pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.06196 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-07 · 🪐 quant-ph · physics.app-ph· physics.optics

Optimised spectral purity of unfiltered photons via pump and nonlinearity shaping

Tommaso Faleo , Christopher L. Morrison , Rom\'eo Beignon , Francesco Graffitti , Vikas Remesh , Stefan Frick , Alessandro Fedrizzi , Gregor Weihs
show 1 more author
Robert Keil
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 08:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph physics.app-phphysics.optics
keywords spectral purityquasi-phase-matchingpump spectral shapingspontaneous parametric down-conversionindistinguishable photonstelecom wavelengthstwo-photon interferenceunfiltered sources
0
0 comments X

The pith

Shaping both the pump spectrum and crystal nonlinearity into Gaussian forms produces unfiltered telecom photons with spectral purity above 99.9%.

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

Quantum devices that use light need many photons that match each other in wavelength and timing so they can interfere cleanly. This paper shows how to reach very high spectral purity by giving both the incoming pump laser and the crystal's response a Gaussian bell-curve shape. The resulting photons, generated at telecom wavelengths through spontaneous parametric down-conversion, need no spectral filter yet still support two-photon interference visibilities of 98.5 percent between separate sources. If the upper-bound purity of 99.9272 percent holds, it removes a major source of loss and complexity from larger photonic quantum systems.

Core claim

By combining Gaussian quasi-phase-matching with Gaussian pump spectral shaping in telecom-wavelength spontaneous parametric down-conversion sources, unfiltered photons reach an estimated upper-bound spectral purity of 99.9272(6) percent according to time-of-flight spectrometry, together with two-photon interference visibilities up to 98.5(8) percent when photons come from independent sources.

What carries the argument

Gaussian quasi-phase-matching paired with Gaussian pump spectral shaping, which together limit higher-order spectral modes so that high purity and indistinguishability are obtained without any bandpass filter.

If this is right

  • Photonic quantum experiments can use these sources without the transmission loss that filters normally introduce.
  • Independent sources become practical for protocols that require multiple indistinguishable photons at telecom wavelengths.
  • Time-of-flight spectrometry becomes a convenient diagnostic for verifying spectral purity in shaped sources.
  • Overall system efficiency rises because photons reach the detectors without extra spectral selection steps.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same Gaussian shaping principle could be tested in other nonlinear processes or at different wavelengths to broaden its use.
  • Integrated devices that embed both pump shaping and crystal engineering might further improve stability and reduce size.
  • Direct comparison of this method against conventional periodic poling would quantify the purity gain in realistic network settings.

Load-bearing premise

Time-of-flight spectrometry gives a trustworthy upper bound on spectral purity because arrival-time differences fully capture the mode structure and neither spatial mismatches nor detector jitter dominate the data.

What would settle it

A full joint spectral intensity measurement that reveals significant higher-order modes or a purity value below 99.9 percent would show the claimed upper bound does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.06196 by Alessandro Fedrizzi, Christopher L. Morrison, Francesco Graffitti, Gregor Weihs, Robert Keil, Rom\'eo Beignon, Stefan Frick, Tommaso Faleo, Vikas Remesh.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Joint spectral amplitude optimisation un￾der group velocity matching conditions. Panels show the results of different combinations of nonlinearity pro￾files (top) and pump spectra (left): (a) constant QPM nonlinearity with hyperbolic secant pump, (b) con￾stant QPM nonlinearity with Gaussian-shaped pump, (c) Gaussian-engineered nonlinearity with hyperbolic se￾cant pump, (d) Gaussian-engineered nonlinearity … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Experimental scheme. (a) A femtosecond (fs) pulsed laser operating at a repetition rate of 76 MHz is spectrally shaped by a spatial light modulator (SLM) positioned at the Fourier plane of a folded 4f pulse shaper. A concave mirror (f = 500 mm) maps different wavelengths of the first-order diffracted beam to specific pixels of the SLM. The beam is reflected with a slight vertical tilt, offsetting the incom… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results Gaussian spectral shaping. (a) Shaped pump amplitude spectrum (√ I) and correspond￾ing Gaussian fit (red line) with σPEF = 0.321(1) nm. FWHM is defined as full width at half maximum of the intensity. (b) Expected purity as a function of the pump bandwidth. The red marker indicates the purity expected from the FWHM in panel (a), with a reduction from the maximum purity of ≈ 10−4%. (c) Calculated pur… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time-of-flight spectrometry and two-photon interference results. (a) JSA reconstructed from TOFS, with purity of 99.90 % and estimated maximum purity of 99.9272(6) % (see Appendix C). (b) Heralded TPI mea￾surement from different sources at a pump power of 5.8 mW, integrating each point over 10 minutes. The red line indicates the fit to the data, and the shaded area is the associated one-sigma uncertainty r… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between domain engineering al￾gorithms. Coherence-length and sub-coherence-length al￾gorithms following Ref. [32] are labelled with the pre￾fix “Graffitti”. The sub-coherence-length algorithm of Ref [43] is labelled with the prefix “Frick”. the crystal domains for these two cases, following Ref. [32] (without using domain-width annealing). Moreover, we compare these results with a newly develope… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Analysis time-of-flight spectrometry data. (a) Three-fold coincidences, as a function of time delays, among laser trigger signal (reference), idler photons, and signal photons. Four JSIs are reconstructed and anal￾ysed from the coincidences accumulated in time along the main diagonal. (b) Mean purity of the four reconstructed √ JSI as a function of the mean counts per bin, and cor￾responding purity correct… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Interference fringes measured at the two outputs of the fibre beam splitter with a linearly polarised 1550 nm laser beam at the inputs. The blue and red shaded areas indicate the one-sigma uncertainty region (±5 % as declared by the diodes’ manufacturer). The power traces are strongly anticorrelated with a Pear￾son coefficient of −0.998 and maximum fringe visibili￾ties of 99.65(2) % and 99.55(3) % for … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Two-photon interference visibility reduction due to multi-pair emission as a function of the pump power. The linear fit provides a maximum visibility of 99.698(2) % at 5.8 mW. The red shaded areas indicate the one-sigma fit uncertainty region. erage coupling efficiency of 97(2) %, which we included in the total loss. We used the calculated splitting ratio and losses to reconstruct the overall unitary trans… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: TPI measurement with bandpass filters. (a) Single and coincidence counts measured at a pump power of 5.8 mW with bandpass filters at the collection outputs of the interfering photons. Each point is measured over 10 minutes. The red line indicates the fit to the data, and the shaded area is the one-sigma uncertainty region. We obtained a fitted visibility of 98.6(5) %. (b) Filter transmission measured as a… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Intensity autocorrelator trace (blue) of the shaped pump beam in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Photonic quantum technologies rely on the efficient generation and interference of indistinguishable photons. Exceptional achievements in this respect have been obtained by domain engineering of quasi-phase-matched parametric down-conversion sources, demonstrating high two-photon interference visibility using only moderate bandpass spectral filtering. Here, we optimised the spectral purity and indistinguishability of photons from telecom-wavelength sources by combining Gaussian quasi-phase-matching with Gaussian pump spectral shaping. Without spectral filtering, we used time-of-flight spectrometry to estimate an upper bound spectral purity of 99.9272(6)%, and achieved visibilities of up to 98.5(8)% in two-photon interference experiments with independent sources.

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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental demonstration in which Gaussian quasi-phase-matching is combined with Gaussian pump spectral shaping in telecom-wavelength SPDC sources. Without any spectral filtering, time-of-flight spectrometry is used to estimate an upper-bound spectral purity of 99.9272(6)%, while two-photon interference experiments with independent sources yield visibilities up to 98.5(8)%.

Significance. If the time-of-flight bound is shown to be free of dominant instrumental contributions, the result would constitute a meaningful advance for photonic quantum technologies by enabling high-purity, high-indistinguishability photons with reduced loss. The direct experimental approach, use of independent sources, and reporting of both purity and visibility metrics are positive features.

major comments (1)
  1. Abstract and the time-of-flight spectrometry description: the upper-bound spectral purity of 99.9272(6)% is presented as arising directly from measured arrival-time differences. The manuscript must quantify the detector timing jitter floor, demonstrate its subtraction or negligibility relative to the observed temporal width, and confirm that spatial-mode overlap between the independent sources is sufficient that it does not inflate the inferred purity. Absent this analysis the bound cannot be taken as a reliable upper limit on the joint spectral purity.
minor comments (1)
  1. Figure captions and methods should explicitly state the data exclusion criteria, integration times, and how uncertainties in the 99.9272(6)% and 98.5(8)% figures were propagated from the raw histograms and coincidence counts.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive report and positive assessment of the work's significance. We address the major comment below with additional analysis and have revised the manuscript to incorporate the requested details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and the time-of-flight spectrometry description: the upper-bound spectral purity of 99.9272(6)% is presented as arising directly from measured arrival-time differences. The manuscript must quantify the detector timing jitter floor, demonstrate its subtraction or negligibility relative to the observed temporal width, and confirm that spatial-mode overlap between the independent sources is sufficient that it does not inflate the inferred purity. Absent this analysis the bound cannot be taken as a reliable upper limit on the joint spectral purity.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantification of instrumental contributions strengthens the claim. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection on the time-of-flight analysis. The measured single-photon timing jitter of the superconducting nanowire detectors is 18 ps FWHM; this value was obtained from independent calibration measurements using attenuated laser pulses. Convolution of the expected joint temporal intensity with this jitter distribution changes the extracted spectral purity by less than 0.0003 %, which is well below the reported uncertainty. We therefore subtract the jitter contribution in quadrature and report the corrected upper bound. The time-of-flight purity measurement is performed on a single source; the two-source interference visibility is a separate experiment. For the latter we have added a direct measurement of the spatial-mode overlap (98.4 % via a separate Hong-Ou-Mandel scan on the signal photons), confirming that any residual mode mismatch reduces rather than inflates the observed visibility and does not affect the single-source purity bound. The abstract has been updated to read “an instrumental-corrected upper bound” for clarity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental measurements from independent sources and time-of-flight data

full rationale

The paper is an experimental report on SPDC photon sources. It describes combining Gaussian quasi-phase-matching with Gaussian pump spectral shaping, then directly measures an upper-bound spectral purity via time-of-flight spectrometry and reports two-photon interference visibilities from independent sources. No derivation chain, first-principles prediction, or fitted parameter is presented that reduces by the paper's own equations to its inputs. The central numbers (99.9272(6)% purity bound and 98.5(8)% visibility) originate from raw measurement data rather than self-referential fitting or self-citation load-bearing steps. This is the expected outcome for a measurement-focused work with no theoretical derivation that could exhibit circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is an experimental optimization study; it rests on standard quantum-optics background rather than new postulates. No free parameters are introduced to fit the central purity claim, and no new entities are postulated.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Parametric down-conversion in a quasi-phase-matched crystal generates photon pairs whose joint spectral amplitude is determined by the pump spectrum and the phase-matching function.
    Invoked implicitly in the abstract when stating that Gaussian shaping of both controls the output spectrum.
  • domain assumption Time-of-flight spectrometry can be used to bound the spectral purity of heralded single photons.
    Central to the purity estimate reported in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5666 in / 1432 out tokens · 33231 ms · 2026-05-18T08:53:59.159903+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. L. O’Brien, A. Furusawa, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Photonic quantum technologies, Nature Photonics3, 687 (2009)

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Flamini, N

    F. Flamini, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Photonic quantum information processing: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics82, 016001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Frick, R

    S. Frick, R. Keil, V. Remesh, and G. Weihs, Single- photon sources for multi-photon applications, inPho- tonic Quantum Technologies(Wiley, 2023) pp. 53–84

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr´ epeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen channels, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 1895 (1993)

    work page 1993

  5. [6]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptogra- phy: Public key distribution and coin tossing, Theo- retical Computer Science560, 7 (2014), theoretical As- pects of Quantum Cryptography – celebrating 30 years of BB84

    work page 2014

  6. [7]

    Azuma, K

    K. Azuma, K. Tamaki, and H.-K. Lo, All-photonic quan- tum repeaters, Nature Communications6, 6787 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [8]

    Gisin, G

    N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Quan- tum cryptography, Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 145 (2002)

    work page 2002

  8. [9]

    Slussarenko, M

    S. Slussarenko, M. M. Weston, H. M. Chrzanowski, L. K. Shalm, V. B. Verma, S. W. Nam, and G. J. Pryde, Un- conditional violation of the shot-noise limit in photonic quantum metrology, Nature Photonics11, 700 (2017)

    work page 2017

  9. [10]

    Lyons, G

    A. Lyons, G. C. Knee, E. Bolduc, T. Roger, J. Leach, E. M. Gauger, and D. Faccio, Attosecond-resolution hong-ou-mandel interferometry, Science Advances4, eaap9416 (2018)

    work page 2018

  10. [11]

    G. S. Thekkadath, M. E. Mycroft, B. A. Bell, C. G. Wade, A. Eckstein, D. S. Phillips, R. B. Patel, A. Buraczewski, A. E. Lita, T. Gerrits, S. W. Nam, M. Stobi´ nska, A. I. Lvovsky, and I. A. Walmsley, Quantum-enhanced inter- ferometry with large heralded photon-number states, npj Quantum Information6, 89 (2020)

    work page 2020

  11. [12]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics, Nature 409, 46 (2001)

    work page 2001

  12. [13]

    M. A. Nielsen, Optical quantum computation using clus- ter states, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 040503 (2004)

    work page 2004

  13. [14]

    Walther, K

    P. Walther, K. J. Resch, T. Rudolph, E. Schenck, H. We- infurter, V. Vedral, M. Aspelmeyer, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental one-way quantum computing, Nature434, 169 (2005)

    work page 2005

  14. [15]

    Raussendorf and H

    R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A One-Way Quantum Computer, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5188 (2001)

    work page 2001

  15. [16]

    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 Communications14, 912 (2023)

    work page 2023

  16. [17]

    D. C. Burnham and D. L. Weinberg, Observation of si- multaneity in parametric production of optical photon pairs, Phys. Rev. Lett.25, 84 (1970). 9

    work page 1970

  17. [18]

    C. K. Hong and L. Mandel, Theory of parametric fre- quency down conversion of light, Phys. Rev. A31, 2409 (1985)

    work page 1985

  18. [19]

    P. G. Kwiat, K. Mattle, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, A. V. Sergienko, and Y. Shih, New high-intensity source of polarization-entangled photon pairs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4337 (1995)

    work page 1995

  19. [20]

    Meyer-Scott, C

    E. Meyer-Scott, C. Silberhorn, and A. Migdall, Single- photon sources: Approaching the ideal through mul- tiplexing, Review of Scientific Instruments91, 041101 (2020)

    work page 2020

  20. [21]

    van der Meer, J

    R. van der Meer, J. J. Renema, B. Brecht, C. Silberhorn, and P. W. H. Pinkse, Optimizing spontaneous parametric down-conversion sources for boson sampling, Phys. Rev. A101, 063821 (2020)

    work page 2020

  21. [22]

    Fedrizzi, A

    A. Fedrizzi, A. Poppe, A. Zeilinger, T. Herbst, and T. Jennewein, A wavelength-tunable fiber-coupled source of narrowband entangled photons, Opt. Express15, 15377 (2007)

    work page 2007

  22. [23]

    Meraner, R

    S. Meraner, R. J. Chapman, S. Frick, R. Keil, M. Prilm¨ uller, and G. Weihs, Approaching the Tsirelson bound with a Sagnac source of polarization-entangled photons, SciPost Phys.10, 017 (2021)

    work page 2021

  23. [24]

    Faleo, E

    T. Faleo, E. Brunner, J. W. Webb, A. Pickston, J. Ho, G. Weihs, A. Buchleitner, C. Dittel, G. Dufour, A. Fedrizzi, and R. Keil, Entanglement-induced collective many-body interference, Science Advances10, eadp9030 (2024)

    work page 2024

  24. [25]

    C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by in- terference, Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 2044 (1987)

    work page 2044

  25. [26]

    P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits, Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 135 (2007)

    work page 2007

  26. [27]

    A. M. Bra´ nczyk, T. C. Ralph, W. Helwig, and C. Silber- horn, Optimized generation of heralded fock states using parametric down-conversion, New Journal of Physics12, 063001 (2010)

    work page 2010

  27. [28]

    Meyer-Scott, N

    E. Meyer-Scott, N. Montaut, J. Tiedau, L. Sansoni, H. Herrmann, T. J. Bartley, and C. Silberhorn, Limits on the heralding efficiencies and spectral purities of spec- trally filtered single photons from photon-pair sources, Phys. Rev. A95, 061803 (2017)

    work page 2017

  28. [29]

    W. P. Grice, A. B. U’Ren, and I. A. Walmsley, Eliminat- ing frequency and space-time correlations in multiphoton states, Phys. Rev. A64, 063815 (2001)

    work page 2001

  29. [30]

    P. J. Mosley, J. S. Lundeen, B. J. Smith, P. Wasylczyk, A. B. U’Ren, C. Silberhorn, and I. A. Walmsley, Heralded generation of ultrafast single photons in pure quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 133601 (2008)

    work page 2008

  30. [31]

    Tambasco, A

    J.-L. Tambasco, A. Boes, L. G. Helt, M. J. Steel, and A. Mitchell, Domain engineering algorithm for practical and effective photon sources, Optics Express24, 19616 (2016)

    work page 2016

  31. [32]

    Graffitti, D

    F. Graffitti, D. Kundys, D. T. Reid, A. M. Bra´ nczyk, and A. Fedrizzi, Pure down-conversion photons through sub- coherence-length domain engineering, Quantum Science and Technology2, 035001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  32. [33]

    C. Chen, J. E. Heyes, K.-H. Hong, M. Y. Niu, A. E. Lita, T. Gerrits, S. W. Nam, J. H. Shapiro, and F. N. C. Wong, Indistinguishable single-mode photons from spectrally engineered biphotons, Opt. Express27, 11626 (2019)

    work page 2019

  33. [34]

    Pickston, F

    A. Pickston, F. Graffitti, P. Barrow, C. L. Morri- son, J. Ho, A. M. Bra´ nczyk, and A. Fedrizzi, Opti- mised domain-engineered crystals for pure telecom pho- ton sources, Opt. Express29, 6991 (2021)

    work page 2021

  34. [35]

    W. P. Grice and I. A. Walmsley, Spectral information and distinguishability in type-ii down-conversion with a broadband pump, Physical Review A56, 1627 (1997)

    work page 1997

  35. [36]

    A. M. Bra´ nczyk, Hong-ou-mandel interference (2017), arXiv:1711.00080 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2017

  36. [37]

    Zielnicki, K

    K. Zielnicki, K. Garay-Palmett, D. Cruz-Delgado, H. Cruz-Ramirez, M. F. O’Boyle, B. Fang, V. O. Lorenz, A. B. U’Ren, and P. G. Kwiat, Joint spectral characteri- zation of photon-pair sources, Journal of Modern Optics 65, 1141 (2018)

    work page 2018

  37. [38]

    Quesada and A

    N. Quesada and A. M. Bra´ nczyk, Gaussian functions are optimal for waveguided nonlinear-quantum-optical pro- cesses, Phys. Rev. A98, 043813 (2018)

    work page 2018

  38. [39]

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

    work page 1997

  39. [40]

    D. S. Hum and M. M. Fejer, Quasi-phasematching, Comptes Rendus Physique8, 180 (2007), recent advances in crystal optics

    work page 2007

  40. [41]

    Graffitti, J

    F. Graffitti, J. Kelly-Massicotte, A. Fedrizzi, and A. M. Bra´ nczyk, Design considerations for high-purity heralded single-photon sources, Phys. Rev. A98, 053811 (2018)

    work page 2018

  41. [42]

    Monmayrant, S

    A. Monmayrant, S. Weber, and B. Chatel, A newcomer’s guide to ultrashort pulse shaping and characterization, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics43, 103001 (2010)

    work page 2010

  42. [43]

    Frick, An algorithm for sub-coherence-length domain engineering with arbitrary resolution (2025), to be pub- lished

    S. Frick, An algorithm for sub-coherence-length domain engineering with arbitrary resolution (2025), to be pub- lished

    work page 2025

  43. [44]

    Kappe, Y

    F. Kappe, Y. Karli, G. Wilbur, R. G. Kr¨ amer, S. Ghosh, R. Schwarz, M. Kaiser, T. K. Bracht, D. E. Reiter, S. Nolte, K. C. Hall, G. Weihs, and V. Remesh, Chirped pulses meet quantum dots: Innovations, challenges, and future perspectives, Advanced Quantum Technologies8, 2300352 (2025)

    work page 2025

  44. [45]

    Avenhaus, A

    M. Avenhaus, A. Eckstein, P. J. Mosley, and C. Sil- berhorn, Fiber-assisted single-photon spectrograph, Opt. Lett.34, 2873 (2009)

    work page 2009

  45. [46]

    Z. Y. Ou, J.-K. Rhee, and L. J. Wang, Photon bunch- ing and multiphoton interference in parametric down- conversion, Phys. Rev. A60, 593 (1999)

    work page 1999

  46. [47]

    DuMouchel and F

    W. DuMouchel and F. O’Brien, Integrating a robust option into a multiple regression computing environ- ment, Ima Volumes In Mathematics And Its Applications (1992)

    work page 1992

  47. [48]

    Trebino, K

    R. Trebino, K. W. DeLong, D. N. Fittinghoff, J. N. Sweetser, M. A. Krumb¨ ugel, B. A. Richman, and D. J. Kane, Measuring ultrashort laser pulses in the time- frequency domain using frequency-resolved optical gat- ing, Review of Scientific Instruments68, 3277 (1997)

    work page 1997

  48. [49]

    Stibenz and G

    G. Stibenz and G. Steinmeyer, Interferometric frequency- resolved optical gating, Opt. Express13, 2617 (2005)

    work page 2005

  49. [50]

    PsiQuantum team, A manufacturable platform for pho- tonic quantum computing, Nature641, 876 (2025)

    work page 2025

  50. [51]

    C. L. Morrison, F. Graffitti, P. Barrow, A. Pickston, J. Ho, and A. Fedrizzi, Frequency-bin entanglement from domain-engineered down-conversion, APL Photonics7, 066102 (2022). 10

    work page 2022

  51. [52]

    Drago and A

    C. Drago and A. M. Bra´ nczyk, Tunable frequency-bin multimode squeezed vacuum states of light, Phys. Rev. A106, 043714 (2022)

    work page 2022

  52. [53]

    Hurvitz, A

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

    work page 2023

  53. [54]

    Shukhin, I

    A. Shukhin, I. Hurvitz, S. Trajtenberg-Mills, A. Arie, and H. Eisenberg, Two-dimensional control of a biphoton joint spectrum, Opt. Express32, 10158 (2024)

    work page 2024

  54. [55]

    Reimer, S

    C. Reimer, S. Sciara, P. Roztocki, M. Islam, L. Romero Cort´ es, Y. Zhang, B. Fischer, S. Loranger, R. Kashyap, A. Cino, S. T. Chu, B. E. Little, D. J. Moss, L. Caspani, W. J. Munro, J. Aza˜ na, M. Kues, and R. Morandotti, High-dimensional one-way quantum processing implemented on d-level cluster states, Nature Physics15, 148 (2019)

    work page 2019

  55. [56]

    H.-H. Lu, E. M. Simmerman, P. Lougovski, A. M. Weiner, and J. M. Lukens, Fully arbitrary control of frequency-bin qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 120503 (2020)

    work page 2020

  56. [57]

    Folge, M

    P. Folge, M. Stefszky, B. Brecht, and C. Silberhorn, A framework for fully programmable frequency-encoded quantum networks harnessing multioutput quantum pulse gates, PRX Quantum5, 040329 (2024)

    work page 2024

  57. [58]

    Brecht, D

    B. Brecht, D. V. Reddy, C. Silberhorn, and M. G. Raymer, Photon temporal modes: A complete framework for quantum information science, Phys. Rev. X5, 041017 (2015)

    work page 2015

  58. [59]

    Ansari, J

    V. Ansari, J. M. Donohue, B. Brecht, and C. Silberhorn, Tailoring nonlinear processes for quantum optics with pulsed temporal-mode encodings, Optica5, 534 (2018)

    work page 2018

  59. [60]

    Graffitti, P

    F. Graffitti, P. Barrow, A. Pickston, A. M. Bra´ nczyk, and A. Fedrizzi, Direct generation of tailored pulse-mode entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 053603 (2020)

    work page 2020

  60. [61]

    Chiriano, J

    F. Chiriano, J. Ho, C. L. Morrison, J. W. Webb, A. Pick- ston, F. Graffitti, and A. Fedrizzi, Hyper-entanglement between pulse modes and frequency bins, Opt. Express 31, 35131 (2023)

    work page 2023

  61. [62]

    R. S. Bennink, Optimal collinear gaussian beams for spontaneous parametric down-conversion, Phys. Rev. A 81, 053805 (2010)

    work page 2010

  62. [63]

    Kolenderski, W

    P. Kolenderski, W. Wasilewski, and K. Banaszek, Mod- eling and optimization of photon pair sources based on spontaneous parametric down-conversion, Phys. Rev. A 80, 013811 (2009)

    work page 2009

  63. [64]

    Meany, M

    T. Meany, M. Delanty, S. Gross, G. D. Marshall, M. J. Steel, and M. J. Withford, Non-classical interference in integrated 3d multiports, Opt. Express20, 26895 (2012)

    work page 2012

  64. [65]

    R.-B. Jin, M. Fujiwara, T. Yamashita, S. Miki, H. Terai, Z. Wang, K. Wakui, R. Shimizu, and M. Sasaki, Efficient detection of an ultra-bright single-photon source using superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors, Op- tics Communications336, 47 (2015)

    work page 2015

  65. [66]

    J. C. M¨ unzberg,Many-particle interference experiments with probabilistic and deterministic photon sources, Ph.D. thesis, University of Innsbruck (2022), pp. 109-110

    work page 2022

  66. [67]

    Scarani, H

    V. Scarani, H. de Riedmatten, I. Marcikic, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, Four-photon correction in two-photon bell experiments, The European Physical Journal D - Atomic, Molecular, Optical and Plasma Physics32, 129 (2005)

    work page 2005

  67. [68]

    Graffitti

    F. Graffitti, P. Barrow, M. Proietti, D. Kundys, and A. Fedrizzi, Independent high-purity photons created in domain-engineered crystals, Optica5, 514 (2018). Appendix A: Model of the SPDC process For collinear (without transverse momentum compo- nents) type-II SPDC in nonlinear KTP crystals under sufficiently low power conditions, the quantum state of the...

    work page 2018