Synthetic Data-Driven Multi-Architecture Framework for Automated Polyp Segmentation Through Integrated Detection and Mask Generation

Adeniran Opeyemi; Akingbola Oluwapemiisin; Amalahu Chetachi; Fahmi Khalifa; Md Mahmudur Rahman; Ojonugwa Oluwafemi Ejiga Peter

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

Synthetic Data-Driven Multi-Architecture Framework for Automated Polyp Segmentation Through Integrated Detection and Mask Generation

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a fully synthetic pipeline—Stable Diffusion-generated polyps, Faster R-CNN detection, and Segment Anything Model mask refinement—can automate polyp segmentation, reporting 93.08% detection recall and per-model segmenta

desk verdict This submission is a broken artifact—the abstract describes a polyp-segmentation study, but the body is an unrelated quantum-physics paper—so there's nothing to review yet. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06170 v1 pith:ELOSKNX7 submitted 2025-08-08 cs.CV cs.AI

Ojonugwa Oluwafemi Ejiga Peter , Akingbola Oluwapemiisin , Amalahu Chetachi , Adeniran Opeyemi , Fahmi Khalifa , Md Mahmudur Rahman This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVcs.AI

keywords polypsegmentationsyntheticdataStableDiffusionFasterR-CNNSegmentAnythingModelcolonoscopydeeplearningmedicalimageanalysis

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 proposes a fully synthetic data pipeline for automated polyp detection and segmentation in colonoscopy, motivated by the shortage of labeled medical images and the cost of manual annotation. It combines Stable Diffusion-generated polyp images with a Faster R-CNN detector that localizes polyps and the Segment Anything Model that produces masks, then benchmarks five segmentation architectures (U-Net, PSPNet, FPN, LinkNet, MANet) on a ResNet34 backbone. On this synthetic setup, Faster R-CNN reaches 93.08% recall, 88.97% precision, and a 90.98% F1 score; FPN gives the best PSNR (7.21) and SSIM (0.49), U-Net the best recall (84.85%), and LinkNet the best IoU (64.20%) and Dice (77.53%). A sympathetic reader would take the central claim to be that synthetic data can stand in for real colonoscopy images, making automated polyp screening feasible where datasets are scarce.

What carries the argument

The pipeline's load-bearing components are: Stable Diffusion, used to generate synthetic polyp images and thus expand a small dataset; Faster R-CNN, used for initial polyp localization; the Segment Anything Model (SAM), a promptable segmentation model used to create masks on the detected regions; and the five benchmark segmentation models—U-Net, PSPNet, FPN, LinkNet, MANet—all with ResNet34 encoders. The argument runs on the assumption that this synthetic-data-plus-detection-plus-mask-refinement chain produces masks whose quality is measured by PSNR, SSIM, recall, IoU, and Dice.

What would settle it

Train or fine-tune the same Faster R-CNN + SAM + five-model pipeline on a real colonoscopy polyp dataset and on the synthetic dataset, then compare recall, precision, IoU, and Dice on a held-out real test set; if the synthetic-trained models underperform by a large margin, the claim that synthetic data solve the data-scarcity problem would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a multi-stage pipeline—synthetic polyp generation with Stable Diffusion, object localization with Faster R-CNN, mask refinement with SAM, and segmentation with one of five ResNet34-based models—yields strong detection and segmentation on colonoscopy-like images. The reported numbers: detection recall 93.08%, precision 88.97%, F1 90.98%; among segmentation models, FPN achieves the highest PSNR (7.205893) and SSIM (0.492381), U-Net achieves the highest recall (84.85%), and LinkNet achieves IoU 64.20% and Dice 77.53%. In the authors' framing, this addresses limited dataset sizes and annotation complexity by replacing real annotated data with synthetic examples.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that polyps synthesized with Stable Diffusion are representative enough of real colonoscopy imagery that metrics computed on synthetic data transfer to clinical data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the synthetic pipeline performs as reported, labeled real colonoscopy data may be largely replaceable by Stable Diffusion-generated examples, reducing annotation cost.
Detection-first mask generation (Faster R-CNN + SAM) can be combined with a separate segmentation model, decoupling localization from pixel-level mask refinement.
FPN and LinkNet would be the preferred segmentation heads for this pipeline—FPN for reconstruction quality, LinkNet for region overlap—depending on which error matters more.
The consistent ResNet34 backbone across all five segmentation models isolates the effect of decoder architecture on synthetic polyp masks.
A working synthetic-data pipeline would allow rapid prototyping of polyp screening systems before any clinical data collection.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the numbers reported are measured on synthetic data alone; the paper does not show results on real patient colonoscopy images, so the clinical significance depends on an unstated transfer test.
The same recipe—generative synthetic images, a detector, and a promptable mask refiner—could be adapted to other medical-imaging tasks with scarce annotations, provided the synthetic images preserve clinically relevant texture and boundaries.
Editor's note on the supplied document: the full-text section is an unrelated manuscript about continuous-variable quantum circuits, so this extraction rests on the abstract only; none of the polyp-detection claims can be cross-checked against methods or results in this file.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You asked what I thought of 2508.06170. The short version: there's no coherent paper here. The abstract and title promise a synthetic-data polyp-segmentation framework with detection and mask generation, but the full text is a quantum-optics manuscript (lcg plus) by a completely different set of authors. I'm not going to pretend I can evaluate the polyp claims on the basis of an abstract alone. This is a submission-upload failure, not a scientific disagreement.

To give credit where it's due: the abstract's pipeline is a reasonable engineering combination. Stable Diffusion for synthetic polyps, Faster R-CNN for detection, SAM for mask refinement, and five standard segmentation backbones is a sensible toolkit, and if the authors execute it carefully with validation on real colonoscopy data, it could be a useful contribution for the data-scarce end of medical imaging. The idea itself isn't crazy.

But as submitted, there is no way to check anything. The reported numbers—Faster R-CNN recall 93.08%, FPN PSNR 7.205893, LinkNet IoU 64.20%—come with no dataset, no split, no baselines, no error bars, and no implementation details. The choice of PSNR and SSIM as headline segmentation metrics is idiosyncratic at best; those are image-fidelity metrics, not overlap measures, and the values (PSNR around 7 dB, SSIM under 0.5) are low enough to raise questions about what was actually being compared. The abstract never states whether the evaluation was done on the synthetic images used for training or on real patient data. If it's the former, the numbers are just self-consistency checks, not evidence of transfer to clinical practice. That synthetic-to-real gap is the load-bearing assumption, and it isn't addressed.

The body's unrelated content isn't a quirk to shrug off; it makes the manuscript internally contradictory. The abstract cannot be verified against any method, and the method cannot be found. Under the reviewing rule that all manuscript passages count, that's a fatal structural flaw.

Who is this for? Right now, nobody. The abstract might be an interesting starting point for a proper study, but the artifact is not reviewable. The right editorial action is to reject without peer review and ask the authors to resubmit the correct file. If they do, I'd be willing to look at the actual polyp paper and decide then.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The submission is titled 'Synthetic Data-Driven Multi-Architecture Framework for Automated Polyp Segmentation Through Integrated Detection and Mask Generation.' The abstract describes a colonoscopy polyp-detection and segmentation pipeline: synthetic polyp generation with Stable Diffusion, detection with Faster R-CNN, mask refinement with SAM, and evaluation of five segmentation models (U-Net, PSPNet, FPN, LinkNet, MANet) with ResNet34 backbones. Reported results include Faster R-CNN recall 93.08%, precision 88.97%, F1 90.98%, FPN PSNR 7.205893 and SSIM 0.492381, UNet recall 84.85%, and LinkNet IoU 64.20% and Dice 77.53%. However, the full text supplied is a completely different paper: 'Fast simulations of continuous-variable circuits using the coherent state decomposition' (arXiv:2508.06175), a quantum-optics manuscript about the lcg plus simulation library. The body contains no mention of colonoscopy, polyps, synthetic data, detection, segmentation, or any of the named models. Thus the manuscript, as submitted, does not contain the methods or experiments for the claims in the abstract.

Significance. If the abstract's claims were supported, a synthetic-data-driven pipeline combining detection and segmentation with multiple architectures could be a useful contribution to the problem of limited medical imaging datasets. The idea of using Stable Diffusion to augment colonoscopy data and SAM to refine masks is plausible and of potential practical interest. However, in the present submission the significance cannot be evaluated: the body is an unrelated quantum-physics paper, so there is no methodology, no dataset description, no experimental protocol, no baseline comparison, and no code or reproducibility artifacts for the polyp framework. The reported numbers are therefore unverifiable. The manuscript does not provide the object of evaluation, and no credit can be given for reproducible artifacts or machine-checked results for the claimed work.

major comments (3)

[Full text (arXiv:2508.06175)] The submitted full text is the quantum-optics paper 'Fast simulations of continuous-variable circuits using the coherent state decomposition,' not the polyp-segmentation paper announced in the title and abstract. The body contains no mention of colonoscopy, polyps, Stable Diffusion, Faster R-CNN, SAM, U-Net, PSPNet, FPN, LinkNet, MANet, or any related evaluation. This is a document-level inconsistency: the central claim in the abstract has no supporting methods or results in the manuscript. The reported detection and segmentation metrics cannot be checked against any experimental setup. This is not a scientific disagreement; the manuscript as submitted is not the paper being claimed.
[Abstract] The abstract reports precise numerical results (e.g., Faster R-CNN recall 93.08%, FPN PSNR 7.205893, SSIM 0.492381, LinkNet IoU 64.20%) without any description of the dataset, image count, train/validation/test split, preprocessing, hyperparameters, number of runs, or error bars. There is also no comparison with existing polyp-segmentation methods. Even if the body were present, these results would be insufficient to assess statistical significance or generalizability. As it stands, the numbers are isolated claims with no experimental context.
[Abstract (synthetic-to-real premise)] The paper's premise is that synthetic polyps generated with Stable Diffusion are representative enough for automated polyp segmentation, but the abstract and body provide no validation on real colonoscopy images. If training and evaluation both use synthetic data from the same generator, the reported IoU/Dice/PSNR/SSIM values would measure self-consistency with the synthetic distribution, not clinical usefulness. A concrete external-validation step on a real colonoscopy dataset (e.g., CVC-ClinicDB, Kvasir-SEG) is essential to support the claimed applicability. This missing evidence is load-bearing for the paper's motivation.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract uses PSNR and SSIM as the primary metrics for segmentation quality. These are not standard segmentation metrics and are more commonly used for image reconstruction; for the reported values (PSNR 7.2 dB, SSIM 0.49) it is unclear what interpretation should be drawn. If these metrics are kept, the paper should justify their use and also report standard pixel-level metrics (IoU, Dice, accuracy) for all models.
[Abstract] There is a grammatical/typographical issue: 'The faster R-CNN detection algorithm achieved a recall of 93.08% combined with a precision of 88.97% and an F1 score of 90.98%.SAM is then used to generate the image mask.' The period before 'SAM' is missing and the sentence is incomplete. Additionally, the phrase 'multidirectional architectural framework' is vague; the abstract should specify the framework's components and their interactions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reasoning is identifiable; the manuscript body is an unrelated quantum-optics paper, so the abstract's polyp-segmentation claims have no derivation chain to evaluate.

full rationale

The submitted manuscript contains an abstract describing a synthetic-data polyp segmentation framework with reported metrics, but the full text is arXiv:2508.06175, 'Fast simulations of continuous-variable circuits using the coherent state decomposition,' by different authors, with no mention of colonoscopy, Stable Diffusion, Faster R-CNN, SAM, U-Net, PSPNet, FPN, LinkNet, or MANet. There is therefore no method section, no equations, no dataset description, and no training/evaluation protocol that could constitute a derivation chain. Circularity requires exhibiting a specific reduction, e.g., Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No such reduction exists in the text because the asserted results are entirely unsupported rather than derived. The abstract's numbers are unverifiable and the document is internally inconsistent, but unsupportedness is a correctness/integrity problem, not circularity. Per the hard rules, a non-finding (score 0) is the honest outcome when no quotientable derivation is present.

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

The only visible load-bearing assumption in the abstract is that synthetic polyp images transfer to real clinical settings. No free parameters are named, and no new entities are postulated.

assumptions (1)

domain assumption Stable Diffusion-generated polyp images are representative of real colonoscopy images for training and evaluation.
The abstract introduces synthetic data generation to handle limited dataset sizes; the reported performance presumably depends on this distribution match, but no real-data validation is described.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Synthetic Data-Driven Multi-Architecture Framework for Automated Polyp Segmentation Through Integrated Detection and Mask Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ELOSKNX7

@misc{pith2026250806170,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Synthetic Data-Driven Multi-Architecture Framework for Automated Polyp Segmentation Through Integrated Detection and Mask Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ELOSKNX7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06170}
}

read the original abstract

Colonoscopy is a vital tool for the early diagnosis of colorectal cancer, which is one of the main causes of cancer-related mortality globally; hence, it is deemed an essential technique for the prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer. The research introduces a unique multidirectional architectural framework to automate polyp detection within colonoscopy images while helping resolve limited healthcare dataset sizes and annotation complexities. The research implements a comprehensive system that delivers synthetic data generation through Stable Diffusion enhancements together with detection and segmentation algorithms. This detection approach combines Faster R-CNN for initial object localization while the Segment Anything Model (SAM) refines the segmentation masks. The faster R-CNN detection algorithm achieved a recall of 93.08% combined with a precision of 88.97% and an F1 score of 90.98%.SAM is then used to generate the image mask. The research evaluated five state-of-the-art segmentation models that included U-Net, PSPNet, FPN, LinkNet, and MANet using ResNet34 as a base model. The results demonstrate the superior performance of FPN with the highest scores of PSNR (7.205893) and SSIM (0.492381), while UNet excels in recall (84.85%) and LinkNet shows balanced performance in IoU (64.20%) and Dice score (77.53%).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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

Improving Table Retrieval with Question Generation from Partial Tables
cs.IR 2025-08 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

QGpT aims to improve table retrieval by embedding LLM-generated questions with partial table segments, but the submitted body contains an unrelated polyp segmentation study.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[5]

Aghaee Rad, T

H. Aghaee Rad, T. Ainsworth, R. N. Alexander, B. Al- tieri, M. F. Askarani, R. Baby, L. Banchi, B. Q. Bara- giola, J. E. Bourassa, R. S. Chadwick, I. Charania, H. Chen, M. J. Collins, P. Contu, N. D’Arcy, G. Dauphi- nais, R. De Prins, D. Deschenes, I. Di Luch, S. Duque, P. Edke, S. E. Fayer, S. Ferracin, H. Ferretti, J. Gefaell, S. Glancy, C. Gonz´ alez-A...

work page 2025
[6]

H.-K. Lo, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, Secure quantum key distribution, Nature Photonics 8, 595 (2014)

work page 2014
[7]

Azuma, K

K. Azuma, K. Tamaki, and W. J. Munro, All-photonic intercity quantum key distribution, Nature Communica- tions 6, 10171 (2015)

work page 2015
[8]

Pirandola, U

S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani, J. Pereira, M. Razavi, J. S. Shaari, M. Tomamichel, V. C. Usenko, G. Vallone, P. Villoresi, and P. Wallden, Advances in Quantum Cryptography, Advances in Optics and Photonics 12, 1012 (2020)

work page 2020
[9]

V. C. Usenko, A. Ac ´ ın, R. All´ eaume, U. L. Ander- sen, E. Diamanti, T. Gehring, A. A. E. Hajomer, F. Kanitschar, C. Pacher, S. Pirandola, and V. Pruneri, Continuous-variable quantum communication (2025), arXiv:2501.12801 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2025
[10]

M. W. Mitchell, J. S. Lundeen, and A. M. Steinberg, Super-resolving phase measurements with a multiphoton entangled state, Nature 429, 161 (2004)

work page 2004
[11]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum Metrology, Physical Review Letters 96, 010401 (2006)

work page 2006
[12]

J. A. H. Nielsen, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, T. Gehring, and U. L. Andersen, Deterministic Quantum Phase Es- timation beyond N00N States, Physical Review Letters 130, 123603 (2023)

work page 2023

Show all 25 references

[13]

Eisert, S

J. Eisert, S. Scheel, and M. B. Plenio, Distilling Gaussian States with Gaussian Operations is Impossible, Physical Review Letters 89, 137903 (2002)

2002
[14]

Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, J

R. Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, J. Fiur´ aˇ sek, N. J. Cerf, J. Wenger, R. Tualle-Brouri, and Ph. Grangier, Proposal for a Loophole-Free Bell Test Using Homodyne Detection, Physical Review Letters 93, 130409 (2004)

2004
[15]

Bartolucci, P

S. Bartolucci, P. Birchall, H. Bomb ´ ın, H. Cable, C. Daw- son, M. Gimeno-Segovia, E. Johnston, K. Kieling, N. Nickerson, M. Pant, F. Pastawski, T. Rudolph, and C. Sparrow, Fusion-based quantum computation, Nature Communications 14, 912 (2023)

2023
[16]

Gottesman, A

D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Physical Review A 64, 012310 (2001)

2001
[17]

A. L. Grimsmo, J. Combes, and B. Q. Baragiola, Quantum Computing with Rotation-Symmetric Bosonic Codes, Physical Review X 10, 011058 (2020)

2020
[18]

N. C. Menicucci, P. van Loock, M. Gu, C. Weedbrook, T. C. Ralph, and M. A. Nielsen, Universal Quantum Computation with Continuous-Variable Cluster States, Physical Review Letters 97, 110501 (2006)

2006
[19]

B. Q. Baragiola, G. Pantaleoni, R. N. Alexander, A. Karanjai, and N. C. Menicucci, All-Gaussian univer- sality and fault tolerance with the Gottesman-Kitaev- Preskill code, Physical Review Letters 123, 200502 (2019)

2019
[20]

D. Su, C. R. Myers, and K. K. Sabapathy, Conver- sion of Gaussian states to non-Gaussian states using photon-number-resolving detectors, Physical Review A 100, 052301 (2019)

2019
[21]

Eaton, R

M. Eaton, R. Nehra, and O. Pfister, Non-Gaussian and Gottesman–Kitaev–Preskill state preparation by photon catalysis, New Journal of Physics 21, 113034 (2019)

2019
[22]

Takase, J.-i

K. Takase, J.-i. Yoshikawa, W. Asavanant, M. Endo, and A. Furusawa, Generation of optical Schr¨ odinger cat states by generalized photon subtraction, Physical Review A 103, 013710 (2021)

2021
[23]

Takase, F

K. Takase, F. Hanamura, H. Nagayoshi, J. E. Bourassa, R. N. Alexander, A. Kawasaki, W. Asavanant, M. Endo, and A. Furusawa, Generation of flying logical qubits us- ing generalized photon subtraction with adaptive Gaus- sian operations, Physical Review A 110, 012436 (2024)

2024
[24]

Ourjoumtsev, R

A. Ourjoumtsev, R. Tualle-Brouri, J. Laurat, and P. Grangier, Generating Optical Schr¨ odinger Kittens for Quantum Information Processing, Science 312, 83 (2006)

2006
[25]

Ourjoumtsev, H

A. Ourjoumtsev, H. Jeong, R. Tualle-Brouri, and P. Grangier, Generation of optical ‘Schr¨ odinger cats’ from photon number states, Nature 448, 784 (2007)

2007
[26]

Konno, W

S. Konno, W. Asavanant, F. Hanamura, H. Nagayoshi, K. Fukui, A. Sakaguchi, R. Ide, F. China, M. Yabuno, S. Miki, H. Terai, K. Takase, M. Endo, P. Marek, R. Filip, P. Van Loock, and A. Furusawa, Logical states for fault- tolerant quantum computation with propagating light, Scie...

2024
[27]

M. Endo, T. Nomura, T. Sonoyama, K. Takahashi, S. Takasu, D. Fukuda, T. Kashiwazaki, A. Inoue, T. Umeki, R. Nehra, P. Marek, R. Filip, K. Takase, W. Asavanant, and A. Furusawa, High-Rate Four Pho- ton Subtraction from Squeezed Vacuum: Preparing Cat State for Optical Quantum Co...

2025 arXiv
[28]

M. V. Larsen, J. E. Bourassa, S. Kocsis, J. F. Tasker, R. S. Chadwick, C. Gonz´ alez-Arciniegas, J. Hastrup, C. E. Lopetegui-Gonz´ alez, F. M. Miatto, A. Motamedi, R. Noro, G. Roeland, R. Baby, H. Chen, P. Contu, I. Di Luch, C. Drago, M. Giesbrecht, T. Grainge, I. Krasnokutska...

2025
[29]

C. S. Hamilton, R. Kruse, L. Sansoni, S. Barkhofen, C. Silberhorn, and I. Jex, Gaussian Boson Sampling, Physical Review Letters 119, 170501 (2017)

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [5]

Aghaee Rad, T

H. Aghaee Rad, T. Ainsworth, R. N. Alexander, B. Al- tieri, M. F. Askarani, R. Baby, L. Banchi, B. Q. Bara- giola, J. E. Bourassa, R. S. Chadwick, I. Charania, H. Chen, M. J. Collins, P. Contu, N. D’Arcy, G. Dauphi- nais, R. De Prins, D. Deschenes, I. Di Luch, S. Duque, P. Edke, S. E. Fayer, S. Ferracin, H. Ferretti, J. Gefaell, S. Glancy, C. Gonz´ alez-A...

work page 2025

[2] [6]

H.-K. Lo, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, Secure quantum key distribution, Nature Photonics 8, 595 (2014)

work page 2014

[3] [7]

Azuma, K

K. Azuma, K. Tamaki, and W. J. Munro, All-photonic intercity quantum key distribution, Nature Communica- tions 6, 10171 (2015)

work page 2015

[4] [8]

Pirandola, U

S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani, J. Pereira, M. Razavi, J. S. Shaari, M. Tomamichel, V. C. Usenko, G. Vallone, P. Villoresi, and P. Wallden, Advances in Quantum Cryptography, Advances in Optics and Photonics 12, 1012 (2020)

work page 2020

[5] [9]

V. C. Usenko, A. Ac ´ ın, R. All´ eaume, U. L. Ander- sen, E. Diamanti, T. Gehring, A. A. E. Hajomer, F. Kanitschar, C. Pacher, S. Pirandola, and V. Pruneri, Continuous-variable quantum communication (2025), arXiv:2501.12801 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2025

[6] [10]

M. W. Mitchell, J. S. Lundeen, and A. M. Steinberg, Super-resolving phase measurements with a multiphoton entangled state, Nature 429, 161 (2004)

work page 2004

[7] [11]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum Metrology, Physical Review Letters 96, 010401 (2006)

work page 2006

[8] [12]

J. A. H. Nielsen, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, T. Gehring, and U. L. Andersen, Deterministic Quantum Phase Es- timation beyond N00N States, Physical Review Letters 130, 123603 (2023)

work page 2023