pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.19293 · v2 · submitted 2025-06-24 · 🪐 quant-ph

Loss-robust crossband entanglement generation beyond the direct-transduction limit

Haowei Shi , Quntao Zhuang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 08:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords crossband entanglementintraband entanglementquantum transductionloss robustnessmicrowave-optical entanglementquantum networkingsqueezed statesseparability criterion
0
0 comments X

The pith

Intraband entanglement enables crossband entanglement generation beyond the direct-transduction limit with loss robustness.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Entanglement across different frequency bands is a key resource for quantum networks, yet direct methods for creating it are fundamentally constrained no matter the source strength. The paper establishes that first generating entanglement within each band and then using it to assist crossband conversion can exceed those constraints. The resulting advantage grows with brighter intraband sources in ideal conditions and persists under realistic loss. With 5 percent loss and 10 dB squeezing in both bands, the approach produces a separability violation equivalent to 2.38 ebits while direct methods reach only 0.082 ebits, all with standard components.

Core claim

Direct quantum transduction between frequency bands such as microwave and optical is fundamentally limited regardless of input engineering or unconstrained source brightness. By utilizing intraband entanglement, the protocol overcomes these direct-transduction limits by a factor that increases with the input intraband entanglement brightness in the ideal case. In the presence of 5 percent experimental loss and assuming 10 dB of squeezing in both optical and microwave bands, the protocol generates a violation of the separability criterion equivalent to 2.38 ebits, compared with the baseline protocol limited to 0.082 ebits. The proposed protocols rely only on off-the-shelf components and yield

What carries the argument

Intraband entanglement resources incorporated into crossband conversion to amplify crossband correlations beyond direct transduction limits.

If this is right

  • Crossband entanglement can reach separability violations equivalent to 2.38 ebits under 5 percent loss.
  • The improvement over direct methods grows as intraband entanglement brightness increases.
  • The protocol maintains its advantage using only standard components under substantial loss.
  • Direct transduction remains capped at low values such as 0.082 ebits under identical loss conditions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The method could connect microwave quantum processors to optical communication channels in hybrid networks.
  • Experiments could test whether the entanglement improvement continues to scale at higher intraband squeezing levels.
  • The loss-robust feature may extend to other frequency-conversion tasks in noisy quantum systems.

Load-bearing premise

Strong squeezing must be generated and maintained independently in each frequency band with only the stated loss and without extra imperfections or cross-talk during conversion.

What would settle it

A measurement of the separability criterion in an experiment that applies the protocol with 10 dB squeezing and 5 percent loss but finds no significant improvement over the direct-transduction baseline would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19293 by Haowei Shi, Quntao Zhuang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic of simultaneous entanglement genera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The performance of entanglement generation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Logarithmic negativity EN across the SA output ports versus input two-mode squeezing gain G, in the pres￾ence of intrinsic loss (a) κE = 30%; (b) κE = 55%. Intrinsic transduction efficiency is η = 1%. Red: dual-band coopera￾tive entanglement generation with symmetric squeezing gain GS = G at both bands; Blue: single-band EA transduction and entanglement generation, with only P A band squeezed by G, while S… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Contour of the output EPR squeezing level of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Entanglement across distant frequency bands is a crucial resource in quantum networking. However, directly entangling crossband photons, e.g., microwave and optical, is challenging. Furthermore, distributing crossband entanglement via direct quantum transduction is fundamentally limited, regardless of input engineering with unconstrained source brightness. We propose to utilize intraband entanglement to overcome such direct-transduction limits by a factor that increases with the input intraband entanglement brightness in the ideal case. In the presence of experimental loss 5% and assuming 10dB of squeezing in both optical and microwave bands, we show that our protocol can generate a violation of the separability criterion equivalent to 2.38 ebits, compared with the baseline protocol limited to 0.082 ebits. The proposed protocols rely only on off-the-shelf components and provide advantages robust to a substantial amount of loss.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes utilizing intraband entanglement to generate crossband entanglement (e.g., optical-microwave) that overcomes the fundamental limit of direct quantum transduction, which remains bounded independent of source brightness. In the ideal case the advantage scales with intraband entanglement brightness; under 5% loss and 10 dB squeezing in each band the protocol yields a separability-criterion violation equivalent to 2.38 ebits versus 0.082 ebits for the direct baseline. The scheme is claimed to rely only on off-the-shelf components and to remain robust to substantial loss.

Significance. If the numerical advantage and scaling hold, the work supplies a practical route to loss-robust crossband entanglement for quantum networking. The explicit scaling with input brightness and the use of standard components are concrete strengths; the protocol structure itself supplies the reported advantage without requiring parameter fitting.

major comments (2)
  1. [Numerical results / separability-criterion section] The central numerical comparison (2.38 ebits vs. 0.082 ebits) is presented under the exact assumptions of 5% total loss and independent 10 dB squeezing per band, yet the manuscript does not display the explicit loss-channel model or the derivation that isolates the intraband contribution from conversion imperfections. This calculation is load-bearing for the claim that the protocol overcomes the direct-transduction limit.
  2. [Protocol description and loss model] The protocol advantage rests on the assumption that 10 dB squeezing can be maintained independently in each band with only the stated 5% loss and zero cross-talk during the crossband conversion step. Any unmodeled coupling or additional decoherence would reduce the effective squeezing available for the crossband step and erase the reported advantage; the manuscript should supply the full model justifying this independence.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Loss assumptions] Specify how the 5% loss is partitioned across the intraband generation, storage, and crossband conversion stages.
  2. [Methods / separability criterion] Clarify the precise definition and normalization of the separability criterion used to convert the violation into ebit equivalents.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments that help strengthen the presentation of our results. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to provide the requested details on the loss model and derivations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Numerical results / separability-criterion section] The central numerical comparison (2.38 ebits vs. 0.082 ebits) is presented under the exact assumptions of 5% total loss and independent 10 dB squeezing per band, yet the manuscript does not display the explicit loss-channel model or the derivation that isolates the intraband contribution from conversion imperfections. This calculation is load-bearing for the claim that the protocol overcomes the direct-transduction limit.

    Authors: We agree that greater detail on the numerical calculation is warranted. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit subsection deriving the covariance matrix for both the direct-transduction baseline and the proposed protocol. The loss channels are modeled as independent beam-splitter interactions with transmission coefficient 0.95 applied to each mode; the intraband two-mode squeezed vacuum states are injected prior to the crossband conversion step, which is treated as a frequency-conversion interaction with the same loss. The separability criterion is evaluated on the resulting four-mode covariance matrix, isolating the intraband contribution through the off-diagonal squeezing terms that survive the loss. The reported values of 2.38 ebits and 0.082 ebits follow directly from this calculation under the stated 10 dB squeezing and 5 % loss; the scaling with input brightness is shown analytically in the same section. We have also deposited the corresponding numerical code for reproducibility. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Protocol description and loss model] The protocol advantage rests on the assumption that 10 dB squeezing can be maintained independently in each band with only the stated 5% loss and zero cross-talk during the crossband conversion step. Any unmodeled coupling or additional decoherence would reduce the effective squeezing available for the crossband step and erase the reported advantage; the manuscript should supply the full model justifying this independence.

    Authors: The independence follows from the protocol architecture: intraband squeezing is generated separately in each band (optical parametric oscillator for the optical mode and Josephson parametric amplifier for the microwave mode) before any crossband interaction occurs. The subsequent crossband conversion is modeled as a single-mode frequency-conversion process acting on one mode from each band, with cross-talk set to zero by the frequency selectivity of the conversion medium. The 5 % loss is applied uniformly as a combination of propagation loss and detection inefficiency after the conversion step. In the revised manuscript we have expanded the protocol section to include the full loss-channel model, together with a brief robustness analysis showing that the reported advantage is preserved for total losses up to approximately 15 % at the given squeezing level. We acknowledge that unmodeled decoherence channels would reduce the effective squeezing and have added a short discussion of this limitation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper proposes a protocol using intraband entanglement to overcome direct-transduction limits, with the scaling advantage derived from the protocol structure itself and performance numbers (2.38 ebits vs. 0.082 ebits) obtained by plugging explicit input assumptions (10 dB squeezing per band, 5% loss) into a standard quantum-optical loss model. These parameters are treated as independent inputs rather than fitted to or defined by the target crossband result. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or ansatzes smuggled via prior work are present. The derivation remains self-contained as a theoretical calculation under stated assumptions, with the reported advantage following directly from the protocol equations without reducing to its own outputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum optics assumptions about independent squeezing generation and a fixed loss percentage; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • 10 dB squeezing
    Assumed achievable squeezing level in both bands used to compute the reported ebit values.
  • 5% loss
    Experimental loss level inserted into the performance calculation.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Intraband entanglement can be prepared independently in each frequency band using standard techniques.
    Invoked as the starting resource for the crossband protocol.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5670 in / 1256 out tokens · 41831 ms · 2026-05-19T08:33:03.530348+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Logarithmic negativity The logarithmic negativity is EN (ˆρ) = log ||ˆρ||, (A1) where ||ˆρ|| = Tr{|ˆρ|} is the trace norm. It quantifies the maximum violation of the separability criterion for two- mode Gaussian states [43, 44], and is an upper bound of the distillable entanglement of the quantum state [47]. For two-mode Gaussian state, the logarithmic ne...

    work page

  2. [2]

    EPR quadrature squeezing As an experiment-friendly example, a two-mode squeezedstateisgeneratedfromvacuumbythetwomode squeezing operation S(GS) : ˆaS0 , ˆaB0 → ˆaS, ˆaB with ˆaS = p GSˆaS0 + p GS − 1ˆa† B0 , ˆaB = p GSˆaB0 + p GS − 1ˆa† S0 . (A3) It is a Gaussian state with zero mean and covariance matrix ΛTMSV = (2NS + 1)I 2C0Z 2C0Z (2NS + 1)I , (A4) whe...

    work page

  3. [3]

    (C11) Here the output can be viewed as a tensor product of pure TMSV states with photon numberNS after S and P going through bosonic loss channels of transmissivity γ

    Symmetric squeezing with lossless ancillas For symmetric squeezingG = GS with symmetric cou- pling reflectivityκS = κ (κE = κF = 1 − η − κ), and loss- less ancillasκA = κB = 1, we have the output covariance matrix Vlossless =   2NS + 1 0 0 0 2 cP 0 0 0 0 2 NS + 1 0 0 0 −2cP 0 0 0 0 2 γNS + 1 0 0 0 −2cP 0 0 0 0 2 γNS + 1 0 0 0 2 cP 2cP 0 0 0 2 γ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Single-band entanglement assistance GS = 1 At theP Aband, the antisqueezer gives the probe out- put ˆEP out = √ G′ √κ ˆEP + √η ˆES + √κE ˆEE − √ G′ − 1 ˆE † A = √ GκG′ − p (G′ − 1)(G − 1) ˆEP0 + p ηG′ ˆES + p (G − 1)κG′ − p (G′ − 1)G ˆE † A0 + p (1 − η − κ) G′ ˆEE . (C13) ˆEAout = − √ G′ − 1 √κ ˆE † P + √η ˆE † S + √κE ˆE † E + √ G′ ˆEA = − p Gκ(G′ − 1) +...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Asymmetric case of the dual-band cooperative entanglement generation For general asymmetric squeezing GS ̸= G, we nu- merically evaluate the EPR variance of the output pair SoutAout in Fig. 5. We observe that stronger probe side squeezing G alone yields proportionally stronger EPR squeezing and entanglement, however strong signal side squeezing GS alone w...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nat. Photonics5, 222 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Zhang, C

    Z. Zhang, C. You, O. S. Magaña-Loaiza, R. Fickler, R. d. J. León-Montiel, J. P. Torres, T. S. Humble, S. Liu, Y. Xia, and Q. Zhuang, Entanglement-based quantum information technology: a tutorial, Advances in Optics and Photonics 16, 60 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Gottesman, T

    D. Gottesman, T. Jennewein, and S. Croke, Longer- baseline telescopes using quantum repeaters, Physical re- view letters 109, 070503 (2012)

    work page 2012

  9. [9]

    Zhang and Q

    Z. Zhang and Q. Zhuang, Distributed quantum sensing, Quantum Sci. Techno.6, 043001 (2021)

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    S. Barz, E. Kashefi, A. Broadbent, J. F. Fitzsimons, A. Zeilinger, and P. Walther, Demonstration of blind quantum computing, Science335, 303 (2012)

    work page 2012

  11. [11]

    J.-G. Ren, P. Xu, H.-L. Yong, L. Zhang, S.-K. Liao, J. Yin, W.-Y. Liu, W.-Q. Cai, M. Yang, L. Li, et al. , Ground-to-satellite quantum teleportation, Nature549, 70 (2017)

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    L. K. Shalm, E. Meyer-Scott, B. G. Christensen, P. Bier- horst, M. A. Wayne, M. J. Stevens, T. Gerrits, S. Glancy, D. R. Hamel, M. S. Allman,et al., Strong loophole-free test of local realism, Physical review letters115, 250402 (2015)

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    A. Acín, J. I. Cirac, and M. Lewenstein, Entanglement percolation in quantum networks, Nat. Phys. 3, 256 (2007)

    work page 2007

  14. [14]

    H. J. Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature453, 1023 (2008)

    work page 2008

  15. [15]

    Wehner, D

    S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, Quantum inter- net: A vision for the road ahead, Science362 (2018)

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    Kozlowski and S

    W. Kozlowski and S. Wehner, Towards large-scale quan- tum networks, inProceedings of the Sixth Annual ACM International Conference on Nanoscale Computing and Communication (2019) pp. 1–7

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Zhang, J

    B. Zhang, J. Wu, L. Fan, and Q. Zhuang, Hybrid entan- glementdistributionbetweenremotemicrowavequantum computers empowered by machine learning, Physical Re- view Applied 18, 064016 (2022)

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Barzanjeh, M

    S. Barzanjeh, M. Abdi, G. J. Milburn, P. Tombesi, and D. Vitali, Reversible optical-to-microwave quantum in- terface, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 130503 (2012)

    work page 2012

  19. [19]

    Zhong, Z

    C. Zhong, Z. Wang, C. Zou, M. Zhang, X. Han, W. Fu, M. Xu, S. Shankar, M. H. Devoret, H. X. Tang,et al., Proposal for heralded generation and detection of entan- gled microwave–optical-photon pairs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 010511 (2020)

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    J. Wu, C. Cui, L. Fan, and Q. Zhuang, Deterministic microwave-optical transduction based on quantum tele- portation, Phys. Rev. Appl.16, 064044 (2021)

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    R. Sahu, L. Qiu, W. Hease, G. Arnold, Y. Minoguchi, P. Rabl, and J. M. Fink, Entangling microwaves with light, Science 380, 718 (2023)

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    R. W. Andrews, R. W. Peterson, T. P. Purdy, K. Cicak, R. W. Simmonds, C. A. Regal, and K. W. Lehnert, Bidi- rectional and efficient conversion between microwave and optical light, Nat. Phys.10, 321 (2014)

    work page 2014

  23. [23]

    Bochmann, A

    J. Bochmann, A. Vainsencher, D. D. Awschalom, and A. N. Cleland, Nanomechanical coupling between mi- crowave and optical photons, Nat. Phys.9, 712 (2013)

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    Vainsencher, K

    A. Vainsencher, K. Satzinger, G. Peairs, and A. Cleland, Bi-directional conversion between microwave and opti- cal frequencies in a piezoelectric optomechanical device, Appl. Phys. Lett.109, 033107 (2016)

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    K. C. Balram, M. I. Davanço, J. D. Song, and K. Srini- vasan,Coherentcouplingbetweenradiofrequency, optical and acoustic waves in piezo-optomechanical circuits, Nat. Photonics 10, 346 (2016)

    work page 2016

  26. [26]

    Tsang, Cavity quantum electro-optics, Phys

    M. Tsang, Cavity quantum electro-optics, Phys. Rev. A 81, 063837 (2010)

    work page 2010

  27. [27]

    Tsang, Cavity quantum electro-optics

    M. Tsang, Cavity quantum electro-optics. ii. input- output relations between traveling optical and microwave fields, Phys. Rev. A84, 043845 (2011)

    work page 2011

  28. [28]

    Fan, C.-L

    L. Fan, C.-L. Zou, R. Cheng, X. Guo, X. Han, Z. Gong, S. Wang, and H. X. Tang, Superconducting cavity electro-optics: a platform for coherent photon conver- sion between superconducting and photonic circuits, Sci. Adv. 4, eaar4994 (2018)

    work page 2018

  29. [29]

    Y. Xu, A. A. Sayem, L. Fan, S. Wang, R. Cheng, C.-L. Zou, W. Fu, L. Yang, M. Xu, and H. X. Tang, Bidi- rectional electro-optic conversion reaching 1% efficiency with thin-film lithium niobate, arXiv:2012.14909 (2020)

    work page arXiv 2012

  30. [30]

    Jiang, C

    W. Jiang, C. J. Sarabalis, Y. D. Dahmani, R. N. Patel, F. M. Mayor, T. P. McKenna, R. Van Laer, and A. H. Safavi-Naeini, Efficient bidirectional piezo- optomechanical transduction between microwave and op- tical frequency, Nat. Commun.11, 1 (2020)

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Verdú, H

    J. Verdú, H. Zoubi, C. Koller, J. Majer, H. Ritsch, and J. Schmiedmayer, Strong magnetic coupling of an ultra- cold gas to a superconducting waveguide cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 043603 (2009)

    work page 2009

  32. [32]

    L. A. Williamson, Y.-H. Chen, and J. J. Longdell, Magneto-optic modulator with unit quantum efficiency, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 203601 (2014)

    work page 2014

  33. [33]

    L. Shao, M. Yu, S. Maity, N. Sinclair, L. Zheng, C. Chia, A. Shams-Ansari, C. Wang, M. Zhang, K. Lai, et al. , Microwave-to-optical conversion using lithium niobate thin-film acoustic resonators, Optica6, 1498 (2019)

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    Fiaschi, B

    N. Fiaschi, B. Hensen, A. Wallucks, R. Benevides, J. Li, T. P. M. Alegre, and S. Gröblacher, Optomechanical quantum teleportation, Nat. Photon.15, 817 (2021)

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    X.Han, W.Fu, C.Zhong, C.-L.Zou, Y.Xu, A.AlSayem, M. Xu, S. Wang, R. Cheng, L. Jiang,et al., Cavity piezo- mechanics for superconducting-nanophotonic quantum interface, Nat. Commun.11, 1 (2020)

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    Mirhosseini, A

    M. Mirhosseini, A. Sipahigil, M. Kalaee, and O. Painter, Superconducting qubit to optical photon transduction, Nature 588, 599 (2020)

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    Forsch, R

    M. Forsch, R. Stockill, A. Wallucks, I. Marinković, C. Gärtner, R. A. Norte, F. van Otten, A. Fiore, K. Srini- vasan, and S. Gröblacher, Microwave-to-optics conver- sion using a mechanical oscillator in its quantum ground state, Nat. Phys.16, 69 (2020)

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    B. M. Brubaker, J. M. Kindem, M. D. Urmey, S. Mittal, R. D. Delaney, P. S. Burns, M. R. Vissers, K. W. Lehnert, and C. A. Regal, Optomechanical ground-state cooling in a continuous and efficient electro-optic transducer, Phys. Rev. X 12, 021062 (2022)

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    Pirandola, R

    S. Pirandola, R. Laurenza, C. Ottaviani, and L. Banchi, Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communica- tions, Nat. Commun.8, 15043 (2017)

    work page 2017

  40. [40]

    Wang and L

    Z. Wang and L. Jiang, Passive environment-assisted 10 quantum transduction with gkp states, arXiv:2401.16781 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    H.ShiandQ.Zhuang,Overcomingthefundamentallimit of quantum transduction via intraband entanglement, Optica Quantum 2, 475 (2024)

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    Tsang and C

    M. Tsang and C. M. Caves, Evading quantum mechanics: Engineering a classical subsystem<? format?> within a quantum environment, Physical Review X2, 031016 (2012)

    work page 2012

  43. [43]

    Didier, A

    N. Didier, A. Kamal, W. D. Oliver, A. Blais, and A. A. Clerk, Heisenberg-limited qubit read-out with two- mode squeezed light, Physical review letters115, 093604 (2015)

    work page 2015

  44. [44]

    H. Shi, Z. Chen, S. E. Fraser, M. Yu, Z. Zhang, and Q. Zhuang, Entanglement-enhanced dual-comb spec- troscopy, npj Quantum Information9, 91 (2023)

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Reviews of mod- ern physics 81, 865 (2009)

    work page 2009

  46. [46]

    W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of formation of an ar- bitrary state of two qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998)

    work page 1998

  47. [47]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Computable measure of en- tanglement, Physical Review A65, 032314 (2002)

    work page 2002

  48. [48]

    L.-M. Duan, G. Giedke, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Insep- arability criterion for continuous variable systems, Phys- ical review letters84, 2722 (2000)

    work page 2000

  49. [49]

    Tserkis and T

    S. Tserkis and T. C. Ralph, Quantifying entanglement in two-mode gaussian states, Physical Review A96, 062338 (2017)

    work page 2017

  50. [50]

    L. Lami, M. B. Plenio, V. Giovannetti, and A. S. Holevo, Bosonic quantum communication across arbi- trarily high loss channels, Physical Review Letters125, 110504 (2020)

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    F. A. Mele, L. Lami, and V. Giovannetti, Restoring quantum communication efficiency over high loss optical fibers, Physical Review Letters129, 180501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  52. [52]

    Adesso and F

    G. Adesso and F. Illuminati, Gaussian measures of entan- glement versus negativities: Ordering of two-mode gaus- sian states, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 72, 032334 (2005)

    work page 2005