass source for polarisation- and colour-entangled photon pairs,” Sci. Reports7, 7235 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Demonstration of a polarization-entangled photon-pair source based on phase-modulated ppln,

    P. S. Kuo, V. B. Verma, and S. Woo Nam, “Demonstration of a polarization-entangled photon-pair source based on phase-modulated ppln,” OSA continuum3, 295–304 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Direct generation of frequency-bin entangled photons via two-period quasi-phase-matched parametric downconversion,

    F. Kaneda, H. Suzuki, R. Shimizu, and K. Edamatsu, “Direct generation of frequency-bin entangled photons via two-period quasi-phase-matched parametric downconversion,” Opt. Express27, 1416–1424 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Effects of spectral entanglement in polarization-entanglement swapping and type-i fusion gates,

    T. S. Humble and W. P. Grice, “Effects of spectral entanglement in polarization-entanglement swapping and type-i fusion gates,” Phys. Rev. A77, 022312 (2008)

    2008

  24. [32]

    Theory of two-photon entanglement for spontaneous parametric down-conversion driven by a narrow pump pulse,

    T. E. Keller and M. H. Rubin, “Theory of two-photon entanglement for spontaneous parametric down-conversion driven by a narrow pump pulse,” Phys. Rev. A56, 1534 (1997)

    1997

  25. [33]

    Joint spectral characterization of photon-pair sources,

    K. Zielnicki, K. Garay-Palmett, D. Cruz-Delgado,et al., “Joint spectral characterization of photon-pair sources,” J. Mod. Opt.65, 1141–1160 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Frequency-domain engineering of bright squeezed vacuum for continuous- variable quantum information,

    I. Hurvitz, A. Karnieli, and A. Arie, “Frequency-domain engineering of bright squeezed vacuum for continuous- variable quantum information,” Opt. Express31, 20387–20397 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Bulk nonlinear metamaterials for generation of quantum light,

    O. Yesharim, I. Hurvitz, J. Foley-Comer, and A. Arie, “Bulk nonlinear metamaterials for generation of quantum light,” Appl. Phys. Rev.12, 011323 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Generation of spectrally factorable photon pairs via multi-order quasi-phase-matched spontaneous parametric downconversion,

    F. Kaneda, J. Oikawa, M. Yabuno,et al., “Generation of spectrally factorable photon pairs via multi-order quasi-phase-matched spontaneous parametric downconversion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.10981 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Spectral and temporal holograms with nonlinear optics,

    R. Shiloh and A. Arie, “Spectral and temporal holograms with nonlinear optics,” Opt. Lett.37, 3591–3593 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Experimental realization of spectral shaping using nonlinear optical holograms,

    A. Leshem, R. Shiloh, and A. Arie, “Experimental realization of spectral shaping using nonlinear optical holograms,” Opt. Lett.39, 5370–5373 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    Two-dimensional control of a biphoton joint spectrum,

    A. Shukhin, I. Hurvitz, S. Trajtenberg-Mills,et al., “Two-dimensional control of a biphoton joint spectrum,” Opt. Express 32, 10158–10174 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Frequency-binentanglementfromdomain-engineereddown-conversion,

    C.L.Morrison,F.Graffitti,P.Barrow, et al.,“Frequency-binentanglementfromdomain-engineereddown-conversion,” APL Photonics7, 066102 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    SMF28 fiber-coupled superconducting nanowire detectors (Scontel, with detection efficiency𝜂𝑑𝑒𝑡 = 90% at a wavelength of 1550 nm, jitter of 40 ps (FWHM), and dead time of 10 ns)

  34. [42]

    Fiber-assisted single-photon spectrograph,

    M. Avenhaus, A. Eckstein, P. J. Mosley, and C. Silberhorn, “Fiber-assisted single-photon spectrograph,” Opt. letters 34, 2873–2875 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    Continuous frequency entanglement: Effective finite hilbert space and entropy control,

    C. K. Law, I. A. Walmsley, and J. H. Eberly, “Continuous frequency entanglement: Effective finite hilbert space and entropy control,” Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 5304–5307 (2000)

    2000

  36. [44]

    Widelytunablesinglephotonsourcewithhighpurityattelecomwavelength,

    R.-B.Jin,R.Shimizu,K.Wakui, et al.,“Widelytunablesinglephotonsourcewithhighpurityattelecomwavelength,” Opt. Express21, 10659–10666 (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    Measurement of qubits,

    D. F. V. James, P. G. Kwiat, W. J. Munro, and A. G. White, “Measurement of qubits,” Phys. Rev. A64, 052312 (2001)

    2001

  38. [46]

    Entanglement of a pair of quantum bits,

    S. A. Hill and W. K. Wootters, “Entanglement of a pair of quantum bits,” Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 5022–5025 (1997)

    1997

  39. [47]

    Concurrence revisited,

    R. Hildebrand, “Concurrence revisited,” J. Math. Phys.48 (2007)

    2007

  40. [48]

    Quantum entanglement,

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, “Quantum entanglement,” Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865–942 (2009)

    2009

  41. [49]

    Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits,

    W. K. Wootters, “Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits,” Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2245–2248 (1998)

    1998

  42. [50]

    Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories,

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, “Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett.23, 880–884 (1969)

    1969

  43. [51]

    Photonic state tomography,

    J. Altepeter, E. Jeffrey, and P. Kwiat, “Photonic state tomography,” inAdvances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics,vol. 52 P. Berman and C. Lin, eds. (Academic Press, 2005), pp. 105–159

    2005

  44. [52]

    Phase-stablesourceofpolarization-entangledphotonsusingapolarization sagnac interferometer,

    T.Kim,M.Fiorentino,andF.N.C.Wong,“Phase-stablesourceofpolarization-entangledphotonsusingapolarization sagnac interferometer,” Phys. Rev. A73, 012316 (2006)

    2006

  45. [53]

    Broadband-laser-diode pumped periodically poled potassium titanyl phosphate- sagnac polarization-entangled photon source,

    N. Cai, W.-H. Cai, S. Wang,et al., “Broadband-laser-diode pumped periodically poled potassium titanyl phosphate- sagnac polarization-entangled photon source,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B39, 77–82 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    Pulsed sagnac source of polarization entangled photon pairs,

    A. Predojević, S. Grabher, and G. Weihs, “Pulsed sagnac source of polarization entangled photon pairs,” Opt. express 20, 25022–25029 (2012)

    2012

  47. [55]

    Introduction to the absolute brightness and number statistics in spontaneous parametric down-conversion,

    J. Schneeloch, S. H. Knarr, D. F. Bogorin,et al., “Introduction to the absolute brightness and number statistics in spontaneous parametric down-conversion,” J. Opt.21, 043501 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    Nonlocal realism tests and quantum state tomography in sagnac-based type-ii polarization-entanglement spdc-source,

    A. Motazedifard, S. Madani, J. Dashkasan, and N. Vayaghan, “Nonlocal realism tests and quantum state tomography in sagnac-based type-ii polarization-entanglement spdc-source,” Heliyon7, e07384 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    Effects of multiple pairs on visibility measurements of entangled photons generated by spontaneous parametric processes,

    H. Takesue and K. Shimizu, “Effects of multiple pairs on visibility measurements of entangled photons generated by spontaneous parametric processes,” Opt. Commun.283, 276–287 (2010)

    2010

  50. [58]

    Verifying energy-time entanglement via nonlocal dispersion cancellation,

    J.-W. Chae, H. Seo, U.-S. Kim, and Y.-H. Kim, “Verifying energy-time entanglement via nonlocal dispersion cancellation,” Phys. Rev. A111, L030403 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

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