Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Multi-photon emission from a resonantly pumped quantum dot

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A resonantly driven quantum dot can emit up to four photons from one pulse, yet the emission is strictly time-ordered—successive photons in distinct temporal modes, not higher-order Fock states.

desk verdict Careful high-order correlation data and a useful gating trick, but the absolute photon-number probabilities rest on an unverified unit-brightness assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04843 v1 pith:HIUO442V submitted 2025-07-07 quant-ph

Francesco Giorgino , Patrik Zahálka , Lennart Jehle , Lorenzo Carosini , Lena Maria Hansen , Juan C. Loredo , Philip Walther This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords resonancefluorescencequantumdotmulti-photonemissionphoton-numberstatisticshigher-orderauto-correlationtimegatingsingle-photonpuritytwo-levelsystem
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

Resonant pulses driving a two-level artificial atom are usually viewed as a way to produce single photons, but the same interaction inevitably also produces multi-photon emission. The authors study a semiconductor quantum dot in a micropillar cavity under pulsed resonant excitation and show that a single pump pulse can release up to four photons; they quantify the probabilities of emitting one, two, three, and four photons for pulse areas up to beyond $6\pi$. Their central conclusion is that these multi-photon bursts are strictly time-ordered: each extra photon comes from a separate re-excitation and later spontaneous emission, so the source never emits higher-order Fock states. They also demonstrate that rejecting the earliest part of the detected signal—acquisition time gating—raises the single-photon purity by about 60% while cutting the count rate by only about 8.5%, and that the corrected wave-packet overlap stays near 94%. These results matter because they turn an unavoidable background process into a quantified, controllable feature of resonant single-photon sources.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing experimental tools are the generalized Hanbury Brown-Twiss interferometer (four outputs, four superconducting nanowire detectors, and a time tagger that builds multi-start multi-stop correlation histograms) and the acquisition time-gating window, whose start $t_\mathrm{start}$ is moved forward while $t_\mathrm{stop}$ stays fixed so that early photons are discarded. The inversion from detected to emitted photon-number probabilities runs through the binomial loss model $p'_k = \sum_{n\ge k} \binom{n}{k}\eta_t^k(1-\eta_t)^{n-k}p_n$ with $\eta_t\approx 25\%$, calibrated by assuming $B_\pi=1$; the factorial-moment formula $g^{(m)}(0)=\langle n(n-1)\cdots(n-m+1)\rangle/\langle n\rangle^m$ connects the measured correlation functions to those probabilities. The time-gating measurement is what carries the strict time-ordering conclusion: because cutting the early portion of the signal removes the multi-photon correlations, the extra photons must be emitted in later temporal modes rather than coexisting in one mode.

What would settle it

Measure the absolute brightness of the source at $\pi$-pulse excitation with an independently calibrated detection chain (for instance, a detector whose quantum efficiency is traceable to a metrology standard). If that brightness comes out measurably below one photon per pulse, the assumed $B_\pi=1$ fails and the reported $p_n$ values, including $\pi_2\approx 27\%$ at $2\pi$, are not the true emission probabilities. A second decisive test targets the time-ordering claim: resolve the two-photon emission at $2\pi$ with picosecond time resolution; if both photons arrive inside the same few-picosecond window rather than being separated by the re-excitation dynamics, the emission would not be strictly time-ordered.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a generalized Hanbury Brown-Twiss setup with four superconducting nanowire detectors, the paper measures $g^{(2)}(0)$, $g^{(3)}(0,0)$, and $g^{(4)}(0,0,0)$ of the resonance fluorescence from a trion transition in an InGaAs quantum dot. The photon-number probabilities extracted from these correlations oscillate with pulse area: odd multiples of $\pi$ give sub-Poissonian statistics with $g^{(2)}(0)=0.031\pm 0.001$ at $\pi$, while even multiples give super-Poissonian statistics with $g^{(2)}(0)=4.08\pm 0.01$ at $2\pi$. After correcting the detected statistics for an estimated total transmission of $\eta_t\approx 25\%$, fixed by assuming that a $\pi$-pulse produces at least one photon, the authors infer conditional multi-photon probabilities $\pi_2\approx 27\%$, $\pi_3\approx 1\%$, and $\pi_4\approx 0.05\%$ at $2\pi$, and show that bunching at even areas is possible only because the vacuum probability is large, not because multi-photon states dominate. Time-resolved gating shows that the multi-photon component disappears when the early part of the signal—photons emitted while the laser is still on—is rejected. This is the direct evidence for the paper's closing assertion that emission from a resonantly driven two-level system is strictly time-ordered and does not exhibit higher-order Fock states.

Load-bearing premise

The calibration of the overall transmission $\eta_t$ assumes that a $\pi$-pulse makes the quantum dot emit at least one photon on every pulse ($B_\pi=1$); if the true brightness at $\pi$ is below unity, all inferred photon-number probabilities, including the 27% two-photon value at $2\pi$, would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Even at arbitrarily short pulse durations, multi-photon emission is present at even multiples of $\pi$, so models of pulsed resonance fluorescence must include re-excitation dynamics rather than treating the two-level system as a pure single-photon emitter.
  • At pulse areas $2n\pi$, the source emits up to four photons per pulse but in distinct temporal modes; such pulses cannot be used as higher-order Fock states but can be understood as sequences of distinguishable single-photon wave packets.
  • Acquisition time gating provides a practical purity boost: at $\pi$-pulse excitation, a gate starting at 150 ps increases single-photon purity by about 60% while reducing the count rate by only about 8.5%, and it outperforms power reduction at equal count rates.
  • After correcting for multi-photon components, the mean wave-packet overlap remains $M\approx 94\%$, so the single-photon part of the emission stays highly indistinguishable even as the pulse area grows; gated Hong-Ou-Mandel visibility approaches $M$ at odd multiples of $\pi$.
  • Because $\pi_2\approx 27\%$, $\pi_3\approx 1\%$, and $\pi_4\approx 0.05\%$ at $2\pi$, even a strongly bunched $g^{(2)}(0)$ does not imply that multi-photon emission outweighs single-photon emission—the vacuum component controls the bunching.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same time-gating recipe should generalize to other resonantly driven two-level emitters (single atoms, molecules, color centers) whenever multi-photon events arise from re-excitation; a testable prediction is that the optimal gate position follows the rising edge of the fluorescence decay.
  • The reported probabilities hinge on the unverified $B_\pi=1$ calibration; an independent absolute efficiency measurement could revise all $p_n$ values. If $B_\pi$ were below unity, the quantitative claims would need rescaling, though the qualitative time-ordering evidence from gating would remain.
  • One could test the time-ordering conclusion directly by measuring $g^{(2)}(\tau)$ with sub-picosecond resolution inside the pump window: under the paper's picture there should be a fast re-excitation peak followed by the single-photon decay, whereas a genuine two-photon Fock state would show a single coincident peak at $\tau=0$.
  • Extending the correlator to fifth order, or repeating the analysis at $8\pi$ and $10\pi$ pulse areas and varying pulse duration, could map how the rare four-photon component grows and connect it to phonon-induced dephasing, which the paper identifies as the damping mechanism.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental study of multi-photon emission from a resonantly driven InGaAs quantum dot embedded in a micropillar cavity. Using a generalized Hanbury Brown-Twiss setup, the authors measure second-, third-, and fourth-order auto-correlation functions as a function of pulse area, observe up to four-photon coincidences, and extract source-level photon-number probabilities p_n up to n=4 after correcting for an overall transmission efficiency eta_t. They further study the temporal emission dynamics and demonstrate that time-gated acquisition improves single-photon purity and HOM visibility while retaining most of the count rate. The central qualitative conclusions are that bunching at even pulse areas does not imply a dominant multi-photon component, that multi-photon events arise from successive spontaneous emissions, and that time gating can improve source performance.

Significance. If the quantitative calibration is accepted, the paper provides a comprehensive characterization of multi-photon statistics in a resonantly driven two-level system, including up to fourth-order correlations and photon-number probabilities. The time-gating method is a simple, practical technique with potential utility for single-photon sources. The qualitative observations, especially the demonstration that g(2)>1 does not imply p2>p1 and the temporal gating effect on multi-photon correlations, are supported by the direct correlation measurements and are of interest to the solid-state quantum photonics community. The paper would be substantially strengthened by making the calibration assumption explicit and quantifying its impact on the reported photon-number probabilities.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II B; Supplementary Sec. III A, Eq. (S10)] The assumption that a TLS driven by a pi-pulse emits at least one photon (B_pi = 1) is used to fix eta_t ≈ 0.25 and then to invert detector statistics into source-level p_n via Eq. (S10). This assumption is not independently verified. Phonon-induced dephasing, imperfect pulse-area calibration, finite pulse duration, and phonon sidebands can all reduce the brightness below unity. If B_pi < 1, eta_t is underestimated and every reported p_n, including the headline pi_2 ≈ 27% at Theta = 2pi, is biased. The manuscript should provide an independent transmission-efficiency calibration or report the sensitivity of p_n to B_pi over a plausible range.
  2. [Sec. II B; Supplementary Eqs. (S9)-(S10)] The inversion sets p_n>4 = 0 without a stated justification. Since only g(2), g(3), g(4), and B' are measured, the system of equations (S9) is underdetermined if five- or higher-photon probabilities are non-negligible; the extracted p_1 through p_4 would then be biased. The authors should justify the truncation with a theoretical model, an experimental bound on five-photon emission, or an explicit sensitivity analysis showing that higher-order terms are negligible.
  3. [Fig. 3; Supplementary Eq. (S10)] The extracted photon-number probabilities and purities in Fig. 3b,c are shown without propagated uncertainties, despite the input g(m) values having 1-sigma confidence intervals and eta_t being a fitted parameter. Because the inversion in Eq. (S10) is nonlinear and the calibration is an assumption, the absence of error bars on p_n and pi_n makes quantitative claims such as pi_2 ≈ 27% difficult to assess. Confidence intervals should be propagated through the full inversion, including the uncertainty in eta_t.
  4. [Sec. III; Fig. 4c-d] The conclusion that the emission is 'strictly time-ordered and does not exhibit higher-order Fock states' is stronger than what the gating measurements demonstrate. The data show that removing early photons reduces g(2)(0), indicating that much of the two-photon emission is temporally separated from the later single-photon decay. However, this does not rule out a small simultaneous multi-photon component. The claim should be softened to 'predominantly time-ordered' or accompanied by a quantitative upper bound on any simultaneous contribution.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Supplementary Sec. III A, Eq. (S9)] In Eq. (S9), B' is written as the sum over n = 0 to 4 of p'_n, but B' is defined in the main text as the probability of at least one detected click; the sum should run from n = 1 to 4. The same issue affects the definition of B_pi in Sec. III A of the Supplementary Material.
  2. [Supplementary Eq. (S1)] Eq. (S1) is not written as a valid normally ordered correlation function; the creation and annihilation operator products and the expectation value notation need to be corrected for clarity.
  3. [Fig. 4c] The increase of g(2)(0) after its minimum is attributed to a decreasing signal-to-noise ratio with no background subtraction; this should be quantified, for example by repeating the analysis after subtracting the measured background, since it affects the claimed purity improvement at large t_start.
  4. [Sec. III] The Discussion section uses '2TL' where 'TLS' is meant; please correct the typographical error.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Absolute photon-number probabilities are calibrated by the unverified Bπ=1 assumption, so the retrieved p_n values (e.g., π2≈27% at 2π) are forced by that input; the temporal-ordering and gated-purity claims rest on direct histogram data and are not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text Sec. II B; Supplementary Sec. III A, Eqs. (S9)-(S10)]
    "Assuming that a TLS driven by a π-pulse emits at least one photon we estimate this transmission probability to be ηt ≈ 25 %, and retrieve pn (see Supplementary Material). ... Finally, we assume that the QD produces at least photon per incident π −pulse, hence Bπ = ∑4 n=0 pn = 1. Exploiting this relation we invert Eqs. S10 and extract the overall transmission probability as ηt ≃ 0.25. This allows us to retrieve the photon number probabilities as emitted by the QD {pn} for each excitation power, where the vacuum probability is derived by the normalization rule as p0 = 1 − B."

    The reported photon-number probabilities p_n are not independently measured; they are the solution of the inversion in Eqs. S10, and the only calibration of the loss parameter η_t is the postulate B_π = 1 (unit brightness at π-pulse). Consequently p_0 = 0 at π by construction, and every absolute probability reported in Fig. 3, including the headline π_2 ≈ 27% at 2π, inherits this assumed calibration. If B_π < 1, the same measured detection statistics would invert to different p_n values; the paper does not quantify this sensitivity. The measured g(m)(0) values and the time-gating conclusions are direct histogram quantities and are not affected by this calibration step.

full rationale

The paper contains one calibration step that makes the absolute photon-number probabilities dependent on an unverified assumption. Eq. S10 connects detected to emitted probabilities through η_t, and η_t is fixed by asserting Bπ=1. This is therefore an input used to extract the reported p_n values, not an independent determination of them: at π the vacuum probability is set to zero by construction, and the other absolute probabilities scale with the chosen η_t. However, the central qualitative claims—observation of up to four-photon coincidences, bunching/antibunching oscillations, strictly time-ordered successive emissions, and purity improvement via time gating—are supported directly by the measured correlation histograms and gated count rates, independent of η_t. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem appears; citations to earlier work provide experimental and theoretical context rather than the argument's foundation. The circularity is therefore partial and confined to the absolute calibration of the p_n reconstruction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rely on the standard two-level model, a single-mode assumption, and a calibration of eta_t. The latter is the most fragile element because it is derived from the unverified assumption that a pi-pulse always emits at least one photon. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • eta_t = 0.25
    Overall transmission probability from the atom to the detector. Fitted by assuming the QD emits at least one photon under a pi-pulse (B_pi = 1), which calibrates the loss model in Eq. S10. All extracted p_n depend on this value.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The QD behaves as a two-level system with spontaneous emission and phonon-induced dephasing.
    Standard model for resonantly driven QDs, used to interpret Rabi oscillations and multi-photon emission throughout the paper.
  • domain assumption Each emitted photon experiences the same linear loss probability eta_t, independent of whether it is part of a multi-photon event.
    Assumed in the inversion of detected to emitted photon-number probabilities (Eq. S10).
  • ad hoc to paper The QD emits at least one photon under a pi-pulse (B_pi = 1).
    Used to calibrate eta_t; not independently verified. If B_pi < 1, all extracted p_n change.
  • ad hoc to paper Photon-number probabilities beyond fourth order are zero (p_n>4 = 0).
    Needed to close the system of equations (Eq. S9); could bias lower-order probabilities at high pulse areas.
  • domain assumption The field is treated as a single temporal mode for the g(m) definitions (Eq. S1-S3).
    Standard in quantum optics, but the paper later argues that multi-photon events occupy different temporal modes, which complicates this single-mode interpretation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-photon emission from a resonantly pumped quantum dot." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HIUO442V

@misc{pith2026250704843,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-photon emission from a resonantly pumped quantum dot},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HIUO442V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04843}
}
read the original abstract

Resonance fluorescence of natural or artificial atoms constitutes a prime method for generating non-classical light. While most efforts have focused on producing single-photons, multi-photon emission is unavoidably present in the resonant driving of an atom. Here, we study the extent to which these processes occur: we quantify the multi-photon emission statistics in a resonantly-driven two-level artificial atom -- a semiconductor quantum dot in a micropillar cavity -- when pumped by short optical pulses. By measuring auto-correlation functions up to the fourth order, we observe up to four photons emitted after a single pumping pulse, and investigate the emission dynamics with finely resolved temporal measurements. Furthermore, we propose a method based on acquisition time gating to enhance the purity of a single-photon source while maintaining high efficiencies. Our results deepen the understanding of the photon emission processes in coherently driven atomic systems, and suggest a simple but effective technique to reduce the multi-photon components of a single-photon source.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04843 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Asymmetric two-photon response of an incoherently driven quantum emitter

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In a phonon-assisted pumped quantum dot, the first of two photons emitted under one pulse is red-shifted, yielding the Rabi frequency and enabling spectral suppression of multiphoton noise.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A. Kuhn, M. Hennrich, and G. Rempe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 067901 (2002)

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    Beugnon, M

    J. Beugnon, M. P. A. Jones, J. Dingjan, B. Darqui´ e, G. Messin, A. Browaeys, and P. Grangier, Nature 440, 779–782 (2006)

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Toninelli, I

    C. Toninelli, I. Gerhardt, A. S. Clark, A. Reserbat- Plantey, S. G¨ otzinger, Z. Ristanovi´ c, M. Colautti, P. Lombardi, K. D. Major, I. Deperasi´ nska, W. H. Per- nice, F. H. L. Koppens, B. Kozankiewicz, A. Gourdon, V. Sandoghdar, and M. Orrit, Nature Materials 20, 1615–1628 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Aharonovich, D

    I. Aharonovich, D. Englund, and M. Toth, Nature Pho- tonics 10, 631–641 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    N. Tomm, A. Javadi, N. O. Antoniadis, D. Najer, M. C. L¨ obl, A. R. Korsch, R. Schott, S. R. Valentin, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, and R. J. Warburton, Nature Nan- otechnology 16, 399–403 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    J. Liu, R. Su, Y. Wei, B. Yao, S. F. C. d. Silva, Y. Yu, J. Iles-Smith, K. Srinivasan, A. Rastelli, J. Li, and X. Wang, Nature Nanotechnology 14, 586–593 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Y. Wang, C. F. D. Faurby, F. Ruf, P. I. Sund, K. Nielsen, N. Volet, M. J. R. Heck, N. Bart, A. D. Wieck, A. Lud- wig, L. Midolo, S. Paesani, and P. Lodahl, npj Quantum Information 9 (2023), 10.1038/s41534-023-00761-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-023-00761-1 2023

  8. [8]

    High-efficiency single-photon source above the loss-tolerant threshold for efficient linear optical quantum computing

    X. Ding, Y.-P. Guo, M.-C. Xu, R.-Z. Liu, G.-Y. Zou, J.-Y. Zhao, Z.-X. Ge, Q.-H. Zhang, H.-L. Liu, L.-J. Wang, M.-C. Chen, H. Wang, Y.-M. He, Y.-H. Huo, C.- Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, “High-efficiency single-photon source above the loss-tolerant threshold for efficient linear optical quantum computing,” (2023), arXiv:2311.08347 [quant-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    J. C. Loredo, C. Ant´ on, B. Reznychenko, P. Hi- laire, A. Harouri, C. Millet, H. Ollivier, N. Somaschi, L. De Santis, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, L. Lanco, A. Auff` eves, O. Krebs, and P. Senellart, Nature Pho- tonics 13, 803–808 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    K. A. Fischer, L. Hanschke, J. Wierzbowski, T. Simmet, C. Dory, J. J. Finley, J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, and K. M¨ uller,Nature Physics 13, 649 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    K. A. Fischer, L. Hanschke, M. Kremser, J. J. Finley, K. M¨ uller, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c,Quantum Science and Tech- nology 3, 014006 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    R. J. Glauber, Physical Review 130, 2529 (1963)

    1963

  5. [14]

    C. S. Mu˜ noz, E. del Valle, A. G. Tudela, K. M¨ uller, S. Lichtmannecker, M. Kaniber, C. Tejedor, J. J. Fin- ley, and F. P. Laussy, Nature Photonics 8, 550 (2014)

    2014

  6. [15]

    Hanschke, K

    L. Hanschke, K. A. Fischer, S. Appel, D. Lukin, J. Wierzbowski, S. Sun, R. Trivedi, J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, J. J. Finley, and K. M¨ uller, npj Quantum Information 4, 43 (2018)

    2018

  7. [16]

    Ollivier, S

    H. Ollivier, S. Thomas, S. Wein, I. M. de Buy Wen- niger, N. Coste, J. Loredo, N. Somaschi, A. Harouri, A. Lemaitre, I. Sagnes, L. Lanco, C. Simon, C. Anton, O. Krebs, and P. Senellart, Physical Review Letters 126 (2021), 10.1103/physrevlett.126.063602

    2021 doi

  8. [17]

    C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, Physical Review Letters 59, 2044–2046 (1987)

    1987

  9. [18]

    J. F. Dynes, M. Lucamarini, K. A. Patel, A. W. Sharpe, M. B. Ward, Z. L. Yuan, and A. J. Shields, Optics Ex- press 26, 22733 (2018)

    2018

  10. [19]

    Aßmann, F

    M. Aßmann, F. Veit, M. Bayer, M. van der Poel, and J. M. Hvam, Science 325, 297–300 (2009)

    2009

  11. [20]

    Rundquist, M

    A. Rundquist, M. Bajcsy, A. Majumdar, T. Sarmiento, K. Fischer, K. G. Lagoudakis, S. Buckley, A. Y. Pig- gott, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Physical Review A 90 (2014), 10.1103/physreva.90.023846

    2014 doi

  12. [21]

    M. J. Stevens, S. Glancy, S. W. Nam, and R. P. Mirin, Optics Express 22, 3244 (2014) . Supplementary Material: Multi-photon emission from a resonantly pumpe d quantum dot F. Giorgino, 1, ∗ P. Zah´ alka,1, 2 L. Jehle, 1, L. Carosini, 1, 2 L. M. Hansen, 1, 2 J. C. Loredo, 1, 2, ...

    2014

  13. [22]

    The case m = 2 For m = 2 two channels are correlated, producing a one-dimensional histogram as shown in Fig. S2. Uncorrelated peaks occur at τ ̸= 0 and are proportional to the product of the single-detector counts, H (2)(τ) = C1C2. The central peak at τ = 0 corresponds to coin...

  14. [23]

    Un- correlated peaks, where τ1 ̸= τ2 ̸= 0, are proportional to the product of single-detector counts, H (3)(τ1, τ 2) = C1C2C3

    The case m = 3 For m = 3, three channels are correlated, producing a two-dimensional hist ogram with more intricate patterns. Un- correlated peaks, where τ1 ̸= τ2 ̸= 0, are proportional to the product of single-detector counts, H (3)(τ1, τ 2) = C1C2C3. The central peak at τ1 =...

  15. [24]

    For example, H (4)(τ, 0, 0) = C2C134 for τ ̸= 0, implying that g(4)(τ, 0, 0) = g(3)(0, 0)

    The case m = 4 and higher For m = 4, the four-dimensional histogram contains estimates for the g(4)(0, 0, 0) as well as lower-order correlations. For example, H (4)(τ, 0, 0) = C2C134 for τ ̸= 0, implying that g(4)(τ, 0, 0) = g(3)(0, 0). Additionally, patterns emerge correspond...

  16. [25]

    R. H. Brown and R. Q. Twiss, Nature 177, 27 (1956)

    1956

  17. [26]

    Nakamura, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Phys ics 37, 075021 (2010)

    K. Nakamura, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Phys ics 37, 075021 (2010)

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.